Adventure Game Studio

France voted "non". Today The Netherlands have to vote.
Update: The Netherlands also say "nee".

the cons

Shady and unclear law. Even experts are argueing about what they might mean.
People feel screwed about the â,¬uro.
Arguements inside political parties.
Is it good for the whales or bad for the whales. Is it good for economy or bad for the economy.
Nobody red it.
Heard nothing but bad things about it.
Sticking it to the man.

the pros

This is where the pros would be if I could think of one.
Because I don't like the French.
[/list]

Please give some arguements so I can fill the Pro and Con lists.

I hold an extremely biased opinion of anything French, so I'll go the opposite of whichever way they go.

Voting 'No' was one of the things France has done correctly!

Here in the Netherlands the latest survey says that will be about 46% yes and 54% no, it still can be a yes according to some optimists. But if the surveys are correct it would be a NEE!

I'd go for "No" for one reason:
I've read it and it's full of rubbish, in the style of "We will love each others like brothers, and respect the human rights and bla bla bla..."

And... nothing else... nothing substantial. It does not say a world about the tax policy and many other things that really matter.

So, if that constitution goes more further, in 5 or 6 years we will have to vote again for a propper one.

*One thing... In Spain just 20 % of the people recognises they had read it. 20% voted no. Curious...

I've heard nothing but bad about it...

If the way of voting about it ever is taken here in Finland (...holy bazooka, I CAN VOTE now! :o) I'll be voting for No. I wish to live in Finland, not in the USE... They took our own currency already, that'll have to do.

It's wierd, a lot of the papers in the US about France's vote and how the Dutch may vote it down too, and provide analysis of the vote, but they don't really talk about WHY people would object to the constitution.  From what I gather here there are a lot of things lacking in it?

The polls show that why the French did fear the Constitution might have had bad effects on France ... the main reason, the *real* reason is that they feel cheated by the government in place, and the extremists parties have helped them feel even more cheated.

In April 2002, Chirac was mistakenly elected. Everybody thought the socialist Jospin would make it to the second round ... and thus voted for anybody BUT Jospin. As an end result, the right-wing extremist Le Pen (who's been fucking around this time too) was in the second round with Chirac, and nobody wanted to have a right wing extremist as a president.

76% of the French were going to say “yes” a couple months ago, but actions taken by the government--such as making a national holiday, Pentecost, a work day; or problems with the National Education Ministry--are what annoyed the people. The Prime Minister's popularity vote is 26% ... and he was just kicked out.

So there. The Constitution really was at the wrong place, and at the wrong time (. They feel like today isn't as important an issue than the presidency ... and thus feel  like there's waggle room to say “Fuck off.”

Most French's reason to vote no was something close to “Because Chirac wants us to say yes.”

The reactionary “We'll do this because so and so did that,” I find so stupid. *sigh* And I find it here too?

Quote
*One thing... In Spain just 20 % of the people recognises they had read it. 20% voted no. Curious...

That's sneaky Farl!Ã,  ;D

20% out of the TOTAL population recognise they've read it.
20% out of those who actually bothered to vote (only 6% of the ellectorate) actually said 'no'.

Spaniards passed the EU Constitution with an all-time low participation in a referendum (30%). Still, about 8 in 10 of those Spaniards who actually voted said 'yes'.

Politicians pushing for yes and no both claimed victory. The former argued that 80% of the vote was 'yes', while the latter said 'that's only because 70% of the people couldn't care less about it'.

However, the fact is Spaniards are quite sick of voting at the moment. Most of them have been to the polls three times in the last 18 months. After controversial regional ellections and pretty traumatic national ellections, this referendum was perceived as low-key by many.

Granted. The Constitution probably does not contribute much. But the fact is that the country has taken off in the last 20 years or so, and that is largely coincidental with Spain's adhesion to Europe (1986). Even if this is arguable, I think it partly explains why Spain passed the Constitution.

Still, a lot of people in Spain feel the process was rushed in order to be the first country to pass it. There has been controversy on this issue all over the papers these days.

-----------------

The French? As someone said, it looks like their 'no' was pretty much a punishment vote towards Chirac. Still, Europe is not possible without France, so eventually someone will have to come up with something to let them in.

-----------------

The Dutch and the British? We'll see what happens. The British might even save themselves the trouble.

Now that a pretty hefty 'no' stands in the way, I think more countries will feel free to say no (or even avoid the referendum altogether). Particularly those who feel that their voice is usually overheard.

I really do hope that the constitution is rejected and the EU can move back to just being a free trade area, which is what it was originally designed to be. Very few people want to become part of a USE and risk losing the varied qualities that make each European country so unique.

This board has a a total member count of 2644 at the time of posting. Would these members be more unique if they had joined, say, ten separate boards such that no board exceeds 265 members?

The Constitution is far from creating USE, and *FAR* from erasing unicity of characters of the different nations. I think the Brits will always have to do EVERYTHING differently, the French will always mauger and mope and rebel against everything, the Dutch will always want to have less and less to do with outsiders, Italy will always be catholic, etc., etc.

Europe is set in its ways. Thinking a Constitution will upheave milleniums of inertia is wishful thinking. (This whole ordeal makes me fondly think of the old hippy couple who just *doesn't* want to officially wed, even though they've been together since the 60's.)

I'd vote against it, but since in my country it seems to be normal making such decisions without asking the people ... who cares!?

Thanks for claryfying that Aussie, I can't remember all the figures, I think I was away or in exams or something...  :)

Another thing I hate of this Constitution. It says what not to do "Noone shall violate the human rights!" but... it does not says the punishements to those who uncomplish those stalements... Silly, isn't it? As Anarcho said, it is not bad, but it is totally full of real content.

As the polls show in France, a majority of voters are the young French people ... those who didn't witness a world *without* Europe.


EDIT: I'm slightly annoyed to notice I keep doing the *emphasizing* thing ... it's more an obsessional compulsive IRC-derived habit, than an actual belief that it makes anything clearer.

If you want something to impose limits to curtail the EU from turning into a "United States of Europe" (which is a rather paranoid thought, I think, but anyway...) then this would be the constitution to vote for.  It clearly sets out what the EU is for and its limits at the start, essentially setting the status quo down in stone.  If it comes to a vote here in the UK it'll get rejected, because it's from the EU, and people here don't have to read it to believe that it's all part of the plot to take over (even sensible people like CJ).
I'd vote yes, but it would be a waste of my time.

I'd like to point few things,  little bit out of topic (but not too much):

A: Most European countries that accepted Euro as it's currency have their market prices doubled (for instance Germany has changed the pricecs from 1 DEM to 1 E- before change, DEM was about 1/2 of Euro).
B: Most of these countries haven't changed their pays value (Again in Germany- The one who had 1000 Dem Paycheck value, after change had 500 Euro.)

After reading these facts, basic math knowledge brings me to this conclusion: SOMEONE HAS MADE LOT'S OF MONEY!!

(My country is waiting in line for EU, but I am not impatient at all.)

Quote from: BorisZ on Wed 01/06/2005 19:22:12
for instance Germany has changed the pricecs from 1 DEM to 1 E- before change, DEM was about 1/2 of Euro. The one who had 1000 Dem Paycheck value, after change had 500 Euro.

Well, that is really not true, and only the most conservative, older people who always say that everything's been better in the 60ies say that here in Germany.

I am not saying that everything about Europe growing together is good, I just wanted to put things in the right light.

My friend works in Germany, that's the information I got from her. Tell me the right numbers.

Well, I don't have any numbers. It is true that several items (like groceries [milk, butter, bread] ) got more expensive with the euro, but it is not that suddenly we all have to pay double. I mean, nobody could finance that, or? Other things got actually cheaper.

Anyways, I am not into politics, but I know, that it's not like everything is now 2 times as expensive as in 1999 with the DM as currency.

The euro did change prices, but by such a small margin that calling it "doubling" would be melodrama. Inflation factors in. World state factors in (now why is the gas for the car more expensive?). If you do get paid less, it has more to do with the fact that a lot of people are looking for jobs (therefore, you're expandable), than with the euro.

Prices might go up, but then curiously, the number of homes that have a mobile phones for every member, a computer with Internet, two cars, and two television is exponentially growing (not to mention, I can buy a --crappy-- livingroom DVD player for 99â,¬ or below).

It's definitely a hard question. I'm quite into politics, but I stand rather clueless when it comes to the constitution. The fact that both the communists and the extreme right seemed to unite in their big "non", makes it sort of hard to take a stand.

But that's not a good answer! It's a reactionary answer, which is exactly what guided the choice of the French. Except that in their case, their bitter dislike of Chirac, or moreover the worse-and-worst choice of 2002 had them tilt the other way.

Hypothetically, I could say that I voted “non” to piss-off my pro-constitution father, and it would be received as a valid argument.

If, by some accident, we actually get to vote for it, I'll vote 'no'. Only because no one seems to have the faintest idea of what the constitution actually means.

Oh well that's an educated vote.

I imagine most British toddlers don't know where Cambodia is on a world map. Should we teach them to dismiss it as a country alltogether? Or explain to them that the clothes manufactured there and imported here, don't really exist and that it's all an Emperor's Clothes act?

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.

The problem with individual referenda is that too much gets lumped into one question, for example if the French asked:

1. Should we give Chirac the boot? Oui/Non
2. Should we in France keep all our special worker protection? Oui/Non
3. Don't you hate muslims, like those Turks? Oui/Non
4. Oh, and should we rationalise all these various EU treaties into one and a few other things with a constitution? Oui/Non

They would have got Oui, Oui, Oui, Oui!

Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 01/06/2005 17:48:40
I really do hope that the constitution is rejected and the EU can move back to just being a free trade area, which is what it was originally designed to be.

Actaully, this is a common theme through many countries anti-EU propoganda and is wrong. Part of the original idea of the EU was to encourage closer unity and understaning between european countries so that the like of WWII would never happen again. Remember that at the time the gap from WWII wsa about the same as it had been between wars. Interestingly in France, people who had lived through the wars generally voted "Oui" to the constitution.

Also, the constitution does not make the EU any more of a political union, so the whole point is irrelvant to the referendum anyway.

Quote from: Andail on Wed 01/06/2005 19:56:01
It's definitely a hard question. I'm quite into politics, but I stand rather clueless when it comes to the constitution. The fact that both the communists and the extreme right seemed to unite in their big "non", makes it sort of hard to take a stand.

Sound like a very good reason to vote for it: if extremists hate it...

Result from the Netherlands: NO!
With a majority of about 57% the Netherlands has rejected the European Constitution.

Huh... I'm too young to take care of politics, so I don't have a clear opinion about EU Constitution.

Anyway...

Quote from: BorisZ on Wed 01/06/2005 19:22:12A: Most European countries that accepted Euro as it's currency have their market prices doubled (for instance Germany has changed the pricecs from 1 DEM to 1 E- before change, DEM was about 1/2 of Euro).

Pack of ciggles goes as an example: In Poland you can buy it to the tune of around 5 złotych (on average) ~ 1,2 E. The European prices are higher of course, so after a few years we'll pay a price around 12 złotych ~ 3 E for a pack. Where's the point? I doubt, that the average wages 'll increase so much. So everything 'll be just expensive.

I were in Italy last month and I took the amount of 100 E for a week (+/-) ~ 400 złotych. I must say, that these 10 E for a day (some of that 100 E went for gasoline, some tickets etc.) is -certainly- too little to "live fine". For 400 złotych in Poland you can buy, for example a quite good cellphone, 100 liters of gasoline or some hardware, such as a printer.

A sandwich at gas-stations in Italy costs ~ 3 E. In Poland it's 12 złotych - a quite good dinner. ;)

That doesn't have so much to do with Europe, as it has to do with Poland being a poor country (compared to Italy). BTW, with 100 â,¬ you can buy a very nice cellphone here (with a subscription), or a very good printer. You can even buy a DVD player, as said before, and nowadays, a 16x DVD burner (for PC).

Also, the price of anything at a gas station is internationally recognized as being a rip-off.

I can buy a decent baguette sandwidtch, and a tuna salad, and a can of Coke for 10 â,¬.

On another note, this entire debate reminds me why I study Economics, since without fail, anything said in the political arena about the subject is charlatanry.

On a brief note, it's sorta scary about how some of the people who complain about inflation the most are it's main beneficieries. Historically, unless you're a parasite living off interest, it's hyperinflation or a supply shock [ala 1973 and subsequent decade], you'll end up with a higher real wage [real meaning adjusted for inflation].

If you want deflation you can lose your job and live in the park for the rest of your life like the Japanese unemployed.


But hey, Turks aren't European and I liked my pentecostal holiday, and I object to the vaguely worded economic ideas on the basis that they're "anglo saxon", NON!

Well, we will live, we will see...

Quote from: scotch on Wed 01/06/2005 19:04:07
If you want something to impose limits to curtail the EU from turning into a "United States of Europe" (which is a rather paranoid thought, I think, but anyway...) then this would be the constitution to vote for. It clearly sets out what the EU is for and its limits at the start, essentially setting the status quo down in stone. If it comes to a vote here in the UK it'll get rejected, because it's from the EU, and people here don't have to read it to believe that it's all part of the plot to take over (even sensible people like CJ).

The reason I'd vote No to the constitution is because it would formally recognise the EU as being a "superstate" to the individual countries. Although it does also place limits on what the EU can do, which is a good thing, by adopting it the country would be seen to be "pro-EU" and would then find it impossible to leave.

What I really want is a referendum with four answers that go something like:
(A) Adopt the constitution
(B) Do not adopt the constitution and continue the EU as normal
(C) Downgrade the EU from a law-making body to a free trade area
(D) Get rid of the EU altogether

at least then people could honestly vote for the option that they believed in, rather than the constitution having to take all the flak.

At the end of the day, most people, myself included, see the EU as sucking up taxpayer's money, and giving little or nothing in return except for bizarre laws like the straight banana directive. Leaving the EU would free up billions and billions of pounds to be spent on schools and hospitals instead.

... which is obviously why UK was not one of the founding countries.  ;D


I actually love to tell the story of the beginnings of Europe. The first form of a European Union was the CECA, for “Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier” (European Coal & Steel Community), project proposed to the French government by Robert Schuman.

The focus of this community, coal and steel, was not without meaning. Schuman was a clever man. A European community project would've never been accepted by the bulk of the French government, for mere diplomatic values. Schuman (and the others working on the project) thus presented it as a way to keep on tabs on Germany's weapon construction (coal and steel are the base materials for artillery).

When talking of European construction, this is very rarely reminded, and is how I illustrate the “only bring forth arguments serving your theory” advice.

Pumaman ... you overestimate the capacity of the people to understand anything. First of all, a referendum, is a yes/no question. If there's multiple choice answers, it's not a referendum. Again, perhaps Brits are cleverer (in your voting habits, I mean) ... but in France the referendum has long been a popularity vote (and I don't mean sarcastically--it's just that I've rarely, if ever seen a referendum that wasn't a popular vote).

That is one of the criticism done to De Gaulle--that he was the one to forge the popular the idea that, in referenda, you aren't being asked whether you agree to the question, but whether you agree with the person asking it. His spectacular resignation in 1969, following the rejection of one very unimportant referendum, gave the French bad habits.

Chirac, and it's obvious in the introductory pages of the constitution, made all the efforts in the world to dissociate himself from De Gaulle in that regard, and clearly explain that the French should express themselves on the Constitution rather than Chirac.

Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 01/06/2005 23:50:22At the end of the day, most people, myself included, see the EU as sucking up taxpayer's money, and giving little or nothing in return

Well you're complaining that it doesn't do enough, but you're not willing to give it more power? I don't understand what you mean. Is it not illogical to say “I won't give power to the EU, because I doesn't have the power to do anything.”?

Quote from: Dowland on Thu 02/06/2005 00:28:27
First of all, a referendum, is a yes/no question. If there's multiple choice answers, it's not a referendum. Again, perhaps Brits are cleverer (in your voting habits, I mean) ... but in France the referendum has long been a popularity vote (and I don't mean sarcastically--it's just that I've rarely, if ever seen a referendum that wasn't a popular vote).

That's the trouble, if a referendum is a yes/no answer, it is bound to become a popularity vote so that people can give the government a bloody nose. If on the other hand it had a few different answers as I indicated, rather than "yes/no", people would actually have to think about what they were voting for.

Quote
Well you're complaining that it doesn't do enough, but you're not willing to give it more power? I don't understand what you mean. Is it not illogical to say “I won't give power to the EU, because I doesn't have the power to do anything.”?

I'm not complaining that it doesn't do enough. I'm complaining that it sucks up billions of pounds of taxpayer's money, and it all seems to disappear down a black hole. If it doesn't have the power to do anything, what is it managing to do with all the cash??

This whole constitution thing is slowly turning into parody of some sort.

Over here in Czech Republic it's not even clear whether a referendum will be held or the Parliament will decide.

Anyway I think that in general the Constitution is a good thing because almost all its content and rules are actually here already but not that prominently displayed to eyes of the public but scattered over numerous EU treaties. Yes, the Constitution gives EU legal subjectivity and formal signs of a state but really nothing new is substantial.

So when the time comes (and if) I will vote yes... but I have a feeling that by that time it will be just flogging a dead horse since *THIS* Constitution is dead IMO.

Quote from: Pumaman on Thu 02/06/2005 08:21:22I'm not complaining that it doesn't do enough. I'm complaining that it sucks up billions of pounds of taxpayer's money, and it all seems to disappear down a black hole. If it doesn't have the power to do anything, what is it managing to do with all the cash??

I honestly can't say I have an answer for you on that one.

But it makes me laugh to see that, although this could be a valid argument, none of the French used it (simply because they're used to paying a LOT of taxes!!).  ;D

BTW, from my (limited) trips to the UK ... I found that life there seems a bit costly. Was that just an impression?

The Pound is perennially over valued because of the use of inflation targeting by the reserve bank [they rise interest rates to stop inflation since they determine that as the main role of official interest rates] and subsequently demand amongst speculators and lenders for UK currency is always high, and the Pound is exchanged at a price which is higher than would be expected.

Thus, even if prices relative to UK wages remain low, they will appear expensive to foreigners, just like American goods appear very cheap to most countries now.

It's worth noting that the Big Mac Index (http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3503641) has the Euro further overpriced however.

I dont see too much into this whole France giving a big NON (mon-dieux!) to the EU Constitution, as many of you have said before, its just to piss-off the government. I mean many french people are pissed at Jack Chirac (or however you spell it).. because they believe that France is going towards a more english-oriented future, meaning that they opose English leadership.. if Tony Blair had kept his mouth shout and stopped saying that The EU Constitution was a big succes for England, then the French would have said Oui, to the damn thing.. (maybe im being a little simplistic..). But the point is that this isnt really a about The Constitution not being good for Europeans, no!!... its about European Politics and the fact that people dont know squat about what is going on, because simply put no-one really asked if they where ready to take the next step.

One day out-of-nowhere (for most Europeans who dont follow politics).. you have this proposal.. you dont know squat.. and all those who opose the government, get up and start screaming bloody-murder!!.. Who are you going to believe?.. The Ones who are making all the noise?.. or the ones who dont ask your permission to do something to your country?.. naturally you wont go and look up books and read the constitution, you'll just listen to the one whose making all the noise... why?

cause.. i truly belive this, individuals are smart.. they can understand and be reasoned with, but the masses are quite stupid.

i would vote NO, one the Constitution, why?... cause i want a joint effort, not just the top countries (England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy...) pushing something out so it can be passed. Im pro-constitution, but i want a resposible constitution that reponds to the needs of all europeans, not a constitution that holds me to a social-economic model being pushed by richer countries... that they themselves have huge differences.

Quote from: Sinister on Fri 03/06/2005 04:39:07
i would vote NO, one the Constitution, why?... cause i want a joint effort, not just the top countries (England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy...) pushing something out so it can be passed. Im pro-constitution, but i want a resposible constitution that reponds to the needs of all europeans, not a constitution that holds me to a social-economic model being pushed by richer countries... that they themselves have huge differences.

The Constitution actually tends to take power away from any one country trying to force its own agenda, by changing the voting to a simple majority instead of qualified majority, which always let the big countries gang up and stop somethign they didn't like.

It's funny, every time I see someone say "I'd vote No on the constitution becuase ..." the reason is ALWAYS somethign that isn't in the constitution. I sat down and read the thing yesterday, and there's nothing in there that makes the EU worse. Really. Some of it isn't as good as I might hope, but compared to the existing treaties its better. For goodenss sake, it has a "Bill of Rights" for example. Are you telling em you don't want your human rights protected?

Quote from: SSH on Fri 03/06/2005 08:51:10
For goodenss sake, it has a "Bill of Rights" for example. Are you telling em you don't want your human rights protected?

I am when it means that a burglar who breaks into my home has more "rights" than I do. I am when it means that a teacher cannot control their class because the kids have the "right" to behave like assholes.

The whole Human Rights business has caused far more disrespect in society than anything I can remember.

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.

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.

Quote from: Dowland on Wed 01/06/2005 21:28:07
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.

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.

[OFF TOPIC]

Quote from: Pumaman on Fri 03/06/2005 19:40:35the 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.

Quote from: Dowland on Sat 04/06/2005 13:59:47
[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"?

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

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.

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 04/06/2005 14:05:35
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.

Quote from: Rui "Brisby" Pires on Sat 04/06/2005 14:09:57Hell, 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.

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?

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?

Quote from: Dowland on Sat 04/06/2005 14:20:00

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 04/06/2005 14:05:35
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).

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 04/06/2005 14:21:19
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.

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 04/06/2005 14:28:08I 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.

Quote from: Dowland on Sat 04/06/2005 14:33:02
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.

Quote from: Dowland on Sat 04/06/2005 13:59:47
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.

QuoteNo. 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.

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?

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.

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  ;D ; though are faaaaar from being the first to misspell it!!)

Quote from: Dowland on Sat 04/06/2005 15:18:52
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Pumaman on Sat 04/06/2005 15:41:04Allowing prisoners to sit back and watch TV and read porn just makes them idle and no less likely to reoffend.

I couldn't agree more. However, to be honest and cynical, *training* prisoners into productive members of society, to help them reinsert into society (and thus be much less likely to "reoffend") costs a LOT more money than installing a TV in their rooms. I imagine the porn is paid for by the prisoners (and I was under the impression you weren't going to wilfully spend one fifth of your hardly earned salary to train convicts---I probably wouldn't).

QuoteHow is access to pornography a basic human right? It's a luxury item, and as such is a privilege, not a right.

I must say I was originally turned down by this line thought, because I thought you targeted only a certain "kind" of offensers. Now that I know that you do not, I personally have less objections, though objections I have nonetheless.

I don't believe porn is a luxury. Considering the convicts (theoritically) won't have sex for months, years, sometimes decades (especially in the case of pedophiles, BTW) ... how are they supposed to respond to their sexual needs? It's not because they're bad guys, that they don't have needs anymore, and sexuality can arguably be considered a basic need.

And what do you consider basic human rights? Could an isolation chamber represent basic human rights, according to you? And that begs the question, should we put all prisoners in isolations chambers? Better, should we put prisoners in those small cube cages, where there's no room to stand or sit, and you have to stay crouched for hours?

I am thinking that I've been talking of porn assuming that it was pedophile porn. If it was not, maybe the level of sickness in front of that specific case is not so high as I guessed, my arguments fall down.

Yes. Pedophilic porn is of course outlawed in all possible instances. And it was never question here whether it should be made legal or not.

[a small parenthesis : I'm going against what I've been saying here, but I'd say that regarding pedophilic porn, it's not always cut and clear ... I had a friend who's younger brother, when he was 14 (a couple years ago), shot himself with a webcam masturbating and penatrating himself with a pen and distributed it on a P2P network.

What is there to do? Are the people who downloaded the video guilty? Is the young brother guilty himself of distributing illegal pornography? Or is he judged incapable of discerning judgment? Perhaps the latter is an example in which common sense prevails over rules?]

Quote from: Dowland on Sat 04/06/2005 15:58:03
However, to be honest and cynical, *training* prisoners into productive members of society, to help them reinsert into society (and thus be much less likely to "reoffend") costs a LOT more money than installing a TV in their rooms. I imagine the porn is paid for by the prisoners (and I was under the impression you weren't going to wilfully spend one fifth of your hardly earned salary to train convicts---I probably wouldn't).

It's true that the cost is higher. But, as it is keeping a prisoner in jail costs in the region of $50,000 per prisoner per year. The extra cost of giving them proper training and teaching would be relatively small compared to the overall cost of being there, but would in theory be worthwhile by the amount of crime it would prevent.
But that's a completely different argument.

QuoteI don't believe porn is a luxury. Considering the convicts (theoritically) won't have sex for months, years, sometimes decades (especially in the case of pedophiles, BTW) ... how are they supposed to respond to their sexual needs? It's not because they're bad guys, that they don't have needs anymore, and sexuality can arguably be considered a basic need.

They can always pleasure themselves without needing porn. I'm sure you could find loads of people who aren't in jail who haven't had sex in months/years and yet don't need porn.
Sure, you could argue that some people do need porn to satisfy themselves. But if that's the case, where do you stop? For some people, porn won't do it -- do you then have to provide them with prostitutes because they have the right to fulfil their sexual needs?

Quote from: Pumaman on Sat 04/06/2005 17:47:12where do you stop? For some people, porn won't do it -- do you then have to provide them with prostitutes because they have the right to fulfil their sexual needs?

Crap. I really brought that one onto me, didn't I  :)

Quote
... BUT you cannot decide to strip such and such prisonner from such or such right...

I guess  I'm  a bit slow but it seems to me that incarceration itself denies one of the most basic of rights, to freely come and go as one pleases.   If I were given the choice I would prefer to give up porn rather than be incarcerated, as I suspect most people would. 

How can you justify stripping such an important right from individuals and and at the same time assert that the rights of the same individuals cannot be stripped when it comes to trivial matters.   It seems to me that , at least in coutries who laws are based upon Briytish Comon Law,  that convicted criminals  are in prision because they have deprived others of their rights and in doing so they have forfeited their rights.

Also I think re-habilitation is mostly touchy-feely crap.   Criminals for the most part commit crimes to make a living and serving some time is just the cost of doing business to them.  In the US a number of states passed "3 strikes and you're out" laws where three felony convictions gets you life without parole.   In those places the crime rate dropped significantly because it was the same gropup of people committing the crimes.  Once you start permantely taking them out of society the result is naturally less crime. 

Of course there are nut cases that don't have a profit motive but then they are are beyond rehabilitation any way and the sooner they are out of bussines the better. 

================
Back on topic.... EU Constitution from an outsider's point of view

1.  I was always skeptical because of the socialist leanings of most "old" European countries.   I didn't think it would take long for the realization to sink in that tax money would be, more or less permanently, flowing out of some countries and into others.   IMHO, socialism/collectivism/communism or whatever name you prefer does not scale very well much beyond a family grouping.  The larger the group the faster it fails.

2.  Also if there were going to be a central law making body, upon which country's law would the new laws be based?   Would they use British common law, the Napoleonic code, or some other tradition for their basis.   

3.  Also what language would such laws be written in?  Anyone who has ever negociated or executed a contract understands that every single word is important.  I can't see how laws could be flawlessly translated into a multitude of languages and  retain their percise meanings, which is of course a requirement.   Even if this were possible how would they be uniformily executed and interpreted in a multitude of cultures with a multitude of legal traditions? 

4.  From the outside looking in, it seems some of the wealthier countries such as France and Germany desire to increase their geo-policitcal and ecconomic power and more or less run things overthere.  Many countries less prosperous are eager to go along for the ride so as to reap the ecconomic benefits.    It seems to me the whole thing, a centralized European goverment,  is pretty much unworkable. 

5.  From the comments in this thread it would appear that the proposed constitution was severely flawed.   It seems that it was mainly about policy and not about fundamental principals.   Probaly it was purposefully vague so that nobody had to commit to anything ans so that people in different counttries could be told different things.

======
Anyway those are my thoughts from a relatively uninformed point of view.