• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should high school boys be required to pledge never to commit Domestic Violence?

Requiring high school boys to pledge never to commit Domestic Violence is

  • A great practice promoting respect

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • A good practice

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • A bad practice

    Votes: 28 73.7%

  • A human rights violation

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • Total voters
    38
Henrin said:
Are you saying they're trying to take the title from the US?
Click to expand...

They hold the Belt. They are the undisputed champions...
 
SCitizen said:
Thank you. Singling out boys as potential criminals is a violation of their rights.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't a violation of their rights. It is rude though...
 
A pledge is only as good as the person who makes it.

The vermin that would commit domestic violence does not have the character to honor a pledge.

So, what's the point?
 
Bodhisattva said:
No, it isn't a violation of their rights. It is rude though...
Click to expand...

Treating all men as potential abusers is as discriminatory as treating all Muslims as potential terrorists or treating all minorities as potential criminals.

My parents did not like the fact that as Jews they were treated as potential Traitors against Soviet Union. But we left USSR in 1983 -- so in fact we were.
 
SCitizen said:
Treating all men as potential abusers is as discriminatory as treating all Muslims as potential terrorists or treating all minorities as potential criminals.

My parents did not like the fact that as Jews they were treated as potential Traitors against Soviet Union. But we left USSR in 1983 -- so in fact we were.
Click to expand...

Treating people differently is not always a violation of Constitutional rights... show the right that is violated. It is your premise. Back it up.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Treating people differently is not always a violation of Constitutional rights... show the right that is violated. It is your premise. Back it up.
Click to expand...

It seems to be the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sadly I am not a legal expert.

Also, involuntary pledges have been ruled a violation of the First Amendment. Australia does not have an equivalent of US First Amendment.
 
SCitizen said:
It seems to be the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sadly I am not a legal expert.
Click to expand...

This is the part that would apply:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where does treating all men as potential abusers translate into a violation of that males Constitutional rights under this Amendment?
 
Bodhisattva said:
This is the part that would apply:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where does treating all men as potential abusers translate into a violation of that males Constitutional rights under this Amendment?
Click to expand...

I guess equal protection of the laws part.
 
SCitizen said:
The school policy presuming them to be potential abusers. I am not sure if such policy can be accepted in USA.
Click to expand...

The policy and pledge do no presume them to be potential abusers...
 
I respectfully disagree. Foundation for Individual rights in Education discusses some First Amendment issues involved:

Sometimes tyrannical power seeks to force individuals under its sway to speak or utter things that the speaker does not believe. In our moral tradition, that is a frightful assault upon the innermost sanctum of human privacy and dignity. In our legal tradition, it is a worse violation of the First Amendment to force someone to say that which he does not believe (which we might describe as an affirmative form of censorship) than to prevent him from saying that which he does believe (which we might describe as a negative form of censorship).
Click to expand...

Censoring speech is bad enough, but requiring people to adhere to, and even to believe (or at least to proclaim belief) in an official, orthodox ideology is completely incompatible with a free society and is the hallmark of totalitarian social control. Of course, those who endeavor to force others to believe in an official ideology and who punish the expression of dissent frequently do so under the guise of enforcing “good,” “moral,” and “ethical” values and social goals.
Click to expand...

Applied to the issue of thought reform, this principle suggests that the government (including state colleges and universities) may not seek to force a person to adopt a belief that violates either his or her religious or deeply held philosophical values.
Click to expand...

In USA even the Pledge of Allegiance can not be required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom