Holy crap, it's back!

I agree with Gonz, if the law is as poorly written that even a few seconds of thought can find a loophole then it should be rewritten to prevent misuse or abuse.
Hell... ANY law can be plugged full of holes as easily.

Thou shalt not kill

OMG - we're all going to die. God doesn't want us to kill things..how are we going to eat? We can't eat plants..we have to KILL them first. Oh and we kill animals too. OMG God doesn't want us to use Lysol..which KILLS 99% of known household germs!!!!111!!oneone! Don't breathe...the microbes you inhale will DIE!! OHH..the HUMANITY!!!

:errrr:
 
Plug some holes on this one:
Article 11. Everyone has the right to enter and leave the Republic, to travel through its territory and to change his residence without necessity of a letter of security, passport, safe-conduct or any other similar requirement. The exercise of this right shall be subordinated to the powers of the judiciary, in cases of civil or criminal liability, and to those of the administrative authorities insofar as concerns the limitations imposed by the laws regarding emigration, immigration and public health of the country, or in regard to undesirable aliens resident in the country.
 
Plug some holes on this one:
Sure thing... "Everyone"
That means that regardless of country of origin, age, gender etc...is allowed to cross into and out of the country at any time without having to present papers or any form of documentation except if a court or administrator says "No"

So..I, as a Canadian and you, as a Mexican, , are allowed to cross into the USA (I'm assuming that this is the country being discussed), at any border crossing, without having to present papers (including a passport) unless a court/administrator proves prior to arriving in the usa that I should not be allowed entry because of a criminal background (in the USA only).

Border guards and Police (not being judges nor administrators) should not be able to ask you or I, or "Anyone" for papers proving our citizenship anywhere within the USA, it's borders or it's extended regions (including Military bases and the White House).
 
first source
Thou shalt not murder.

second source
neither

third source
Thou shalt not murder
 
Jesus reply in the fulfillment was to love your neighbor as yourself.
That's harder than killing, but more rewarding.
 
You know your opposition to this, Jim, illustrates all the worst traits of conservatives like you. Paranoia, egotism, radical nationalism, self righteousness, (perhaps religious fervor?) fear mongering, and just essentially denial of reality and the fact that it's 2009, all are hallmarks of the hardcore "right". Don't get me wrong, if nothing else, you serve a VERY necessary service simply by virtue of keeping the radical left in check, and there are a lot of good traits of such people too, though I will not discuss those here.

You see the thing is a simple treaty, and I'm not sure it would be actual law, but it's at least an ideal about how we should treat children internationally. Nowhere in there does it ever say anything about it superseding local laws and authority. You call it evil? I realize you probably really think so, but I am sure it's simply because you don't even come close to understanding what effect it would really have if ratified. You have all kinds of far fetched fears, nothing at all of real substance. All of the red writing is paranoia, plain and simple.

The rest of the world sees a reason for it. Just because you are American does not make you always right. People like you, and that American arrogance is the number one reason so much of the world hates us. I realize just because everyone else is doing something doesn't make it right, but usually it is right, not always, but usually, and this is one such time.

And I apologize if I sound judgemental, even with all that said I do not hold myself as "better" than you, but I do believe more "correct" in this case.
 
hey, could we see/hear some of that stuff? where + how were you published?

Attleboro Sun Chronicle, Boston Globe, Providence Journal.

I appeared on the talk radio station in Attleboro and I have the tape ... somewhere. I've moved four times since I lived in MA.
 
I've checked a few versions..it's all "kill" in all three chapers
Exodus 20:2–17, Exodus 34:11–27 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21.

Mind you...that's not the 'spirit' of the law, but it's text, eh.

The Talmudic scripture originally stated "Thou shalt not do murder" which is also translated as "Thou shalt not commit murder".

To kill is not murder. Murder is the taking of an innocent life.

SOURCE

The Talmud, the code of Jewish law, states: "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him."[2] The Sixth Commandment, poorly translated as "Thou shalt not kill," is more properly translated from the Hebrew as, "You shall not commit murder." It does not forbid the righteous taking of life. The Book of Exodus (22:1)[3] further confirms this, assuring us that "If a burglar is caught in the act of breaking in, and is struck and killed, it is not considered an act of murder"

In Genesis 14:11-24, Abraham (Abram), rescues his nephew Lot, held captive by four kings, by arming 318 servants and hunting down, violently attacking, and dispersing Lot's royal captors.

[2] Tractate Barachot, pages 58A and 62B

[3] In some translations, this passage appears as Exodus 22:2.

Also see "Ask the Rabbi" HERE
 
This is a copy of a press release from the UK Guardian, January 28, 1995.

Copyright 1995 Guardian Newspapers Limited
The Guardian


January 28, 1995​

SECTION: THE GUARDIAN HOMEPAGE; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 1254 words

HEADLINE: UN ATTACK ON BRITISH CHILD CARE; Detention centres scheme ‘breaches international law’

BYLINE: Alan Travis and Frances Rickford

BODY:
Britain has reneged on “a solemn undertaking” given by Lady Thatcher to give a high priority to the rights of children in almost every area of social policy, according to a United Nations report published yesterday.

The first international audit of children’s rights in Britain accuses ministers of repeatedly violating the UN convention on the rights of the child, which the government signed up for four years ago.

The “concluding observations” of the UN committee set up to monitor progress on the convention, which has been ratified by 170 countries, says the British government is failing children in nearly every aspect of their lives. They particularly warn that ministers’ plans to build detention centres for persistent offenders as young as 12 will not be compatible with international law.

The UN voices serious concerns about the number of children living in poverty in Britain as well as benefit cuts, the rising number of teenage pregnancies, and the reappearance of children begging and sleeping on the streets.

The eight-page document contains four paragraphs welcoming the 1989 Children’s Act and initiatives on bullying in schools, cot deaths, and sexual abuse of children.

But its “principle areas of concern” raises 16 separate issues ranging from treatment of children as young as 10 under Northern Ireland’s emergency powers legislation to the extent of child poverty and the plight of child refugees.

The final report follows a 100-page submission by the British government, and oral hearings in Geneva last week.

In particular, the UN calls for legislation in Britain to ban corporal punishment in private schools and to outlaw “chastisement” of children at home.

The committee reported that it was deeply worried about current legislation which allows “reasonable chastisement” of children by parents, and now also childminders. A Department of Health civil servant, representing the government, told the committee on Tuesday this meant “a light smack”.

But a member of the UN committee referred to a recent court case in Britain, in which a mother was acquitted of assault after she beat her daughter with a leather strap until she bled.

Thomas Hammarberg, the UN committee vice-chairman, yesterday singled out plans for secure training centres for 12- to 14-year-old persistent offenders as incompatible with the convention.

He said the UN did not rule out the detention of children of this age, but it believed this should be for no than a matter of days.

But the health minister responsible for children, John Bowis, insisted last night: “Britain can hold its head up high on child welfare, and every parent knows that.”

He added: “I am rather surprised at some of the criticisms. For example, the question of allowing parents to use reasonable chastisement on their children has not been an issue in Parliament or among the public.”

But a leading child law specialist, Allen Levy QC, who chaired the “pindown” inquiry into Staffordshire children’s homes, said the report amounted to a devastating indictment of the Government’s complacency and inaction on the rights of children.

Frances Cook, director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said that unless the Government withdrew its plans for secure detention centres for 12- to 14-year-old in the light of the UN report, the league would challenge the scheme in court.

Main points:

High number of children living in poverty in Britain, and high rate of divorce and teenage pregnancies linked with inadequate benefit allowances.

Corporal punishment in private schools should be illegal and “chastisement” of children at home outlawed.

Review urged of plans to set up detention centres for offenders aged 12 to 14 and calls for raising age of criminal responsibility.

Children’s ombudsman should be set up, and children consulted over running of their school, and be taught about their rights.

Failing the children, page 4: Leader comment, page 22

LOAD-DATE-MDC: January 28, 1995
 
Now, pursuant to the above press release.

How many of you live in states which have youth detention centers?

How many have youthful offender boot camps like we have here in Colorado?

These will be outlawed under the provisions of the convention.

How many of you live in states where it is lawful to spank your child; or where laws have been passed under parent's rights that allow the spanking of your children?

This will be outlawed under the provisions of the convention.

Britain has expressed regrets of having ratified the convention. The press release says it all.

The committee says that children are still too poor in Britain and that they are receiving inadequate benefits (that's welfare for those who were wondering)

The committee also says the children should have a say on how their schools are run. Recess all day anyone?

The committee says that children -- remember this is anyone under eighteen -- should be held for criminal acts for no more than a matter of days.

A sixteen-year-old shoots someone and the convention says he cannot be tried as an adult.
 
Again you miss the point entirely! Obviously the judgment is subjective. While I am sure you are envisioning UN peacekeeping troops invading Britain, it's not what up here! The UN commission or whatever it's called that looked into this matter issued an opinion, and even if the UK signed on, they probably have recourse to challenge the findings and likely there will be no real consequences. Further, perhaps some of the criticism has merit and should be looked into. Self evaluation, and reconsideration of bad or ineffective policy is not a bad thing when it makes things better. Ever heard of take what works and leave the rest? No this thing isn't perfect by any stretch but it isn't the demon you seem to wish it was!

Oh waaa, the UN yelled at us, what are we to do?!? The commando teams will be landing on the hour! The sky is falling the sky is falling! The rapture is near! Oh look it's Armageddon already!
 
Now, pursuant to the above press release.

How many of you live in states which have youth detention centers?

How many have youthful offender boot camps like we have here in Colorado?

These will be outlawed under the provisions of the convention.

Much of the countries that already are on this thing have youth detention so it appears that you're wrong.

Since your 1995 article the UK has since agreed to the treaty in full and is still able to operate it's youth detention centers.

How many of you live in states where it is lawful to spank your child; or where laws have been passed under parent's rights that allow the spanking of your children?

This will be outlawed under the provisions of the convention.

Actually no. They are still able to spank their children in the UK.

Britain has expressed regrets of having ratified the convention. The press release says it all.

Actually they've embraced it further.

The committee also says the children should have a say on how their schools are run. Recess all day anyone?

Not happening. You're being alarmist.

The committee says that children -- remember this is anyone under eighteen -- should be held for criminal acts for no more than a matter of days.

And yet they are in the UK.

You're pretty much wrong on everything here.
 
Again you miss the point entirely! Obviously the judgment is subjective. While I am sure you are envisioning UN peacekeeping troops invading Britain, it's not what up here! The UN commission or whatever it's called that looked into this matter issued an opinion, and even if the UK signed on, they probably have recourse to challenge the findings and likely there will be no real consequences. Further, perhaps some of the criticism has merit and should be looked into. Self evaluation, and reconsideration of bad or ineffective policy is not a bad thing when it makes things better. Ever heard of take what works and leave the rest? No this thing isn't perfect by any stretch but it isn't the demon you seem to wish it was!

Oh waaa, the UN yelled at us, what are we to do?!? The commando teams will be landing on the hour! The sky is falling the sky is falling! The rapture is near! Oh look it's Armageddon already!

No one here, at any level whatsoever, has mentioned blue helmets on the streets. You invented that and placed it on me. Please don't do that.
 
wickedcoolstuff_2038_173016517
 
Here's the problem:

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So this thing becomes the Law of the Land and enforceable from within. There is no need for UN involvement after that because it will be internal law. I don't want foreign entities, especially Leftist foreign entities, creating United States law.
 
Yeah I know the evil left, all other countries are inferior, blah, blah, blah....

Conservatives are just full of fear and paranoia, it's part of the genetic makeup.

Try to get over it!
 
Back
Top