The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Oh well, so all those law books I read must have been wrong, then. Guess I'll just have to resume the normal position of head down, arse up, cheeks spread and gob shut.
.
Parliament can pass any laws it wants but that doesn't mean I have to comply. The idea that only parliament can make law leads to things like the Holocaust, forced sterilisation and the Spanish Inquisition. Parliament is comprised of human beings just like you or me, with no more powers or rights than the rest of us. To believe that these people have supremacy is to believe that everyone else is insignificant and powerless.
.
Still, if that's what people want then that's what they'll get.

[ZenArcade]

Shark, of course you don't have to comply (you have free will); how ever if the individual chooses not to comply with the law then they are subject to the penalties commensurate with such non compliance. Z

[The Legendary Shark]

So, you regard non-compliance as being no different from criminality? That means that if the government passes a law requiring me to kill my neighbour I would be just as guilty for refusing to comply with that law as I would be for killing my neighbour under my own authority.
.
Do we not all have a right, even an obligation, to oppose unlawful legislation? I think that we do. I think that we must.

[ZenArcade]

Shark, I do regard non compliance as different from criminality, the law makers and enforcers don't. I didn't regard the poll tax (I lived in London back then and marched against it) as good law; I didn't regard the myriad laws in force in NI when I was young as good law and opposed those (legally).
Nothing but endless public pressure on the law makers changed the stance on these bad laws. The whole thing about them is they are unenforcable because they are bad, both in moral intent and usually their basic construction and are generally ended by way of protest and or testing in either national or European Courts.
The concept of extreme laws such as that used in your example are normally procluded by constutional ordinance again on a national level or a European level. 
So to sum up both you, I and the commonweal in general have not alone a right but an obligation to resist bad law. Z

[Trout]

Parliament is comprised of human beings just like you or me, with no more powers or rights than the rest of us. To believe that these people have supremacy is to believe that everyone else is insignificant and powerless.
.
Still, if that's what people want then that's what they'll get.

Exactly. It's all about democracy. I expect this thread contains opinions about the issue, but the idea is that people express their views democratically, and that is the basis upon which Parliament passes laws.

[The Legendary Shark]

So, for the minority, or those who vote for the losers, there are no rights under the law? That's just "might makes right", isn't it?

[Trout]

So, for the minority, or those who vote for the losers, there are no rights under the law? That's just "might makes right", isn't it?

Close to giving up here.

Duly elected representatives are there to act on behalf of all people in their constituency, however they voted. It's a pledge that's often made in election night victory speeches.

[ZenArcade]

Shark, how can a person who chooses not to vote or votes for the losing party have no rights under the law. At the start of each parliamentary cycle all laws in place are not negated and a tranche of new laws put in place by the governing party.
The governing party rules and indeed legislates within a framework that being a constution (written or unwritten). Western constitutions were framed by our forbearers for the very purpose of enshrining certain immutable rights for the citizens of the state. Z

[NapalmKev]

I think what the Shark means is that those who vote for the losers will not get full representation, purely because the winning/opposite party had no intention of dealing with the issues that said voters wanted!

I take the Trouts point about elected officials having to represent their whole community, but I still feel they will push their own party's agenda over the wants/needs of the wider community.

Cheers

[Richmond Clements]

So, for the minority, or those who vote for the losers, there are no rights under the law?

Seriously - you honestly think that is what's being said? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting here?

[The Legendary Shark]

Don't give up, Trouty, I'm enjoying this debate.
.
That's all very well in theory, but the truth is that if 51% of the people (who bother to participate) vote for a party who pledges to, say, ban fox hunting then 49% of the people have no right to hunt foxes, even if they've been doing it for centuries..
.
Again, that's not law, it's mob rule.
.
And, as a snide aside, since when have we believed election night victory speeches?

[The Legendary Shark]

"No rights under the law" was a poor choice of words on my part. "No choice but to accept new legislation" would have been more accurate, I think.
.
Sorry about that.

[Trout]

And, as a snide aside, since when have we believed election night victory speeches?

Since I got to know people who make them, and decided I like, respect and believe some of this people.

It's all well and good to make radical statements on the internet, but it's quite another thing to invest time and energy in the political process in a positive way and to try to effect change. Leaving aside any cynicism about British political parties, I have more respect for someone who engages with the public and offers themself as their potential representative than a man who refuses to participate in society because he has unusual political views.

Arguing with bailiffs through the letterbox is not participating positively in society, in my view.

[Hawkmumbler]

'Shots fired'

[The Legendary Shark]

No, a bailiff arguing with me through my letterbox is not participating positively with society. (I know that's not what you meant but I just thought I'd turn it around.)
.
And now it's bedtime - the nightshift beckons!