Gadhafi is dead.

bells its not the comments by the libyans i am commenting on, its up to them to decide there own legal basis be it christan, sharia, common, civil or something compleatly different. My annoyance is aimed at those HERE and more so the pollies from countries like Australia and the US who claim that they aren't fighting Islam but when libya considers using sharia as the basis of there law they denounce it. The hypocracy of this is appalling ESPECIALLY considering that one of the first sets of laws that the US "helped" Iraq put together after there "liberation" wasn't constitutional law, it wasn't administrative law, it wasn't even basic criminal law, it was COPYRIGHT law for Christ sake. No government, no functional civil law and order but at least they were stopping those pirated DVDs.

As for marriage equality don't you think there are enough problems with out OWN system to worry about before judging someone else's marriage laws? for instance how about the fact that a significant portion of the Australian population cant even ACCESS marriage. THAT is what should be the subject of speeches in our parliament, not what another country chooses to base its laws on
 
Asguard said:
The hypocracy of this is appalling ESPECIALLY considering that one of the first sets of laws that the US "helped" Iraq put together after there "liberation" wasn't constitutional law, it wasn't administrative law, it wasn't even basic criminal law, it was COPYRIGHT law for Christ sake. No government, no functional civil law and order but at least they were stopping those pirated DVDs.
Click to expand...

Total unadulterated BS

This is the Transitional Law in Iraq after the invasion was over and until the Constitution was written to and agreed to by the Iraqis

LAW OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE STATE OF IRAQ

FOR THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD

8 March 2004

http://web.archive.org/web/20090423064920/http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html

No mention of copywrite, but all about basic human rights, and laws and judiciary etc etc.

Arthur
 
Bells said:
As for corruption.. The man was corrupt, awarded himself half the awards he was given and his direct democracy system is one where only he could be deemed the leader, hardly democratic.
Click to expand...
Not only corrupt, I would wager the man was slightly insane and living in a fantasy. Sadly, violence sustained his fantasy.
 
spidergoat said:
The actions of some soldiers should not reflect the policies of any future state. They probably acted in anger and not on orders.
Click to expand...
“And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners.” - Howard Zinn
 
Asguard said:
bells its not the comments by the libyans i am commenting on, its up to them to decide there own legal basis be it christan, sharia, common, civil or something compleatly different.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

But they are not being given that right, are they? So what do you think about their not being even given the right to a say in the matter?

My annoyance is aimed at those HERE and more so the pollies from countries like Australia and the US who claim that they aren't fighting Islam but when libya considers using sharia as the basis of there law they denounce it.
Click to expand...
Why? Do you think others should not voice anger that the Libyans are not even being given the right to choose? Who else is going to speak in support for them?

The laws as they have announced it in Libya will deny women equal rights in Libya, marriage laws and divorce laws are now apparently gone, from what the Libyans are saying and yes, they have a right to be angry and they have a right of getting support if they need it.

The hypocracy of this is appalling ESPECIALLY considering that one of the first sets of laws that the US "helped" Iraq put together after there "liberation" wasn't constitutional law, it wasn't administrative law, it wasn't even basic criminal law, it was COPYRIGHT law for Christ sake. No government, no functional civil law and order but at least they were stopping those pirated DVDs.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Okay, I am not even going to delve into copyright laws since, you know, they have nothing to do with this discussion..

What I will say is that you fail to recognise the hypocrisy of the 'liberators' and the newly self proclaimed leadership who instead of discussing future elections and security and the economy, what they do tell the Libyan public is that they will now be governed by Sharia Law and what little rights they had before, especially women, are now non-existent.

As for marriage equality don't you think there are enough problems with out OWN system to worry about before judging someone else's marriage laws?
Click to expand...
And?

Does not mean we cannot recognise the short falls of what is happening in Libya at the moment and comment on our own failed marriage laws, does it? You bitch and moan about American politics all the time, and you bitch and moan about Australian politics. This is kind of like the same thing, but instead of bitching and moaning about Americans, we are bitching and moaning about the previous and now current Government of Libya.

for instance how about the fact that a significant portion of the Australian population cant even ACCESS marriage. THAT is what should be the subject of speeches in our parliament, not what another country chooses to base its laws on
Click to expand...
Certainly. Now go and protest to Gillard. Now, onto this topic..

So tell me Asguard. Do you think women should have equal rights in marriage and divorce and in society? Do you think homosexuals should have equal rights in marriage and divorce in society. If yes, then you should also be concerned about this sudden declaration in Libya.
 
Interestingly, Bells' last paragraph could be a deviation, under the right circumstances, from the more default position of representative democracy. Is there a condition under which franchise ought to be ignored?
 
Weelll, I was hoping to draw scifes et al out a bit on this, but fine: spoil the ploy, why don't you. Pfft.
 
No one appreciates subtlety any more. It's all sound bites and punch.
 
I admit it was a bit cheeky there. But should we really be catering to the level of discourse that is oblivious to such major, well-understood, long grappled-with aspects of the stuff?
 
Let me respond in this way: do you have any evidence that the major, well-understood, long-grappled with aspects of the discourse really are understood by the parties with whom one tries to start a discourse?
 
GeoffP said:
Let me respond in this way: do you have any evidence that the major, well-understood, long-grappled with aspects of the discourse really are understood by the parties with whom one tries to start a discourse?
Click to expand...

No, as I said: oblivious. So, why start such a discourse? At the very best, it ends up recapitulating elementary-school-level material. Anyone who's halfway serious is necessarily going to speak in recognition of such features in the first place, no?
 
Hope springs eternal. I mean, outreach at their level surely has a better chance of producing a positive result than dunning them with concepts that while obvious to us, aren't to them. For that matter, it might help a couple of the intermediately-skilled understand a few fine points integral to the structure of the discussion that might otherwise go unnoticed. If you're assuming they're being deliberately facetious, well, I guess I can't prove otherwise, and I've probably already alluded to the possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top