Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

*** Consider the reaction to that evil blighter Nick Griffin being allowed to speak on the BBC.  Also the current trend on strong libel cases and gagging orders on the press (e.g. "super injunction" from Trafigura) - yet tempered by the strong and protected power of the press and media to satirise and highlight government hypocrisy (particularly Private Eye)

Ah, yes, if you include the libel laws, Britain comes out terribly in terms of Free Speech.  Forgot about those.  Then again, the fact that there can be magazines such as the Private Eye shows that Free Speech can't be all that conservative...

Military spending is growing each year. (Unsure)

I put it under C due to the huge projects being undertaken by the government in things like supercarriers and Eurofighters.

[Peepshow]

Not sure about L Free Speech Leaf. Hobnobgate seems to have been the last straw.

Edit: Dam my slow arse typing.

[Leafsnail]

Hobnobgate...

Hmm...

Ah, yes.  Not sure what that shows other than the British press enjoys blowing things wildly out of proportion...

[Peepshow]

I did have a good point involving that somewhere I just can't seem to put it into words.
I think my point was:
Griffin getting on question time.
Biscuit joke almost gets someone sacked. 
The law doesn't matter in Britain. How many complaints are made is what decides what happens to you.                           

[Leafsnail]

But that says more about the BBC as an institution than it does about the laws, right?  I mean, normal people wouldn't be arrested for saying something like that.

[Neonivek]

Yeah C+ and L+ are supposed to be the political possitions taken to such extremes that they often become undesirable.

Few countries in this case should have C+ or L+ and those that do would likely have political unrest or a military powerful enough to uphold it. (Either that or that the full extent of the law hasn't been explored.)

The death penalty is considered barbaric and never practised

That is M or L depending on your views. Though using "considered Barbaric" probably puts it into L while the view that it doesn't work fits it into M.

L+ would probably be something like Jail sentence is considered barbaric and all criminals are instead sent to rehabilitation because being a criminal is considered a mental condition.

[Leafsnail]

The issue is Death Penalty, not Criminal Rights, so the furthest you can get is the outlawing of the death penalty.  I suppose Criminal Rights might be better as a broader issue.

[Rezan]

I'd probably need a list of "options" to place Norway on the LCS map. I imagine it'd be almost entirely moderate, liberal, and elite liberal.

[Neonivek]

The issue is Death Penalty, not Criminal Rights, so the furthest you can get is the outlawing of the death penalty.  I suppose Criminal Rights might be better as a broader issue.

Some of these laws just hit the point where they simply cannot go to the extremes of political viewpoints. Not having a death penelty doesn't get to L+ even though that is as far as "not having a death penelty" can go.

So I just expand!

Though I GUESS less of a jump would be: L+ "Capital Crimes are considered minor next to petty theft and J-walking"

It would be like trying to get the political spectrum of eating Pancakes on Monday. It never leaves Moderate.

[G-Flex]

One thing we have to keep in mind is that the L/C classifications aren't, and aren't SUPPOSED to be, objective or even all that rational from a global standpoint.

They're supposed to be very America-centric and stereotypical, so trying to apply it to real-world scenarios, while amusing, shouldn't be taken terribly seriously.

[mainiac]

Again, a variably-ineffective law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist. Last I checked, I couldn't go buy military-grade fully-automatic weapons on the street corner.

Used cars aren't available on every street corner either.  That doesn't mean you can't buy them if you go to a place that sells them.

The partial birth abortion law doesn't actually stop partial birth abortion.

It's still illegal/discouraged, and if you think the US as of right now is totally abortion-friendly... well, I just saw another pro-life billboard on the way to the DMV.

Last I checked, billboards aren't law.

[G-Flex]

Again, a variably-ineffective law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist. Last I checked, I couldn't go buy military-grade fully-automatic weapons on the street corner.

Used cars aren't available on every street corner either.  That doesn't mean you can't buy them if you go to a place that sells them.

Yeah, except used cars aren't illegal to sell in the first place.

The partial birth abortion law doesn't actually stop partial birth abortion.

It's still illegal/discouraged, and if you think the US as of right now is totally abortion-friendly... well, I just saw another pro-life billboard on the way to the DMV.

Last I checked, billboards aren't law.

[/quote]

By mentioning billboards, I was attempting to make more a point about public opinion than the state of the law. Also, you're ignoring the part where I mention that some abortion procedures are, in fact, illegal or at least heavily discouraged by the law. You can't call the country L+ regarding abortion, which would mean that all abortions are legal and never discouraged, period, when we have the federal Supreme Court upholding legislation preventing certain kinds of it.

[mainiac]

Please list abortion procedures that are illegal, keeping in mind that partial birth abortion is still legal.

Yeah, except used cars aren't illegal to sell in the first place.

Military grade assault riffles aren't illegal to sell in the first place.  33 states have no regulation on the sale of military model assault riffles to violent felons who do not possess an ID.  Look at this list:
http://www.gunshows-usa.com/October%202009.htm

Tomorrow alone there will be 38 locations across the country where you could make such a purchase.

Ze regulations, zey do nothing!

[G-Flex]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban only expired in 2004. There are also similar bans in individual states, whereas C+ gun legislation would essentially be taking the "right to bear arms" to an extreme. Even if only some weapons are only banned in some states, that's still different from "anyone can own any type of gun at any time".

See also: Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (background checks):

From 1994 through 2008, 1.8 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system.

And the Gun Control Act of 1968: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
Oh, and this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Crime_Control_and_Safe_Streets_Act_of_1968

Regardless of whether or not you think legislation is too lax, or not enforced well enough, the fact is that there is still a lot of extant legislation on who can get guns and how, and that it IS enforced, although the degree to which it is enforced is obviously in question.


And regarding partial birth abortion:

On October 2, 2003, with a vote of 281-142, the House again approved a measure banning the procedure, called the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Through this legislation, a doctor could face up to two years in prison and face civil lawsuits for performing such an abortion. A woman who undergoes the procedure cannot be prosecuted under the measure. The measure contains an exemption to allow the procedure if the woman's life is threatened. On October 21, 2003, the United States Senate passed the same bill by a vote of 64-34, with a number of Democrats joining in support. The bill was signed by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003, but a federal judge blocked its enforcement in several states just a few hours after it became public law. The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on the procedure in the case Gonzales v. Carhart on April 18, 2007. The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act does not conflict with previous Court decisions regarding abortion.

The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion in the United States, following the Supreme Court of the United States's 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees. States have passed laws to restrict late term abortions, require parental notification for minors, and mandate the disclosure of abortion risk information to patients prior to the procedure.

Also, federal funding for abortion is sort of up in the air, I believe. All these things tell me that yes, abortion, at least in certain forms, is definitely discouraged - and in some cases made a crime - by the law.



At this point I feel like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, honestly.

[mainiac]

You keep coming back to Gonzales vs. Carhart but keep ignoring the important detail that:

The partial birth abortion ban act of 2003 does not ban partial birth abortion!

It requires that a partial birth abortion, if done, be done in a specific way.  But the ban did not make partial birth abortion illegal and the majority opinion in Gonzales vs. Carhart explicitly confirmed the legality of partial birth abortion.  They passed a partial birth abortion ban by changing the definition of partial birth abortion.