[nonhuman]

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as number 1, eh?

The U.S. is now only the 31st freest nation in the world, tied with Greece (where video games are outlawed), and 135th most free in Iraq (whatever that means). Funny how we're less free than both Germany and France isn't it? So what happened to the U.S. being the land of the free?

[Hop Pocket]

I've always felt that the freedom and liberty run that we get thru the media (especially FOX) is completely sensationalized and means nothing to most anyone that hears it or recants what they've heard.

That having been said, I'm a big advocate of personal freedoms. For some reason, the current administration scares me.

[Zimphire]

Depends on what your definition of "free" is.

[stupendousman]

France? That's the place that dictates what their people can or can't be exposed to (officially) in the culture because it might not have originated there?

This is the place where the term "e-mail" is banned. And this is "free"?

Thanks anyways...pull my other leg.

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,59674,00.html


Maybe "free" from personal hygiene got bonus points in this survey?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
France? That's the place that dictates what their people can or can't be exposed to (officially) in the culture because it might not have originated there?

This is the place where the term "e-mail" is banned. And this is "free"?

Thanks anyways...pull my other leg.

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,59674,00.html


Maybe "free" from personal hygiene got bonus points in this survey?

I think you're overestimated the influence and importance of the Académie Française just a wee bit.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I think you're overestimated the influence and importance of the Académie Française just a wee bit.

Either an official epresentative of the French goverment banned the term "e-mail", or it didn't.

It would seem to me that such a thing wouldn't happen in a "free" county.

[voodoo]

the term email is not sanctioned in OFFICIAL papers. the use of the word 'couriel' is encouraged. it is a measure to protect their language (at least officially) from deterioration. this is something done in countries that care about what happens to their native tongue. in Norway the term e-post is used since it fits better with their language. same with couriel. in Iceland they use 'rafpóst' as a word for e-mail. whoever said that EVERYBODY had to use e-mail to describe electronic mail in their own language. you are completely free to use 'e-mail' in France if you are so inclined, but you will not see that word on official papers, order forms, announcements or from people who freely choose to use couriel.

[Troll]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Either an official epresentative of the French goverment banned the term "e-mail", or it didn't.

It didn't. No official representative of the French government banned the word "e-mail". The government created an internal guideline which obliges its employees to use the word "courriel". Nothing wrong with that. My company obliges me to use certain words to describe certain things too. They ban me from sending emails using obscenities for example. I don't see the problem, particularly since "email" is a nonsense in French. I'm sure precisely the same kind of guidelines exist in American organisations too. Why should English people use words that make sense like Compact Disc Read Only Memory and Electronic Mail and French people should use "cédérom" and "email" that mean nothing? Just to placate the xenophobes across the sea who think it's somehow an attack on them when the French reject their words?

If you understood anything about the French language, you’d know why the Academie is required and what it does. I use the wrong gender for words every day. I use English or German words half way through a French sentence every day. Doing so is not illegal! No one is obliged to use the word "courriel" and very few actually do.

This whole the French press is freer than the US press is getting on your tits isn’t it? Lashing out with bigot comments like the one about hygiene makes you look really classy and worldly wise. You don’t think that perhaps the guys who developed this list know a little bit more about the indicators of a free press than you do?

[christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Depends on what your definition of "free" is.

Yup, sure does.

And when your definition of 'free' is 'like the US', then it is not surprising that the rest of the world doesn't entirely agree with you.

[Simon X]

Can't say I agree with the list. They rank Cyprus at 83. Cyprus is free and democratic country with a free press. To be placed below Cambodia is nonsense Yes, it may be divided and the unrecognised Turkish north the complete opposite, dodgy elections, non-free press and watched over by the military, but that's not the fault of the democratically, internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus in the south. I therefore question the whole list and the methods by which they arrived at these rankings.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by voodoo:
the term email is not sanctioned in OFFICIAL papers. the use of the word 'couriel' is encouraged. it is a measure to protect their language (at least officially) from deterioration.

Here in the United States, we have no real restrictions on expressing ourselves using non-native words. Officially or otherwise. There is no "ministry of culture" watchdogging our language to keep it "pure" either (and words are just a small sampling of what they censor in the name of "protection").

Heck, we don't even have an "official" languaqe, no less banned foriegn words. When it's been suggested that we should in the past, civil libertarians showed the appropriate outrage . We are the "great melting pot" and our people are free to adopt the customs and/or language of their choice, as they wish. The same freedom of expression is not allowed in France.

[macvillage.net]

This list seems to match pretty much every other list ever published of the nature.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Here in the United States, we have no real restrictions on expressing ourselves using non-native words. Officially or otherwise. There is no "ministry of culture" watchdogging our language to keep it "pure" either (and words are just a small sampling of what they censor in the name of "protection").

'Freedom-fries'.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Here in the United States, we have no real restrictions on expressing ourselves using non-native words.

nah, you guys just invented american spelling.

-r.

[christ]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Here in the United States, we have no real restrictions on expressing ourselves using non-native words. Officially or otherwise. There is no "ministry of culture" watchdogging our language to keep it "pure" either (and words are just a small sampling of what they censor in the name of "protection")...

As noted above, this is in official use only, and in no way restricts the usage by the public. I am sure that even in the US there are recommended texts, and recommended spellings, and recommended language on Capitol Hill. (e.g. how many official documents are published in non-English?)

...We are the "great melting pot" and our people are free to adopt the customs and/or language of their choice, as they wish. The same freedom of expression is not allowed in France.

France are not the 'great melting pot', but their people are also free to adopt the customs and/or language of their choice, as they wish. The only restriction is if they wish to act in an official capacity, they are restricted to using 'officialese'.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Here in the United States, we have no real restrictions on expressing ourselves using non-native words. Officially or otherwise. There is no "ministry of culture" watchdogging our language to keep it "pure" either (and words are just a small sampling of what they censor in the name of "protection").

True. Your president is proof of that.

There is no denying the subliminable effect on official language since he took office.

-s*

[scoxx]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
This is the place where the term "e-mail" is banned. And this is "free"?

Thanks anyways...pull my other leg.

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,59674,00.html

American government officials aren't allowed to watch porn during working hours.

So much for freedom.

[Troll]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Here in the United States, we have no real restrictions on expressing ourselves using non-native words. Officially or otherwise. There is no "ministry of culture" watchdogging our language to keep it "pure" either (and words are just a small sampling of what they censor in the name of "protection").

Heck, we don't even have an "official" languaqe, no less banned foriegn words. When it's been suggested that we should in the past, civil libertarians showed the appropriate outrage . We are the "great melting pot" and our people are free to adopt the customs and/or language of their choice, as they wish. The same freedom of expression is not allowed in France.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment

1. There are no restrictions on French people using foreign words to express themselves. "Email" is not a banned foreign word in France. French people are not obliged to speak any language or even to speak any version of French. French people are "free to adopt the customs and/or language of their choice, as they wish," just as you allege Americans can!

2. As I said previously - Government employees are required to use certain words in their communications. So are American government employees! If I wrote a note to my American boss saying, "Yo, yo, ******, don give me no jive, man. I be axing yo ta slap me sum more of dem greenbacks sin las year," are you telling me that the Company I work for wouldn't be entitled to tell me to put the request in English or complain in any way about my language? Who pays my boss for spending 20 minutes trying to work out what I was trying to say? As it turns out, a French government employee couldn't be fired for using the word "email."

3. If a US government employee started writing all of his documents in French, do you not think that the Government might tell him to write in English? How bout if he just started using 10 or 20 French words instead of English? Why do you think you never see the word "n*gger" in a US government press release? I mean, government employees are free to say what they want right?

4. Which of the following states don't have an official language: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming?

5. This list is about freedom of the PRESS. The press in France is fully entitled to use whatever word they want to to describe email. There are no restrictions on them at all. Of course, newspapers generally try to use the dictionary language of the country they are based in because it makes communicating the news easier (d-uh) and because it gives an impression of quality. Go to the website and read how they compiled that list. The issues you raise have absolutely no bearing on freedom of the press!

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh what absolute bullsh*t! You don't even have a vague idea of what you're talking about. Really!!! Your post is complete and utter unadulterated cr*p!

Am I to understand that you disagree with his comments?

[finboy]

Certainly the world press knows something about freedom. Thank goodness they're willing to take the time to share their opinions with us.

As for definitions, if you redefine words such as "free" to mean "not free" then you can slowly influence people's thinking without them realizing it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Am I to understand that you disagree with his comments?

OK, that was a little out of hand wasn't it? There's just so much tripe spread about France these days. I'm calming down ... doing some yoghurt breathing!

[Spliffdaddy]

Those other countries have an 'escape clause' in their constitutions (the ones that have constitutions) that allows the goverment to revoke the citizens' "freedoms" pretty much at will.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Those other countries have an 'escape clause' in their constitutions (the ones that have constitutions) that allows the goverment to revoke the citizens' "freedoms" pretty much at will.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Let's talk about the South African constitution since I am more au fait (oooh, a foreign word) with that one. South Africa's press is also freer than the US's. Care to show me the "escape clause" in the South African constitution?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by finboy:
As for definitions, if you redefine words such as "free" to mean "not free" then you can slowly influence people's thinking without them realizing it.

Indeed, and I'm glad to see you realize this.

I take it you won't be re-electing the current administration then?

Homeland "Security" in the interests of "Freedom" and all; I'm sure there's some not-too-bright citizens out there that actually take those terms at face value! Shows how they've been subliminably influenced already, without realizing it.

I'm glad at least *you* finally wisened up.



-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Those other countries have an 'escape clause' in their constitutions (the ones that have constitutions) that allows the goverment to revoke the citizens' "freedoms" pretty much at will.

Yeah - as opposed to Homeland Security legislation.

-s*

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
As for definitions, if you redefine words such as "free" to mean "not free" then you can slowly influence people's thinking without them realizing it.

very insightful. Now, aim that saying at Ashcroft.

[theolein]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
...

Heck, we don't even have an "official" languaqe, ...

It shows, believe me. One is inclined to believe, upon reading a post such as yours, that there is no such thing as education either.

You should travel someday, seriously. You will see a whole world full of people with differing and similar ideas to yours, and you will see things that will confound your vision of the world. You would see countries where you are NOT required to be fingerprinted if wishing to enter the country, such as is required now by the United States if one wishes to visit. And since I feel that I have no wish to give anyone in the United States my fingerprints as it goes against my sense of what freedom entails, I think I'll be staying on this side of the Atlantic, thank you.

[MacGorilla]

The article cited is about PRESS freedom but still.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
The article cited is about PRESS freedom but still.

damn.

nevermind.

I figured that ranking the US 31st in 'real freedom' was total BS.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by theolein:
It shows, believe me. One is inclined to believe, upon reading a post such as yours, that there is no such thing as education either.

You should travel someday, seriously. You will see a whole world full of people with differing and similar ideas to yours, and you will see things that will confound your vision of the world. You would see countries where you are NOT required to be fingerprinted if wishing to enter the country, such as is required now by the United States if one wishes to visit. And since I feel that I have no wish to give anyone in the United States my fingerprints as it goes against my sense of what freedom entails, I think I'll be staying on this side of the Atlantic, thank you.

no, THANK YOU!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Those other countries have an 'escape clause' in their constitutions (the ones that have constitutions) that allows the goverment to revoke the citizens' "freedoms" pretty much at will.

The constitution can be ammended.

All laws are up to "interpretation" by the Supreme Court, a rather closed group with political ties (far from neutral).

Homeland Security.


Whatever. The US has "escape clauses" as well. The only difference is that the United States uses them.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Let's talk about the South African constitution since I am more au fait (oooh, a foreign word) with that one. South Africa's press is also freer than the US's. Care to show me the "escape clause" in the South African constitution?

You asked for it, you got it...

(3) The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill.


^ that's the 'escape clause'

Read that sentence again. How laughable is that? Hilarious, if you ask me. Seriously, that is some funny shi*. Can you believe that there are humans whose rights depend on that sentence?

It refers to section 36 posted below (as well as limitations mentioned "elsewhere in the Bill" (gotta love that 'elsewhere'). Let's translate that sentence into its true meaning...

"Your rights defined in the Bill of Rights can be revoked or restricted under the conditions shown in Section 36 or under damn near any other conditions mentioned anywhere else in this document."

heh. Take out the legalese and it makes you want to overthrow that tyrannical government.

anywho..

Limitation of rights

36. (1) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including Ÿ

the nature of the right;
the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
the nature and extent of the limitation;
the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.

States of emergency

37. (1) A state of emergency may be declared only in terms of an Act of Parliament, and only when Ÿ

the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and
the declaration is necessary to restore peace and order.

Whoa. full of undefined terms and loopholes.

There does exist a 21 day maximum for um, 'disabling' any rights.

[Spliffdaddy]

Nearly every constitution I've read (I've read a LOT, don't ask why) has an 'escape clause' that allows the governing body to revoke 'rights' - this is because most governments grant rights to the citizens, whereas the US citizens have their rights granted by "our creator" which cannot be revoked )or 'subject to limitations' by "a state of emergency" as defined by a government.

on second thought. this is completely untrue.

wartime, notwithstanding - I need to add.

[finboy]

Originally posted by theolein:
It shows, believe me. One is inclined to believe, upon reading a post such as yours, that there is no such thing as education either.

Sounds like a personal attack.

[Spliffdaddy]

Nah, if he wanted to make it a personal attack he would have mentioned you by name. He ain't shy about things like that.

OMG, theo, you oughtta read YOUR constitution.

You guys wrote the how-to manual on 'loopholes' and 'escape clauses'...


don't feel bad, though. I haven't yet seen a constitution besides the US Constitution that doesn't have built-in methods for restricting the citizens' rights.


Iceland has a great constitution. I tried really hard to pick that one apart several months ago. You won't find many loopholes in that one. Seems like it was written by ONE person - as opposed to the South Africa constitution, which seems like the work of 50 unique individuals trying to consider every possibility however remote. A constitution should never contradict itself. You cannot grant rights in one article and remove them in another.

"You have the right to..." "Well, except in cases of...."

Either you have the right or you don't.

If the government 'grants' you a right - it is merely on loan to you.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I figured that ranking the US 31st in 'real freedom' was total BS.

You actually do quite well on freedom of the press in comparison to your overall ranking. The USA is quite a human rights (freedom) nightmare these days. Overall, there are about 150 countries that are more "free" than the US. The US is languishing in the world's worst 40; only marginally better than Cuba and worse than Russia or Croatia (Source Observer Human Rights Index). Why is this such a surprise to you Spliff? Surely you're not arrogant enough to think that the US has a monopoly on freedom?

You can keep yourself informed at the Human Rights Watch pages on the US..

[moki]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as number 1, eh?

The U.S. is now only the 31st freest nation in the world, tied with Greece (where video games are outlawed), and 135th most free in Iraq (whatever that means). Funny how we're less free than both Germany and France isn't it? So what happened to the U.S. being the land of the free?

From the article:

.....

To compile this ranking, Reporters Without Borders asked journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists to fill out a questionnaire evaluating respect for press freedom in a particular country. A total of 166 countries are included in the ranking (as against 139 last year). The other countries were left out because of a lack of reliable, well-supported data.

.....

In other words, it's a straw poll that can be heavily influenced by opinions on the policies of a particularly country, and any personal views the people who were polled had. It is not based on any objective standard that I can see.

Given that Trinidad/Tobago is ranked at 5, right up there with Denmark, I think it's pretty clear that this survey is relatively meaningless.

[RooneyX]

Real freedom is being in the country with nature and small commmunity and not having tons of laws dumped on your head from government upon high with its one million agencies dedicated to tracking where Clinton buys his cigars while turning a blind eye to oil sheikh criminals.

Anyway, enough of this sinful modern type American square dancing!

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The constitution can be ammended.

It ain't exactly easy to do. Takes an overwhelming majority of opinion to make it stick. Only been done but a handful of times in 225 years. Usually for the right reasons, in my opinion. Still, the human rights we enjoy in the US were not given to us by our government and are not revokeable by Constitutional ammendment.

All laws are up to "interpretation" by the Supreme Court, a rather closed group with political ties (far from neutral).

American's 'rights' are not provided by 'laws' and cannot be restricted through legislation without defying the Constitution.

Homeland Security.

see above

Whatever. The US has "escape clauses" as well. The only difference is that the United States uses them.

No, You're 100% wrong. There are no 'escape clauses' in the US Constitution in regards to your rights as a human being. Which also means that the United States isn't, um, "using them" as you say.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
You actually do quite well on freedom of the press in comparison to your overall ranking. The USA is quite a human rights (freedom) nightmare these days. Overall, there are about 150 countries that are more "free" than the US. The US is languishing in the world's worst 40; only marginally better than Cuba and worse than Russia or Croatia (Source Observer Human Rights Index). Why is this such a surprise to you Spliff? Surely you're not arrogant enough to think that the US has a monopoly on freedom?

Heh. Nice try. That table you presented multiplies the HDI by the population -- this is an absolutely ridiculous way to weight the score. HDI is something that stands on its own, regardless of population:

http://www.infomanage.com/international/98hdi.htm

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You asked for it, you got it...

Lol. This is like going back to University. Here's an Article by an American explaining why the SA Constitution is better than the US one. Read the Conclusion!

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
(3) The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill.
^ that's the 'escape clause'

it refers to the section below:

Limitation of rights

36. (1) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including Â_

the nature of the right;
the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
the nature and extent of the limitation;
the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.

I'll try to keep this simple!

You are misunderstanding what a limitation of a right is. The limitations clause is not about putting the Constitution on hold. It's about dealing with two rights clashing. It's about balancing people's separate rights; something which happens under all Constitutions. The difference between the SA Constitution and the US Constitution is just that your Constitution doesn't provide your courts with any guidance on how to deal with the clash. The SA Constitution does and it in fact implements one of the jurisprudential theories for balancing rights that has had application in the US courts. The situation that might arise is where the state passes anti-smoking laws. The right to a clean and healthy environment would then clash with someone else's "right to smoke." In the US, you could have an involved legal case about this. The SA Constitution tells the court to what extent each of the rights can be limited. The SA Constitution specifically says that the content of the right cannot be derogated from, i.e. the right itself cannot be suspended! This is an implentation of the bundle of sticks theory. The theory being that when a right is limited, you can only take so many sticks out of the bundle before the bundle becomes individual sticks and not a bundle. Under SA law you have to always have a bundle. Too complicated to go into here. Suffice it to say that section 35 is a non point! It does the opposite of what you say it does.

The South African Constitution just so you know applies vertically and horizontally; that is, it applies between citizens as well as between citizens and the state so there is even more interacting of rights than in the US hence the need for a clear statement of how the interaction of rights happens. Note: much as these terms might seem vague to you, they are legal terms that are defined.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

States of emergency

37. (1) A state of emergency may be declared only in terms of an Act of Parliament, and only when Â_

the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and
the declaration is necessary to restore peace and order.[/i]

Whoa. full of undefined terms and loopholes.

There does exist a 21 day maximum for um, 'disabling' any rights.

Cough, cough - Emergency War Powers and the US Constitution. This happens in almost every Constitution in the world! You're still operating under Emergency provisions in the US. The SA Constitution is better than yours because it not only specifies defines precisely what an emergency is but which rights cannot be limited at all (there is a list of non-derogable rights in Section 37) during emergency and the extent to which others can be limited. Furthermore, an Act of Parliament is required to declare a State of Emergency AND any court in the land can review the declaration! If that's an escape clause, then the US Constitution is an open door!

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
Heh. Nice try. That table you presented multiplies the HDI by the population -- this is an absolutely ridiculous way to weight the score. HDI is something that stands on its own, regardless of population:

http://www.infomanage.com/international/98hdi.htm

It's not my index. It's the most highly respected index out there. As for your index, well, France still beats the US!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
American's 'rights' are not provided by 'laws' and cannot be restricted through legislation without defying the Constitution.

Not true. Your rights can and are limited all the time.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
It's not my index. It's the most highly respected index out there. As for your index, well, France still beats the US!

HDI is a respected index, yes. That Guardian page you noted, however, multiplies it by population. This is utterly ridiculous, and I'm stunned anyone would believe it means anything other than a partisan attack to make the US look bad.

As for the chart I noted, sure, the US is #4 on the list, and I'm fine with that. It's about accurate, IMHO.

[Spliffdaddy]

TROLL,


Read that sentence again. Read my post again, too. I edited it.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...10#post1680791

There's no way you can weasel out of that.

Don't point fingers at the US, either. It makes it appear like you agree that I won.

Defend that sentence, homie.

I really wanna see you do it.

I'll even go in late for work to witness it.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
The SA Constitution is better than yours because it not only specifies defines precisely what an emergency is but which rights cannot be limited at all (there is a list of non-derogable rights in Section 37) during emergency and the extent to which others can be limited. Furthermore, an Act of Parliament is required to declare a State of Emergency AND any court in the land can review the declaration! If that's an escape clause, then the US Constitution is an open door!

Okay, the SA constitution is wonderful, is that what you'd like to hear? Now then, how many people would like to move to South Africa at the moment?

(::listens to crickets chirping:

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
Okay, the SA constitution is wonderful, is that what you'd like to hear? Now then, how many people would like to move to South Africa at the moment?

(::listens to crickets chirping:

That's not the point. The point is a lot of Americans think they have a monopoly on freedom. They think their Constitution is streaks better than everyone else's; that they live in a blissful state of freedom that no one else enjoys. The truth of the matter is that the US Constitution is an antique document that is not very good at creating or protecting freedoms and that the US government is a pretty dismal abuser of human rights. As a result, the US is no longer the freest nation on earth - far from it. Other countries have surpassed the US and citizens of many other countries on this planet actually have a lot more freedom than Americans.

[Spliffdaddy]

But it's exactly MY point, Troll.

Yes, I DO think that the US Constitution is superior to any other in regards to human rights. I even told you why.

If all else fails, we have hundreds of millions of guns and can get our point across.

You can call it 'antique' if you like, but I'm of the opinion that human rights haven't changed much in the last 225 years. Our implementation of legislation that infringes on our rights is something that is constantly under challenge and helps to further define the limits of future legislation. A 'balancing act' between rights, just as you claim is the basis for SA's constitution.

Governments DO NOT grant human rights. They exist in spite of any government.


edited to add:

'human rights', in my opinion, are those things which are required for happiness. These are the 'rights' which were endowed upon humans by their creator. Whoever that was.

Only a government can offer something like "The right to marry a supermodel.", for example.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It ain't exactly easy to do. Takes an overwhelming majority of opinion to make it stick. Only been done but a handful of times in 225 years. Usually for the right reasons, in my opinion. Still, the human rights we enjoy in the US were not given to us by our government and are not revokeable by Constitutional ammendment.

All laws are up to "interpretation" by the Supreme Court, a rather closed group with political ties (far from neutral).

American's 'rights' are not provided by 'laws' and cannot be restricted through legislation without defying the Constitution.

Homeland Security.

see above

Whatever. The US has "escape clauses" as well. The only difference is that the United States uses them.

No, You're 100% wrong. There are no 'escape clauses' in the US Constitution in regards to your rights as a human being. Which also means that the United States isn't, um, "using them" as you say.

No escape clauses, but if I have a private club, or if I'm an elected official, I can still discriminate.

Homeland Security was passed overnight, and can override virtually every law on the Constitution.

Homeland Security even it's advocates admit violates the constitution... their defense is it's justified... regardless... it's overriding the constitution.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
But it's exactly MY point, Troll.

Yes, I DO think that the US Constitution is superior to any other in regards to human rights. I even told you why.

If all else fails, we have hundreds of millions of guns and can get our point across.

You can call it 'antique' if you like, but I'm of the opinion that human rights haven't changed much in the last 225 years. Our implementation of legislation that infringes on our rights is something that is constantly under challenge and helps to further define the limits of future legislation. A 'balancing act' between rights, just as you claim is the basis for SA's constitution.

Governments DO NOT grant human rights. They exist in spite of any government.

I'm going to ask you why you've read a lot of Constitutions. Because I have too. I majored in comparative Constitutional Law at University. You don't seem to understand the jurisprudential basis behind Constitutions so I'm quite frankly surprised that you've read a lot of them.

Your opinion that human rights haven't changed over the last 225 years is wrong. Go and read any Constitutional Law article or textbook and you'll see why you're wrong. Environmental rights (enshrined in the SA Constitution) - those existed 225 years ago? The only way you can make that argument is if you allow a very broad interpretation of the US Bill of Rights. That's fine; you can do that, but understand that that precise fact is what makes the US Constitution inferior.

Now, you've got to understand that we lawyers can talk about documents like objects. We look at a law and we can say whether it works well. Does it address all the potential problems, does it cover all the bases, is it effective at resolving the issues efficiently, is it clear? The US Constitution is a seminal document. It shaped the face of the world for many, many years. But it is no longer a good document. Why? Because it hasn't benefitted from the last 200 years of Constitutional law development. It is vague. Under it you can argue pro-choice and pro-life for example. You can argue for limiting the baby's right to life or the mother's right to any number of things. Not possible under the SA Constitution (which is just an example of a modern Constitution; Canada's Constitution or the Grundgesetz in Germany are similar) because it envisages precisely that problem and deals with it clearly. It tells you what trumps in that situation.

As for your argument that the SA Constitution comes from the Government whereas the US Constitution comes from some other source. That is rubbish. Both Constitutions come from the same place and do the same thing. Both are above the Government. The fact that you even raise this as a possibility makes me wonder why you've read so many Constitutions and understood so little. Of course the Government doesn't grant the rights. The Government can't remove the right either but in both the US and SA the government can and does limit the rights. It's just clearer in SA what limits the Government is working within.

Furthermore, the SA Constitution develops in precisely the way yours does. SA has a dedicated Constitutional Court that spends all day every day interpreting the Constitution. You may recall the issue of AIDS drugs? The Constitutional Court held that the government had an obligation to provide free drugs (3rd generation right fyi). The only difference is that it's easier to implement the justice because the Constitution is clearer. It is far less likely that you'll have the to-ing and fro-ing on a constitutional issue in SA that you have on abortion in the US for example, because the Constitution is clearer.

You still haven't addressed the point that the US Constitution has an escape clause the size of a 747 in comparison to SA's! Or the fact that you're still in a State of Emergency!