Irish pastor on trial for 'insulting Islam'

[Father Heathen]

There are no internationally agreed total rights of free speech.
during the McCarthy hearings it was clear that the USA did not subscribe to them either.

And the McCarthy era is looked back upon with contempt and regarded as an injustice.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How naïve and short-sighted. A constitution is a legal document that protects and ensure your rights and liberty. However, those who don't value their rights and liberty and take them for granted don't really deserve to retain them, anyway. Keep in mind that it's the level of freedoms that separates the great nations from the miserable, backwards cesspits. Perhaps in some strange way people find comfort beneath a boot heel?

We sort of set up the Rights and freedoms most other countries now take for granted.
Over the Past 2000 years we have gone from nothing in the way of freedom,Through Magna carta and the common law.
All are freedoms are based on established Law, not a written constitution. Every so often Parliament tries to go too far with new laws, and then the courts throw them out again.
Parliament can get pretty unhappy about that, but that is the way it all works.

When circumstances change and old laws become redundant parliament can revoke them, but even then most laws need to be tried in court to fully establish them. Unlike the USA the courts are not part of government. In many respects they are superior.

A written constitution fixes things in time and finds change in circumstances difficult to accommodate. Our system is far older and has learnt how to be flexible centuries ago.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

And the McCarthy era is looked back upon with contempt and regarded as an injustice.

It still happened under the constitution. with the force of law

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Irish courts need to lay down the gavel and pick up the trowel and mind only their potato fields.

Denial of free speech is by far a greater evil than merely voicing an "offensive" opinion.

In a free and enlightened world, people should be able to think and believe what they want, and be able to freely voice such. If someone says something that is irrational and inaccurate, you correct it not with censorship and castigation but with education, debate, and discourse. Upholding our rights and liberty is of far more importance and value than trying to prevent potential 'butthurt', so let the tears flow.

Through out the UK we can study, read, think, debate and believe what we like. But Just as in the USA there are limits to free speech proscribed in law for the general good. and the safety of the population. These freedoms are not protected by a Constitution that needs to be interpreted, but by explicit laws.
There is no censor ship or approval system monitored by the police. Each complaint must be brought and tried individually on its merit.

This is exactly what is happening in the NI case. The court will decide if there is a case to answer and/or give a verdict.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How naïve and short-sighted. A constitution is a legal document that protects and ensure your rights and liberty. However, those who don't value their rights and liberty and take them for granted don't really deserve to retain them, anyway. Keep in mind that it's the level of freedoms that separates the great nations from the miserable, backwards cesspits. Perhaps in some strange way people find comfort beneath a boot heel?

And it's naive and short sighted to believe a written constitution will protect your rights. No matter what, your rights extend only as far as those ruling will allow, your rights are subject to change, and you are not guaranteed to have the same rights tomorrow. Written or not, someone can step in tomorrow and take them all away.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These freedoms are not protected by a Constitution that needs to be interpreted, but by explicit laws.

- a written constitution IS an explicit law.
- ALL laws need to be interpreted. This is made easier by a prevailing law (i.e. a constitution) that guides the interpreters on how to resolve the inevitable discrepancies and contradictions between lower laws.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

- a written constitution IS an explicit law.
- ALL laws need to be interpreted. This is made easier by a prevailing law (i.e. a constitution) that guides the interpreters on how to resolve the inevitable discrepancies and contradictions between lower laws.

The American constitution and the laws that flow from it regularly need clarification by the supreme court.
The resulting state laws are so individual that foreigners and even interstate travellers can be caught out.

Scottish law is entirely different to the law in England and wales. And is based on the French system, from their traditional alliance with France.
Norther Ireland have not adopted all English laws and tend to be a century behind in some matters.
All British laws are subject to EU law in various ways.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The American constitution and the laws that flow from it regularly need clarification by the supreme court.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has a full docket as well.

The resulting state laws are so individual that foreigners and even interstate travellers can be caught out.

... which isn't that different than the situation you describe with Scottish versus English versus Northern Irish laws.

It also isn't a result of having a written constitution; it's a result of their federalist system of government. A United States with an unwritten federal constitution would be even more of a mess.

Consider Canada, which has a written constitution, including a written Charter of Rights and Freedoms that explicitly enumerates the rights of its citizens. What disadvantages do you think Canada has by taking this route instead of the British route?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has a full docket as well.


... which isn't that different than the situation you describe with Scottish versus English versus Northern Irish laws.

It also isn't a result of having a written constitution; it's a result of their federalist system of government. A United States with an unwritten federal constitution would be even more of a mess.

Consider Canada, which has a written constitution, including a written Charter of Rights and Freedoms that explicitly enumerates the rights of its citizens. What disadvantages do you think Canada has by taking this route instead of the British route?

The USAstarted off with the English legal system, and is still based on English common law and uses it for precedent. The Constitution was applied as another layer not as a substitute.
Canada was founded using both French an English law. A constitution was probably the only way to bridge that gap.

Scotland never has operated under English law.
Northern Ireland is too young to have established much of a distinctive system.
But where as it has come under direct rule from the British parliament on a number of times since its establishment.
its legal system has remaind independent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The USAstarted off with the English legal system, and is still based on English common law and uses it for precedent. The Constitution was applied as another layer not as a substitute.
Canada was founded using both French an English law. A constitution was probably the only way to bridge that gap.

Scotland never has operated under English law.
Northern Ireland is too young to have established much of a distinctive system.
But where as it has come under direct rule from the British parliament on a number of times since its establishment.
its legal system has remaind independent.

Are you so blinded by jingoism that you can't provide a straight answer?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Are you so blinded by jingoism that you can't provide a straight answer?

That is as simple an answer as you are likely to get from anyone, nothing jingoistic about it. All perfectly factual?
A constitution has to be based on law not wishful thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is as simple an answer as you are likely to get from anyone, nothing jingoistic about it.

Simple and non-responsive. Are you going to actually answer the question? What disadvantage is there of a written constitution?

And just for clarity:

- the mere fact that a country has a wriiten constitution does not mean that every difference between it and Britain is because of its written constitution.
- the fact that a country is different from Britain does not mean that the other country is at a disadvantage.

A constitution has to be based on law not wishful thinking.

An unwritten constitution is based on nothing but wishful thinking.

 

[Revoltingest]

The USAstarted off with the English legal system, and is still based on English common law and uses it for precedent. The Constitution was applied as another layer not as a substitute.
Canada was founded using both French an English law. A constitution was probably the only way to bridge that gap.

Scotland never has operated under English law.
Northern Ireland is too young to have established much of a distinctive system.
But where as it has come under direct rule from the British parliament on a number of times since its establishment.
its legal system has remaind independent.

Things are more complicated in Louisiana, which is heavily infected with French law.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Things are more complicated in Louisiana, which is heavily infected with French law.

There is a lot to be said for the french legal system, in some respects it works better than the English one.
This is also true of the Scottish derivative.
The french system is to be found in almost as many countries as is the English one.
Systems found in Scandinavia are at least as old and just as effective..

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a lot to be said for the french legal system, in some respects it works better than the English one.
This is also true of the Scottish derivative.
The french system is to be found in almost as many countries as is the English one.
Systems found in Scandinavia are at least as old and just as effective..

What do you prefer about the froggish approach to justice?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

-10ths_Penguin, post: 4552327, member: 13455"]Simple and non-responsive. Are you going to actually answer the question? What disadvantage is there of a written constitution?

And just for clarity:

- the mere fact that a country has a wriiten constitution does not mean that every difference between it and Britain is because of its written constitution.
- the fact that a country is different from Britain does not mean that the other country is at a disadvantage.


An unwritten constitution is based on nothing but wishful thinking.

The disadvantage of a written constitution is that it is very difficult for it to change with changing times. However you might consider this to be an advantage.

an unwritten constitution is based on Law and changes with it, as circumstances change.

Britain and the USA are different for many reasons including history, changes in public opinion, changes in law, and differences in size. And probably mostly because of the difference in our political systems.

Our legal systems and basic laws are still remarkably similar as they are based on the same common law. Of course individual laws have diverged, not least because of your constitution.
Your penal system if very different.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What do you prefer about the froggish approach to justice?

The French system is not adversarial, based on a battle between advocates, it is based on the discover of the facts with the judge or judges playing the major part in this.

The English system is far more histronic and this is even more so in the American one. Judgement is more based on persuasion than evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The disadvantage of a written constitution is that it is very difficult for it to change with changing times. However you might consider this to be an advantage.

I do.

Edit: it means that fundamental rights aren't easy to erase.

an unwritten constitution is based on Law and changes with it, as circumstances change.

How is this different from having no constitution at all?

Britain and the USA are different for many reasons including history, changes in public opinion, changes in law, and differences in size. And probably mostly because of the difference in our political systems.

Our legal systems and basic laws are still remarkably similar as they are based on the same common law. Of course individual laws have diverged, not least because of your constitution.
Your penal system if very different.

My penal system? I'm not American.

 

[Revoltingest]

The French system is not adversarial, based on a battle between advocates, it is based on the discover of the facts with the judge or judges playing the major part in this.

The English system is far more histronic and this is even more so in the American one. Judgement is more based on persuasion than evidence.

Does advocacy play a role?
I see it as essential, even in a less adversarial environment.

The major problems I see with our tort system......
- There is no sanction against frivolous, SLAPP, or vexatious suits.
- The system requires only a dispute of facts to proceed to court. Evidence isn't required.
- The system is lengthy, costly & cumbersome.
- Lawyers, & particularly judges are not held very accountable for misbehavior.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This is quie interesting...http://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html

This answers many of both your questions.
It seems to be edited by a protest legal faction about the workings of American law.
It is in defense of the common law that protects the constitution.
as aginst tort and commercial low and other law that side steps it.