European constitution. Ya or Na?

[Dowland]

As far as I can remember, the first Human Rights bill was created as a reaction to the first-half of the century inhumane infamy. After those atrocities were known of the general public---horror, disgust, outrage, (and guilt also I imagine) led everybody to do everything to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. This led to the HR bill, and two important "alliances", namely UNO and ECSC (to become EU).

The "HR only benefits the bad guys" argument is one I hear a lot. From right wing extremists. While I've also witnessed those OJ type trials, or irrational rules ... it is such a carricature to think that we'd be better off without them.

[Pumaman]

Oh don't get me wrong, we certainly need to have human rights protected so that people can't go around randomly killing each other.

But, that sort of thing is covered perfectly well by existing laws. Introducing a blanket "human rights act" that ensures that everyone is entitled to their "rights" is barmy -- for example, the recent case of a convicted pedophile who demanded that he be supplied porn in his jail cell because it was his "human right" to have access to it; and he won his case.

If we are to have "human rights", we must also have "human responsibilities". Only having rights encourages a selfish culture where people feel they have the "right" to do whatever they want and how dare anyone say otherwise.

[Lucky]

Why not read the constitutionâ€"or if not the constitution, an annotated, commented version of it? (For instance, reading pro-constitution books and anti-constitution books, and making an opinion of your own.)

And if you can't be arsed, then you're giving a prime argument to those who say democracy is flawed because people aren't apt to make state decisions.

Not much information to be seen over here. I think I saw a small leaflet in a library but that's all. Of course if there would be a referendum, then we'd get masses of information chugged down our throats, but there won't be one. Instead, the parliament will say 'yes' and common man is kept in darkness.

[Sinister]

My point exactly. ...Thats what i meant.

Want the constitution to be passed without problems, campaign for it!! for god sakes!! campaign for it not just in european parliaments, but campaign for it on the streets, and make it known to every commoner.

[Dowland]

[OFF TOPIC]

the recent case of a convicted pedophile who demanded that he be supplied porn in his jail cell because it was his "human right" to have access to it; and he won his case

I was going to write a whole speech, but I really just want to ask a question first and foremost ... What the hell do you care? What have you to be angry about?  This pedophile, did he do *you* any wrong? Did the crime he commit diminish your property otherwise than by just grossing you out?

Do you think being locked in jail will be any more pleasant now that he has access to porn?

It's trendy nowadays to catch the pedophiles. People see pedophiles everywhere, it's our century's witch hunt. I am most disgusted with Michael Jackson's case, of how he got into trouble for saying he liked sleeping with kids. That could be understood so many ways, and the only way it is understood is in some twisted pedophilic plot to sodomize preteens.

It's trendy nowadays to DISLIKE pedophiles. If you consider that there's some sort of hierarchy to crimes, then you usually tend to put child molesting at the very top, the highest rated crime, the most disgusting. Why? Even people who don't like children at all, hate pedophiles above all. It's like there's a general consensus.

I believe it's highly arrogant, and egocentrical. That the world revolves around your sensibilities; that crimes were commited solely so you could feel outragedâ€"and by feeling outraged, that you could feel good about yourself.

Because that's what it really is. Pedophiles are vilified not only because raping a child is a hainous act in itself, but because not being ABSOLUTELY against child molesting, not wanting them to SUFFER through hell, would mean (for you, for others) that perhaps, somewhere deep inside of you, you have those unwanted feelings.

It's a dramatic case of “if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.”

[... ramblings cut off ...]

The fact of the matter is, first of all, forbidding porn to prisonners is not a punishment. Prisonners, whatever you'd like to think, and whatever crimes they commited, are not animals that you can just throw in a stable, and butt-fuck themselves because they can't let it out any other way. As I recall, no prisonner has ever been forbidden porn ... so why now? Why just for this pedophile, why should he be denied that "right" over father stabbers, or mother rappers, or jail robbers?


It's not because you have, for whatever reason, a desire of revenge on this person that he should suffer your wrath. The penal system, beside having quite an homoerotic name, should not be your way/society's way of taking revenge.

[Nacho]

[OFF TOPIC]
I was going to write a whole speech, but I really just want to ask a question first and foremost ... What the hell do you care? What have you to be angry about?Ã,  This pedophile, did he do *you* any wrong? Did the crime he commit diminish your property otherwise than by just grossing you out?

Does the sickness those people creates in normal people count as "doing something to us"?

[Dowland]

Cool. Someone who didn't read through. (plus "create sickness" = "grossing you out")

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

FACT - Paedophilia is not accepted in our society.
FACT - Therefore, it is punishable with our society's punishment: encarceration.
FACT - Encarceration happens so that the people are punished and may return to society as society-compliant individuals.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN JAILS is out of the question right now, since we're talking theory and ideal.

Now I ask you - do you honestly believe that if he has access to porn he is in a state of punishment for the crime he has been incarcerated? Hell, if ALL the other prisoners had porn and he hadn't, it might well be enough punishment for him.

EDIT - Reread your post a bit better. Indeed it ain't about revenge, or shouldn't be. It's about proper punishment. How is it proper to allow access of porn to an offender of sexual crimes? I mean, imagine a rapist too, why not? WHy should he be able to access porn? Take it from his, it's punishment we're talking about here. They violated society's rules, and therefore they have LOST some rights. Just SOME, and for a certain period of time, but some rights are lost.

[Dowland]

Does the sickness those people creates in normal people count as "doing something to us"?

Just one more thing. In that respect, pedophiles and homosexuals are in the same category, aren't they? I mean, if we agree that pedophiles make a great majority of people sick ... well homosexuals make quite a deal of people sick too.

The fact is, it should have nothing to do with how you feel about them.

Hell, if ALL the other prisoners had porn and he hadn't, it might well be enough punishment for him.

No. A prisonner has made an offense. He his judged on that offense, and given a punishment which, theoretically, is in measure of that offense. The offense is a short or longer time served in prison.
BUT you cannot decide to strip such and such prisonner from such or such right. Rights are just that, rights. You CANNOT take them away, because that lets the door open to any sort of abuse. Stripping rights is not a procedure that can be theoritized, because the in essence, it would mean that some individuals, or systems, or government, or penal systems, have rights above others. Which they don't.

As far as I know prisonners are allowed access to porn. I have no idea if that is the case in UK, Germany, Asia, and US though.

[Nacho]

Sorry Dowland... I must develop my post.

I am sick by that pedophile. I am sick by him getting porn in his jail. And I am sick that some "human rights" allow that.

If we sum all the "sicknesses" of all the people who are sick about that, we'll probably get an amount of sickness higher that the one that that bastard might have.

So... What about our human rights ? Ain't the sum of all those rights bigger that the human right of the pedophile?

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

A world where offenders have as many rights as people who obey society's rules, huh? No, I don't buy that. It goes against the sense of justice I have. Notice I don't mean permament removal of rights, only suspension, and not all rights. Every offender is still a human being. Their deprival of freedom is usually punishment enough. But let's put it like this: when you want to teach a boy or a pet NOT to do something, you deprive him of what he wanted to do and supress him of freedom, or dinner, or however you deal with that situation.

What good is it to keep them in but allow them to go on in the same vein of things that got them there in the first place?

[Nacho]

Does the sickness those people creates in normal people count as "doing something to us"?

Just one more thing. In that respect, pedophiles and homosexuals are in the same category, aren't they? I mean, if we agree that pedophiles make a great majority of people sick ... well homosexuals make quite a deal of people sick too.

I don't know if you really think that people actually has the same opinion about people who freely chooses to life its sexuallity with people with its same sex than people who violates babies.

I tell you. NO.

We had an actor who is gay in the list of the most popular guys in Spain this month.

There have been three guys who have been arrested for pedophilia this month too.

That three guys must be isolated in jail because the other prisoners want to kill them.

So, do you think society rejects homosexuality in the same way than pedophilia? I hope that has been just an arguing resource, because if you really believe that, you must be a very short sighter person. (No offense, I really thing it's been an arguing resource).

[Dowland]

Sorry Dowland... I must develop my post.

I am sick by that pedophile. I am sick by him getting porn in his jail. And I am sick that some "human rights" allow that.

If we sum all the "sicknesses" of all the people who are sick about that, we'll probably get an amount of sickness higher that the one that that bastard might have.

So... What about our human rights ? Ain't the sum of all those rights bigger that the human right of the pedophile?

Again, not a valid argument. First of all sickness is an emotion, or a "passion", in the same way desire, or love is.

What you're saying, is that because this man is making a LOT of people sick, than he should punished moreso---those people want to take, in essence, revenge.

My following reasoning is a stupid one, but it goes in the same direction. G. W. Bush is making a whole lot of people sick, starting with a little bit less than 50% of US citizens, back in November 2004 (and according to recent news coverage, probably more now). He's making me sick. Literally. The No Child Left Behind act makes me sick.

Again homosexuals, men loving other men, fucking other men, displaying their sexuality in the open ... that makes a lot of people---mostly religious but not solely---very, very sick. I've seen and heard those people talk about gay people, and it has made me want to lurch, because so much hatred, disgust, revulsion, and bigotry is bundled in their words. Because they feel sick of homosexuals (and there are a lot of religious biggots in the world, a LOT), should they be allowed to punish gays?

Likewise, last century, masturbation was the deadly sin. Should all masturbators been hung by their balls? Can you consider that a few centuries ago, pedophiles weren't hunted as now, and that family's sold their virgin girls to rich dukes? ... but then, I digress, because the issue I raised was certainly not whether pedophiles are criminals (they most certainly are), but whether they are criminals within criminals. The worst of the worse.

[Dowland]

I don't know if you really think that people actually has the same opinion about people who freely chooses to life its sexuallity with people with its same sex than people who violates babies. I tell you. NO. We had an actor who is gay in the list of the most popular guys in Spain this month.

Pretend as though I don't believe anything.

Again here, quantity is not what determines validity. It isn't because less people view homosexuality as a sin (oh, believe me, there definitely are people who view gays as sinners), or because being gay be perceived as less than a sin, that there aren't people nonetheless who view homosexuality as sin, almost as bad as child raping.

I remember it wasn't so long ago that having same-sex intercourse in Texas was actually a crime (I'm not even sure it has changed since), that could get you jailed up.

[Nacho]

Again, not a valid argument. First of all sickness is an emotion, or a "passion", in the same way desire, or love is.

Ain't his necessity of porn an emotion or a passion too? 

And I can't tell about Texas, but here the stalement "the majority is wise" is quite valid, as, nowadays, and in this very specific point (homosexuality), the majority is taking the good decission (I mean, nowadays it's more accepted homsexuality than homophoby)... that's good! Have patience with the people. They would move, sooner of later, to the good decission.

[Pumaman]

I was going to write a whole speech, but I really just want to ask a question first and foremost ... What the hell do you care? What have you to be angry about? This pedophile, did he do *you* any wrong? Did the crime he commit diminish your property otherwise than by just grossing you out?

Blimey, somebody got out on the wrong side of their bed this morning  o_O

In this case the prisoner was a pedophile, but if that offends you then replace it with "murderer" or "rapist" or whatever you prefer. The argument still stands.

No. A prisonner has made an offense. He his judged on that offense, and given a punishment which, theoretically, is in measure of that offense. The offense is a short or longer time served in prison.
BUT you cannot decide to strip such and such prisonner from such or such right. Rights are just that, rights. You CANNOT take them away, because that lets the door open to any sort of abuse. Stripping rights is not a procedure that can be theoritized, because the in essence, it would mean that some individuals, or systems, or government, or penal systems, have rights above others. Which they don't.

But the prisoner has already been stripped of some rights. He has lost his right to freedom, and his right to vote. So why do you judge that those rights are dispensable, whereas the right to porn is not? Surely people should only have rights so long as they respect the rights of others.

The moment somebody kills/rapes/etc another person, they have violated that person's rights and so surely they should have to sacrifice some of their own as punishment.

[Dowland]

Should, according to you, a bank robber be allowed to have porn?


Regarding loss of freedom and loss of voting right. That is not a bit different. Loss of freedom, because the prisoner has commited an offense, and it is to prevent them from committing it again (and of course, is a punitive measure too). Loss of the right to vote, is indeed punishment called disenfranchisement ... and it's not necessarily good either. You can completely lose your right to vote for having shoplifted (Wynona Rider was almost disenfranchised).


But you say that felons should "surely" have to sacrifice some of their rights as punishment. Which rights would that be?

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Well, for starters, someone accused of sex crimes shouldn't be allowed porn. I'm talking common sense, but I'm also talking punitive sense. As I've said before, it wouldn't be much of a punishment if they DID have porn.

For starters, those rights are enough. Insinde the jail there's a mini-society - they break THOSE rules, they lose more right, so that's ok.

Download, I've been working on the same level as you - at least trying to, avoiding moral and ethics because they often get in the way of pure, ideal justice... but sometimes common sense is also needed. As long as it's well explained, at least, and so far you haven't rebutted by "bad boy/bad pet" example. You can't ALWAYS toss common sense out the window in favour of pure, unadultered logic.

[Dowland]

Well we here have two different opinions. Rui, you're saying sex offenders should not porn, and Pumaman, you're saying all (?) prisoners shouldn't have porn.

Is that right?


(PS: my nick is Dowland, not Download  ; though are faaaaar from being the first to misspell it!!)

[Pumaman]

Should, according to you, a bank robber be allowed to have porn?

In my opinion prison should be a punishment, not a hotel. If it was up to me, they wouldn't have a TV or any other "luxury items" such as porn. Prison should be a place to train people in useful skills so that when they are released they can integrate into society. Allowing prisoners to sit back and watch TV and read porn just makes them idle and no less likely to reoffend.

But you say that felons should "surely" have to sacrifice some of their rights as punishment. Which rights would that be?

Of course, everyone has a different idea of what rights they should lose. But basic rights aren't even at issue here -- how is access to pornography a basic human right? It's a luxury item, and as such is a privilege, not a right.