This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It seems to me that American hegemony has created such a prosperous peace in the remainder of the West that many non-American westerners have come to hold false beliefs about the nature of their prosperity and the quality of their societies, laws and governments. For example, I often hear and read comments from citizens of other western and Anglo nations which imply that their "rights" are fundamentally the same as those enjoyed in America, or the instance that the house of Windsor has only a "ceremonial" role and can exert no power over their domain.
Consider @johnfabian 's comment down thread on Canada's notwithstanding clause (no offense to @johnfabian intended):
...
I find both of the above claims to be obviously and plainly false. The intent of the notwithstanding clause was always to give the government(s) the ability to force people to do whatever the government wanted them to do, as the notwithstanding clause serves no other purpose. The people who wrote that clause were perfectly aware of its power, and were equally aware of the arguments against such power as made by the American founders (the American Constitution being the living embodiment and quintessential rejection of such power).
Similarly, to the extent that "turn[ing] the Charter into a piece of paper" means that the populace has no de facto or de jure recourse against the government's exercise of arbitrary power, the mere presence of the notwithstanding clause means that Charter was always a piece of paper. The Charter never recognized or provided "rights." The fact that the government did not exert arbitrary power against the populace in a manner they disliked was a happy accident; and no less an exercise of arbitrary power. The populace never had de facto or de jure recourse against the government's exercise of arbitrary power (at least not of the legal sort, baring a revision of the charter to remove the clause).
Not only is this conclusion plain on the face of the Charter (and its analogs in other nations), all western cultures are familiar with the concept that an "I can do whatever I want" exception invalidates any semblance of enforceable rights. A contract which ends with "and party X promises to promise to perform in the future and, in any event, can unilaterally decide to perform or not perform its promises at any time without penalty" is not a contract in America or Canada or the UK, etc.
I'm not sure why westerners don't see or acknowledge this obvious truth. My best guess is a combination of generalized cognitive dissonance and the mistaken belief that their "rights" must be as strong as those in America because of the apparent prosperity that those rights provided (when in fact, said prosperity was always the product of American power) and the happy accident of enjoying their governments' exercise of arbitrary power upon them.
As always, if anyone is aware of more comprehensive treatments of these issues, please link those sources below.
Edit: Including my reply to a comment below for completeness.
There is so much evidence to the contrary that I do not believe that anyone sincerely holds this position. Consider the right against self-incrimination, one of England's most cherished and hard-won "customary norms." The right against self-incrimination indeed proved to be practically "constitutional" when it was eliminated for the uppity Irish in 1988 and for the rest of the country in 1994.
"On paper," meaning according to the laws of the UK (and essentially the rest of the commonwealth), the monarch:
is the sovereign and literal source of all legal authority
has the sovereign right to declare war and peace
has the sovereign right over all foreign affairs (which is why the monarch needs no passport, because it is the monarch's authority which requires and issues passports)
has the sovereign right to call, dismiss, prorogue, and recall parliament
has the sovereign right to assent and consent to the passage of all laws
owns all the land
doesn't pay taxes
etc.
This is indeed "plenty" of things.
In my opinion, the belief that the monarch exerts no practical or effective political power is due chiefly to a combination of willful ignorance and propaganda. There are simply too many examples of power being exercised to believe otherwise.
For example, in 1975, the Australian parliament shut down over a budgetary impasse. The Queen, through her Governor General (a role commonly described as "merely ceremonial"), dismissed the Prime Minister, appointed a new one, passed a bill to fund the government, and then dismissed all of the other members of parliament, triggering new elections.
Consider also the power of Royal Assent, which is often trotted out as proof that the monarch is merely "ceremonial" and wields no political power. In order for a bill to become law, after it has passed through both houses, the monarch must give their Royal Assent. The glossary on the UK Parliament's website describes Royal Assent as "the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality." Emphasis mine.
It is admitted that the monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, but that right is handwaived away as a mere formality. Does the claim that 'Royal Assent is a formality' hold up to any degree of credible scrutiny? No.
In 2021, the Guardian published a series of reports ( well summarized by this article ) about the separate and distinct power of the Queen's Consent (Monarch's Consent).
Before any bill is introduced to Parliament, it must receive the monarch's consent.
The bills must be sent to the monarch's personal solicitors at least two weeks in advance. The solicitors then negotiate changes to the bill in exchange for the monarch's consent. Also, this can be done directly by the monarch in their regular (and legally required) consultations with the Prime Minister, which are entirely private, and of which no records are made. Oh, and assuming that there were any records made, all documents "relat[ing] to" communications with the sovereign or their agents have an absolute exemption from UK's FOIA.
As the Guardian discovered, the Queen used this power repeatedly, including for the purpose of preventing a law from revealing the size of her wealth. And the Guardian was only able to find this out because the parties involved didn't care enough to avoid putting the dealings to paper, and the relevant functionary forgot to stamp the documents as exempt from UK-FOIA.
So the monarch hasn't refused Assent in a long time...because the monarch has no reason to withhold Assent from a bill they already had the opportunity to alter through their power of Consent.
How very "ceremonial" a monarch...
Both the US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are literally just pieces of paper. The fact that they say different things determines who can take away the rights they purport to protect, but in the real world you have exactly those rights which the people in charge of the people with the big guns say you have.
The thesis of the US Constitutional tradition is that God granted Americans certain rights, but since He isn't around to clarify what they actually mean, there is a priesthood (i.e. a group of wowzers who are educated at seminaries like Harvard and wear robes to the office) to do it. Regardless of the Constitutional text, the Supreme Court can take your rights away, or give you ones you don't want (like the Lochner right for bakers to work dangerously long hours). Because rights are granted by God, amending the Constitution to restrict them is seen as mildly sacrilegious - there are surprisingly few attempts to amend the Constitution to reverse bad nominally rights-protecting SCOTUS decisions. Instead, political factions mobilise to pack the Court.
The thesis of the Canadian Charter is that the Queen and People, through the Constitutional amendment process, grant rights (as a collectivity) to themselves (as individuals) and therefore retain the power to revoke them, providing they do so with specific intent (by amending the Constitution or using the notwithstanding clause).
I think we can all agree that there have been egregious cases where SCOTUS failed to enforce Constitutional rights (depending on our political views, we may disagree on some cases, but I think everyone agrees that Jim Crow should have been prohibited by the Reconstruction Amendments). The normal reason is partisan entrenchment through the judicial appointments process - SCOTUS justices have been partisan figures appointed to change the meaning of the Constitution in a partisan way ever since the Constitution was ratified. There have also been egregious misuses of the notwithstanding clause (particularly discriminatory language laws in Quebec - and again the main driver was province-level partisan politics). The question of whether Divine Right of Judges or Do Not Push this "I Win" Button is the marginally less problematic procedural safeguard is an empirical one.
And of course even when these safeguards work, the fact that they work is a political convention and not a law of nature. The executive simply ignoring adverse legal rulings and still being obeyed by the troops is a thing ("Justice Marshall has made his decision; Now let him enforce it!"). So are out-and-out military coups.
The only thing that can actually protect fundamental rights is a political culture that takes them seriously and armed forces (including police) which are embedded in that culture. The reason why the right to keep and bear arms is protected in America but not elsewhere is not because the Second Amendment exists (RKBA is included in the English Bill of Rights as well, but we notoriously don't enjoy the right) but because a large, organised group of voters is committed to defending it. When there wasn't a large, organised group of voters committed to defending the RKBA, people didn't actually enjoy it.
At the moment, we don't have such a political culture in the Anglosphere, on either side of the political fence. (Even if you ignore rights whose very existence is a matter of partisan controversy like RKBA). The dominant left-wing faction is the wokists. Wokists believe that ending identity group based discrimination is sufficiently urgent to override everything else, and that appeals to fundamental rights are mostly bad-faith attempts by bigots to protect their right to discriminate. The dominant right-wing faction is Trump/Johnson/Ford-style populism. Right-populists believe that overthrowing a corrupt elite is sufficiently urgent to override everything else, and that appeals to fundamental rights are mostly bad-faith attempts by elites to frustrate the will of the people.
I don't like this, but it Is, and rationality requires me to distinguish between what Is and what Should be. For this reason, and no other*, I am in favour of safety valves like the notwithstanding clause. If Doug Ford abuses the notwithstanding clause, and pays no political price for it, then the people of Ontario will have lost their rights due to laziness. Pretending that this can't happen is dishonest.
* There are also federalism-based reasons for the notwithstanding clause, which I don't understand because I am not familiar with the history of federalism in Canada.
Great reply. The effort is much appreciated.
I understand that your intent wasn't to give a full, technical description of the system of rights in the US, but this summary does not reflect the nature and origin of American rights. Americans have rights because America was established by Englishmen. English rights are, essentially, a series of rights derived from natural philosophy and Christianity combined with a long standing tradition of having such rights in fact, AKA the common law. The rights of Englishmen are essentially a birthright, and were viewed as such by the relevant players at the founding on all sides.
In any event, the rights of Englishmen in the colonies were thus transferred with the colonists as Englishmen, and through various legal instruments, crown charters, the courts established in the colonies which were common law courts, etc. Come the revolution, the common law persisted, and was officially recognized by the states by statue, and the common law rights most at issue in the revolution were recognized in the state and federal constitutions, etc.
So its not the case that "the US Constitutional tradition is that God granted Americans certain rights." Rather, God created the world(or the world is as it is), Englishmen have observed the world and decided upon certain rights according to natural philosophy and long-applied those rights, and Americans inherited and continued the rights of Englishmen and the whole common law system from which they are derived. As to interpretation, the common law has a built-in interpretative framework, so interpreting the law comes with a user manual, even though most people pretend it doesn't.
Although it apparently seems otherwise, I don't disagree that a strong culture and strong individual action are required to protect rights. This is obviously true. However, I do assert that American rights are unique from other rights because they come with the strongest institutional and procedural safeguards, and are formulated in the strongest manner.
Consider the example you provided about the RKBA in England. I agree that the English do have the right and that the crown is infringing upon that right moreso than the US federal government. More importantly, I would say that the reason the RKBA is protected in America but not elsewhere is literally because it says "shall not be infringed" in big bold letters right on the front of the box. To phrase it in the manner of the "strong culture" argument, I assert that the American framework of constitutional protection just described is the reason why we have the strong culture and institutional protections which protect the right. Its much easier to build and maintain a protective culture when the argument is as simple as, "see for yourself, it says 'shall not be infringed' right there and no more." In the practically identical Anglo cultures which took a different approach (UK, CAN, AU, NZ), the right is infringed to the point of practical elimination. Hence, I find that the US system of rights is indeed superior.
In addition, and in line with my original post, I find that a lot of people from cultures with less-protected rights than the US rely too heavily on the "strong culture" argument to insist that they have the same or stronger rights, when what they have is a prosperity derived from US power. I think people discount what their cultures and societies would be like, and what their legal systems would permit, if the US were not there to provide military and economic dominance. Its easy to shout "look how strong our culture of protecting rights is" from the EU when America guarantees and provides their prosperity. Things would look very different if the US packed up and went home.
I'm not sure I follow this objection. I understand you to mean that people deserve whatever happens to them because they could have behaved differently in the past to avoid that outcome but did not. Why not eliminate the notwithstanding clause entirely to prevent its abuse and install American-strength rights? This will provide them with superior protection, and, if the people want them changed, then they can exercise their political will, and if they do not exercise their will, then the result is "due to laziness" but they still retain the superior protection.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think rights anywhere in the world, even in America are “inviolable” in any real sense. The American constitution might give a person de jure rights, but given sufficient desire any one of them can be curbed or end runs can be found. During the COVID lockdowns, churches were forced to close, which would be a pretty serious curbing of the right to free exercise of religion. During the last election the major social media companies colluded to keep the hunter biden story from being discussed.
Rights have always been allowed on the basis that the government found it more difficult to do things by force than by consent.
More options
Context Copy link
Deeds?
I need to look up the distinction between "in writing" vs "evidenced in writing" and where this matters; I forget.
Do you mean to posit deeds as an exception to my statement "A contract which ends with "and party X promises to promise to perform in the future and, in any event, can unilaterally decide to perform or not perform its promises at any time without penalty" is not a contract in America or Canada or the UK, etc."?
If so, the same would apply to deeds. Its not the requirement of a writing that is the issue, but the words of conveyance. A deed which says "X promises that in the future X may promise to convey to Y, such and such real property..." is not a deed because X has not conveyed anything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The notwithstanding clause doesn't apply to all rights in the charter. Voting rights and aboriginal rights are examples of rights that are exempt.
True, but I don't see that as much of an objection. I would take the Bill of Rights over the right to vote. Also, the fact that the notwithstanding clause doesn't apply to all rights in the Charter has no impact on Canadians' status as subjects of the Crown, and their subjugation to its authority.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel this way about the pro-immigration sentiment in European countries with vastly different histories. It's insane how assumptions from a settler country are just imported (not just that immigration is good, natural, unavoidable or has always been happening* but that all immigrants inevitably assimilate - despite some worrying surveys of young British Muslims)
Canada is, of course, a write-off due to being culturally an American colony - even moreso than other Anglophone nations.
The point was, AFAICT, to achieve parliamentary supremacy while maintaining at least some taboo against its rampant use (the idea that having to invoke the clause would be judged by the electorate and political system, as opposed to it just being assumed). A Canadian midpoint between the UK and the US.
So, ironically, part of the defense mechanism of the system depends on Canadians being so Americanized that asserting parliamentary supremacy is seen as an extreme act
Theoretically you could have a somewhat stable version of this system (it's still not evoked that much), even though I think recent polarization has made many of us more skeptical of unsecured, overly-broad powers like this and the inevitable degeneration of mere norms.
The problem is, electorally, provinces are just not going to be punished for their use of the Clause (Quebecois politicians are probably rewarded).
I mean: in some cases they just have a fundamentally different view of the nature of the rights and know that (e.g. free speech).
In others I think it's just a mindset that customary norms eventually become practically "constitutional". I think the UK is the clearest example of this. People have already pointed out that the King can do plenty of things on paper. Practically...
I guess you could say the threat of arbitrary power is always lurking there but I think I can forgive most Brits for feeling like constitutional monarchy is "baked in" at this point.
* As if the Normans coming over is like the continuous high levels of mass migration from parts of the world undreamt of back then
There is so much evidence to the contrary that I do not believe that anyone sincerely holds this position. Consider the right against self-incrimination, one of England's most cherished and hard-won "customary norms." The right against self-incrimination indeed proved to be practically "constitutional" when it was eliminated for the uppity Irish in 1988 and for the rest of the country in 1994.
"On paper," meaning according to the laws of the UK (and essentially the rest of the commonwealth), the monarch:
is the sovereign and literal source of all legal authority
has the sovereign right to declare war and peace
has the sovereign right over all foreign affairs (which is why the monarch needs no passport, because it is the monarch's authority which requires and issues passports)
has the sovereign right to call, dismiss, prorogue, and recall parliament
has the sovereign right to assent and consent to the passage of all laws
owns all the land
doesn't pay taxes
etc.
This is indeed "plenty" of things.
In my opinion, the belief that the monarch exerts no practical or effective political power is due chiefly to a combination of willful ignorance and propaganda. There are simply too many examples of power being exercised to believe otherwise.
For example, in 1975, the Australian parliament shut down over a budgetary impasse. The Queen, through her Governor General (a role commonly described as "merely ceremonial"), dismissed the Prime Minister, appointed a new one, passed a bill to fund the government, and then dismissed all of the other members of parliament, triggering new elections.
Consider also the power of Royal Assent, which is often trotted out as proof that the monarch is merely "ceremonial" and wields no political power. In order for a bill to become law, after it has passed through both houses, the monarch must give their Royal Assent. The glossary on the UK Parliament's website describes Royal Assent as "the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality." Emphasis mine.
It is admitted that the monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, but that right is handwaived away as a mere formality. Does the claim that 'Royal Assent is a formality' hold up to any degree of credible scrutiny? No.
In 2021, the Guardian published a series of reports ( well summarized by this article ) about the separate and distinct power of the Queen's Consent (Monarch's Consent).
Before any bill is introduced to Parliament, it must receive the monarch's consent.
The bills must be sent to the monarch's personal solicitors at least two weeks in advance. The solicitors then negotiate changes to the bill in exchange for the monarch's consent. Also, this can be done directly by the monarch in their regular (and legally required) consultations with the Prime Minister, which are entirely private, and of which no records are made. Oh, and assuming that there were any records made, all documents "relat[ing] to" communications with the sovereign or their agents have an absolute exemption from UK's FOIA.
As the Guardian discovered, the Queen used this power repeatedly, including for the purpose of preventing a law from revealing the size of her wealth. And the Guardian was only able to find this out because the parties involved didn't care enough to avoid putting the dealings to paper, and the relevant functionary forgot to stamp the documents as exempt from UK-FOIA.
So the monarch hasn't refused Assent in a long time...because the monarch has no reason to withhold Assent from a bill they already had the opportunity to alter through their power of Consent.
How very "ceremonial" a monarch...
@jiro @Tarnstellung
@2rafa thoughts from our resident aristocrat?
Are you saying you aren't an aristocrat? Or that the monarchs aren't acting in what you would consider a properly aristocratic manner?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The one that always pops to mind for me as a refutation of this claim is the ease to which civilians can arm themselves in much of the United States. I know that people in other ostensibly free nations will disagree, but I regard this as an absolutely core freedom, integral to whether an individual is currently free and whether they're likely to remain so in the future. If you're required to justify why you need a firearm, no, your place of residence is not as free as mine.
You haven't provided an argument as to why civilians need easy access to guns for a society to be free. You are just asserting that this is the case.
Axiom: One of the fundamental rights of man is the right to effectively defend himself, innocent others, and his community from unjustified force levied against those targets.
The ability to effectively defend himself, etc. is very unevenly distributed in nature; an elderly woman, for example, will usually find herself on the losing end of a physical confrontation, while a young and strong man will be at an advantage most of the time.
Firearms have an extreme leveling effect in the context of effective self defense. Yes, there are degrees of skill, but the differences in terms of credible threat are trivial compared to the "no one has a gun" case. A young man with a gun poses somewhat more threat than without one, but an elderly woman with a gun is orders of magnitude better off than in the non-gun case. There are no other tools that provide anything close to this leveling effect.
Unjustified violence is commonly the province of the young and strong. If the government removes firearms from the equation, it denies the ability of the elderly and/or those physically weak to provide for their own defense effectively, thereby violating the initial axiom. I do not think it is much of a stretch to say that people whose government denies their fundamental rights are not free in that context.
The above is the summary of an argument. No doubt you can find points in either the axiom or the logic following where you disagree, but I believe it is sound.
More options
Context Copy link
If they have access to guns, then they could form militias and wage an insurgency against the government if they wanted. That capacity reduces government power, increases the power of the population. The more power you have, the more free you are.
Imagine if nobody in Afghanistan or Iraq had any guns - I think we would have won those wars and imposed our will upon those countries!
And if they don't have access to guns, they import them, just as the IRA did (much easier now in the era of sophisticated drug trafficking networks). A legal right to guns seems helpful, but not necessary.
Do you think that it would be feasible to illegally import guns to the extent that people have them in the US today? Wouldn't the FBI and other agencies be up to doing something about that?
No, but I don't think you'd need as many guns as the US population has now.
A poorly armed but motivated and organized militia can bring a government to the brink. If Northern Ireland didn't have the support of the rest of the UK it would have collapsed in the early 70s, and if the US were to enter a similar civil war state you wouldn't have a relatively untouched region with >35x the population supporting one side.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nit sure I'd characterize what Afghans have under Taliban rule as more freedom.
Did they want western-style atomizing individualist freedom in the first place?
There is freedom in social obligation and in existing in a definite hierarchy. You are free to focus on things in life outside the culture war, freed from an obsession with the political that has seeped into every aspect of western life, even into the formerly sacrosanct household, poisoning the most fundamental human relations (man/woman, parent/child).
Likewise there is a sort of slavery in western "freedom." Slavery to vice born of anomie. Nothing matters, all choices and lifestyles are equal. Many people experience a sort of analysis paralysis and just choose the past of least resistance. Not to mention the nigh-mandatory participation in politics; as they say, you may not be interested in it, but it is interested in you, and it's not going to leave you alone (and some true degenerates engage in it willingly, even spending their free time furiously refreshing a certain CW thread...).
Consider that your definition of "freedom" is one among many.
The freedom to live any life, as long as it's the Taliban's life.
I think you've replaced 'freedom' with 'a good life.' It's probably possible to life a good life as a third world farmer, just as it's possible to live a bad life as a first world shitposter. But it's fair to note that if you want to go be Amish as a first worlder that option is available to you.
I'd rather have a good life than freedom, and I expect just about anyone who is not pathological in some way would want the same. I doubt that third world farmers who are already living good lives are pining for corrosive American-style freedom to be imposed on their families and communities.
Could you explain what this is supposed to mean? Why would someone need to do that? I live a modern house. I'm in a monogamous relationship with my wife and we both occupy traditional gender roles. We spend most of our time raising our three kids, doing chores, playing music, and doing active stuff outside. We attend weekly religion services. Etc etc. I guess this was some gotcha along the lines of "if you like the Taliban so much why don't you go live like them by giving up the trappings of modernity and living with the Amish," but I can live a traditional life without doing that.
If the argument is that modernity sucks, it's possible to live in the west and reject modernity.
I dunno, but gp was arguing that Afghans are more free, and I was pointing out that a similar lifestyle is available to anyone willing to try it in the west.
Indeed you can, and indeed you don't need to go amish to do it; amish are just an extreme example. This rather undermines the line:
Doesn't it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No. It's freedom to live any life that does not go against Taliban rules, not forced to live the Taliban life. It's a blacklist system, not a whitelist one. In return for the blacklisting of certain practices you get a strong social structure that over centuries has been tweaked and optimised to fit at least decently well with the human condition, I would say unless a person is at least IQ 120+ they would on average do better under it (assuming same economic situations etc. which is manifestly not the case in the real Afghanistan) than living under rootless modernity where "anything goes" and short term convenience without regard to long term social costs is the name of the game.
Also: from a western point of view from far away it looks like there is only one "way of life" of the people of Afghanistan or the Taliban, that is manifestly not true even amongst just the Pashtun people...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But nobody in the West thinks or acts this way, and the laws are contrary to it. For example, pedophile lifestyles are not considered to be equal, and people very frequently act as though they think that things matter.
I don't know how much you know about Afghanistan, but it is also this way.
Even people in such a thoroughly politically apathetic and nihilistic country as Russia found that politics was interested in them once they found that they or their children were going off to be under fire in the cold mud of Ukraine.
Pedo lifestyles are outside of the Overton window but only for the time being. There's no magic principal limiting the endless expansion of rights and tolerance. It'll never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.
I think you know what I mean, but in case you don't:
"You do you"
"Speak your truth"
"lived experience"
Just a few popular phrases in the current zeitgeist that demonstrate our society's relativistic outlook. You can care about saving the whales, or global warming, or whatever, but if you claim that your cause is the _most important _ and that others must get on board, you're an asshole who needs to mind his own business. However I won't deny that recent progressivism seems to be bucking this trend.
What? This isn't what I'm talking about at all. This example stretches "political" to meaninglessness. People have suffered from war since people began living in cities, are you trying to claim that a 12th century German peasant lived in a world as politicized as that of a 21st century American?
There is no magic principle limiting pedophilia in trad societies, either. Isn't Afghanistan known for bacha bazi and the Muslim prophet known for marrying a 9 year old and consummating far before she was 18?
More options
Context Copy link
(1) You can make predictions, but you can't use them as premises without evidence. If anything, Western societies seem more worried about pedophilia per se (rather than e.g. homosexuality) than in the past, and the age at which people are seen as being able to consent to sex seems to be rising pretty much everything. So the evidence seems to go in the opposite direction from your prediction.
(2) I don't think anyone claims that there is a magic principle. If you can't describe people who disagree with you without resorting to rhetoric, then maybe you would benefit more carefully and calmly about the controversy. You could read up more about contemporary sexual ethics and then come back to this debate, because at this point you're acting as though you don't know even the basics of contemporary conceptions of consent.
(3) The law of merited impossibility is a great point, but I am unconvinced that it applies in this case.
Modern societies certainly tend to be less prescriptive about some issues, but people seem to quite regularly preach. And it's not just the woke progressives: I hear liberals telling me that climate change is The Most Important Thing Ever and conservatives telling me that Defending Western Civilization is the Most Important Thing. Is there more relativism than I'd like? Yes, I'm sure we agree a lot about that. However, it's an exaggeration to say that it's ubiquitous. And as you suggest, wokeness has made society more moralistic in some areas than it was even within my lifetime.
Yes, it's a matter of historical record that politics didn't leave the peasants alone (Medieval soldiers didn't eat due to great logistic networks or large salaries) and that there were advantages in being a loyal vassal of your master if you were a serf during the frequent periods of violence. Garrison duty and labour responsibilities during wartime were a fact of life for peasants. Under some systems, they might have to travel far from their homes to fight.
I don't think that it's stretching the definition of "politics" to include being asked to fight for your lord or being pillaged by the soldiers of some king. Of course, it wasn't politics in the sense of petty regulations of people's lives - the Church and your parents would do enough of that. True, peasants couldn't vote, but they also weren't without say (it's a modern myth that there is no mass politics without mass voting) and I took "you may not be interested in it, but it is interested in you, and it's not going to leave you alone" to include when politics infringed on the lives of ordinary people. As much as I dislike diversity statements or pronoun pronounciations, they pale in comparison to what a Medieval or Afghan peasant endure(d) as a consequence of political events.
More options
Context Copy link
This is common right wing talking point for all of our living memory: "The libs want to mainstream pedophilia!"
While, in reality, "pedos" are people hated by everyone, the last people that are publicly acceptable to lynch, people that everyone loves to compare their political enemies to, and the definition of "pedo" gets wider and wider every year - from actual rape of pre pubescent children to any sex under 18 year line to relationship with "age gap".
No "expansion of rights and tolerance" to pedophiles is evident.
(if you want to reply: "wHY yOu dEFeNd pEdOS? dIe pEdO sCUm"!, thanks for proving my point)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Afghanis appear to disagree, as evidenced by the fact that the Taliban once more rule their country.
Or freedom isn't what they want.
@ActuallyATleilaxuGhola answered this objection pretty thoroughly just above, so I won't belabor the point beyond noting that what we offered the Afghanis does not seem to me to be worth a term as unqualified and valence-loaded as "freedom".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When the threat is foreign governments - as it often happens to be in large stretches of the world - what you generally greatly would want is, in addition to guns, a strong goverment of your own to coordinate the use of those guns, ie. have an army. When it comes to the idea of Russians barreling to Finland Ukraine-style, I would much rather put my trust to the Finnish army than to civilians with guns to hinder the onslaught.
Civilian access to weapons increases defense against foreign adversaries in multiple ways. For example, the greater the level of access to, knowledge of, and experience with weapons among the populous, the more effective the military will be, as the military is composed of civilians.
Similarly, civilians with only partial training are themselves a substantial threat to an occupying force, foreign or domestic. As Russia is currently learning, occupying an area is accomplished by boots on the ground, not planes or tanks. Its hard to occupy a street corner or a field when every window or bush can hide an armed civilian. And as for the planes and tanks, the Russians are also learning that civilians armed with small arms and rockets can also perform rather effective defense with little if any training.
Indeed, as far as I am aware, Finland's entire military is constructed on the premise that, in the event of Russian invasion, rapid reaction forces composed of conscripts rush to the front, while the rest of the population is mobilized and molotov's are handed out to the babushkas.
I think a high degree of civilian weapons ownership would have obvious benefits here.
More options
Context Copy link
I realize that as a Finnish person, you are confronting this reality far more closely than I, but my immediate reaction is por que no los dos? In your shoes, I would like to have an army, an armed populace, many allies, and space lasers if I could get them, or at least as many of those as possible!
Finland has comparatively high levels of small arms ownership, which is good for defense - precisely in the sense that people who would eventually, in a crisis situation, defend the country as conscripts in the army can use their guns for practice (and the Finnish government has explicitly defended an opt-out from EU gun legislation for this reason). However, in the event of an actual invasion, this wouldn't do much good, since the purpose and intent is to leave no civilians remaining in any potentially occupied territories, ie. evacuate them to other regions before Russian troops might get there.
More options
Context Copy link
Which is faster in the event of hostile invasion:
the government must recognize the need to arm the populous, organize the logistics, and execute the distribution of arms to the populous amidst the invasion
the populous is already armed
Which of the following provides a greater degree of military efficacy:
after arming the general population, the people so armed must either be trained or use the arms without training
the populace already has some degree of training
More options
Context Copy link
As it happens, Finland has the tenth most civilian guns per capita in the world. What we don’t have (and what nobody here wants) is US style unlicensed access to guns nor allowing guns for self defence.
”Arming the populace” is a non-issue anyway, since nothing prevents doing it once the war is in progress.
Never?
More options
Context Copy link
Citation needed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Correct, it is a bald assertion of my values that free men may not be prevented from arming themselves by their governments. If my government forcibly disarmed me, I would no longer regard myself as free.
Edit - To be clear, I'm not trying to be snarky, I legitimately don't know how I could provide evidence for the proposition that being armed is both a signal and expression of personal freedom. This is a base value for me in the same fashion as my freedom of conscience, speech, and religion. I would feel the same about being denied my right to arms as any other fundamental right. People in other cultures do not seem to share this intuition or value and I think they are less free as a result; I do not expect that they will agree, given that they do not share that intuition or value.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What non-ceremonial power do you think that they can exert, that is not what, for instance, a celebrity could?
Happy to provide an answer but I need additional context:- what is your level of knowledge about the UK's system of laws, the monarchy, and the commonwealth?- are you a citizen of either the commonwealth or America?See my reply to a similar comment above
@Tarnstellung
You should provide the needed context for the typical reader to understand. "Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The King of Canada still has the right to dissolve his parliament. So does the King of England apparently.
Every time I've heard this discussed, the consensus seems to be that the King might be able to dissolve parliament once on a technicality, but would fairly quickly find himself stripped of that power, perhaps of the Crown itself, and possibly the dissolution of the office. Several post-colonial states have successfully done this, most recently Barbados last year.
But as someone not a subject to aforementioned crown, I can't trivially vouch for that expectation's accuracy.
I honestly doubt Canadians would fight back. Consecutive Canadian governments have used the crowns' power to suspend a parliment when things were getting too spicy and a vote of confidence neared. Harper's Conservatives twice and Trudeau's Liberals once (in the middle of a pandemic) so far. A modern Canadian wouldn't bat an eye if something like the King-Byng affair happened again.
I'm pretty sure if you went to a random coffee shop or something that's not particularly politically-biased-sample and asked people this, most people would not support the king using political power in a dramatic or disruptive way.
More options
Context Copy link
Done by Canadian Governor-Generals, chosen by Canadians no?
I'm more willing than most to mock Canada's lack of nationalism but I think King Charles doing it is a whole other thing.
I remember when Prince Harry was leaving the Royal Family and there was talk he was moving to Canada and the general impression I got was that Canadians just didn't want him mooching off them for security rather than the adoration you'd think.
Our governor generals are appointed by the Crown. The PM recommends, but it is still a royal function.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It worked out alright for Charles II but not so well for his heir. Did not work out quite so well for Charlies I. Third times the charm though, right? Barbados had some strong Republican tendencies already with how they handled independence and the Republican turn was timed with an anniversary of that event. Many of the other likely soon-to-be republics seem more like they wanted to go the Republican route anyways and were just waiting out the Queen and her general popularity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well you answered your own concern there. If it's routine, it's not unusual. Punishment is by it's own nature cruel.
More options
Context Copy link
This seems to be true. The constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees the right to freedom of speech, so did the constitution of the Soviet Union, there didn't use to be nearly as much freedom of speech in the United States.
Laws leave a lot of room for interpretation. No country has absolute freedom of speech. Even the U.S. has exemptions for defamation, obscenity, threats, etc. I don't think either the U.S. or Canadian constitutions really protect the right to gay marriage or abortion. The commerce clause is a notoriously far-fetched extension of the U.S. government's power. Nothing really forces courts to interpret things either literally, as intended, or fairly. They can do what they want.
Some laws seem almost designed for abuse. Section 7 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the "right to liberty" while the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution protects "priviliges and immunities".
More options
Context Copy link
If by this you mean to compare the Constitution to the laws of other nations, I believe that US rights are indeed "especially well protected." As I argued at the top of this comment, other nations do not have rights, but merely "rights" which, compared to the Constitution, are entirely unprotected.
If you mean an absolute level of protection, then I agree that the Constitution provides only partial protection, and a great deal of individual and cultural effort is required.
If by paper you mean "worthless" or "mere formality", I disagree. Again, refer to my comment above, specifically the section on the right against self-incrimination. The Constitution may be a piece of paper, but it is clearly and obviously not "just as much a piece of paper" as the Charter or the laws of England.
And it's overridden by s. 1 of the Charter, which states "this is all null and void if we feel like it".
I routinely have my property rights violated by the government of
Toronto and OttawaCanada. Of course, property rights don't exist in Canada (and if they did they'd be worthless so long as s. 1 exists), but still.More options
Context Copy link
Can the government(s) of Canada not just "notwithstanding" the Canadian version of the right against self-incrimination?
Edit:
The notwithstanding clause:
The right you cited:
Premise1: The notwithstanding clause applies to sections 7 to 15
Premise2: Section 11 is within sections 7 to 15
Conclusion1: the notwithstanding clause applies to section 11
Conclusion2: The Canadian government can legally write a law that prohibits section 11 from applying to Canadians by invoking the notwithstanding clause
Premise3: The Fifth Amendment would prevent the US government from passing a law as contemplated in Conclusion2
Conclusion3: Therefore, Canadians have less/fewer protections and less recourse for violations.
Technically, there would be no violation because the notwithstanding clause "makes it legal" as they say.
You have to have rights to have a culture of rights. See also, Canadian firearms law, the recent handgun ban by fiat, the trucker protest, the monarchy, etc.
No. It needs three quarters of the states to ratify the amendment.
More options
Context Copy link
Given situations like https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55959133 , do you really find Canada to have better respect for rights?
More options
Context Copy link
The Constitution recognizes rights, it does not grant them. So, legally, the removal of the Fifth Amendment would have no effect. I also reject the validity of the 18th Amendment, but I digress.
In any event, the need to "repeal" a constitutional amendment before passing a law that violates said right is one more speedbump than the Canadian Charter has, as Parliament can just pass the law and invoke the notwithstanding clause, which seems to be evidence in favor of my claim that the Constitution is superior protector of rights.
Can you expand on what you mean, here? The statement 'the Constitution...grant[s] rights legally' is literally false. Happy to supply evidence on this point. What evidence would you accept?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link