myata

Well, what I mean by "equal" is something like "everybody has the same rights to access service as deemed reasonble by the society". E.g. elementary or high school education. Not "exact same service" as it would be impossible to achieve. So as long as my kid can go to a public elementary school, there's no issue with the private ones. Simply because it (the society) has not much control over the over two factors, it'd be impractical to make any formal requirement to guarantee anything like "equal chance of success" (what radical left is dreaming about) as opposed to equal opportunity to succeed. This is not to say that it (the society) should not attempt to mitigate negative effect of the other factors, to the extent that is possible and practical.

UN is a vast organisation with wide variety of mandates some of which (e.g. WHO or Atomic agency) seem to be working well. The main issues which are also interrelated, are legitimacy of UNSC and enforcement of its decisions. UNSC in its current form is absolutely skewed toward West (3 of 5 permanent members = 60% of veto holding power representing less than 10% of this planets' population). Because of that, it's decisions are often suspected of bias and interference and have problems finding resources to enforce them. The answer - I don't know. It's very unlikely that any of the permanent members would voluntarily agree to part with the seat. And as for adding new members - the arguments can go on forever.

All three are necessary constituents of success. To what extent? Not sure if it's possible to define exact measure, but saying that any one is far more important than others? Let's take extreme cases: no opportunity (i.e, no education, no access to decent jobs, no social services, no medical care) - how much chance of success one'd have in life? Adverse circumstances (very serious disability affecting one's chances to learn skills, move, find employment) - can you say you'd still have same or similar chance to succeed as someone who's able bodied? Sufficient would work fine if there were someone we could always consult with about what's "sufficient" for this particular individual. As such a godlike creature doesn't seem to be available, equality is the next best options.

I would define success as a function of 1) opportunity (general chance to succeed), 2) personal input and 3)circumstances (out of one's control). These will vary with the individual's progress in life. One can't expect much of personal input from a child, so much of the upbringing problems will fall into the circumstance domain. An adult (other than disabled) has to bear responsiblity for their actions, so circumstance factor should be limited to grave situations beyond one's control (such as e.g. disability). We generally agree that the society must provide #1 in equal (as far as possible) measure to everyone, but it has far less influence over the other two factors. To what measure it should be responsible for the effects of those, and as a consequence, for the success (as opposed to opportunity) of each individual, is a real and interesting question.

Whatever (just don't try to tell me what I know or think, you don't seem to be good at it). There's no point in discussing anything with a drone who only repeats the same line over and again, ignoring (or shall I say having nothing to refute?) legitimate arguments and diverting discussion by putting their own interpretations as words of opponents. I guess you can go on like that forever (here's one example how: while (forever) repeat every day: "I'm right because I did not say I'm wrong" ) and in that sense you do win, adieu. (I could have come up with an equally informative answer: while (forever) repeat every day: "No you wrong because I'm saying so" ) but I conceed the priviledge all to yourself.

Opportunity and the result aren't the same thing. Simple illustration is a lottery.

You said that the UNSC was a 'controlled highly influenced body' Possibly now you might set this straight by telling the forum who you feel they are controlled by. Would it possibly be (as you refered to the US in another post describing why the UNSC is not a court) the 'alledged perpetrators'? The only thing I need to prove is that I never said "controlled by US" and you quoted or presented me as if I did. If you didn't understand the point (which I later clarified) you were free to ask for clarifications. As I said earlier much of your analysis is lacking in logic, so I'm not interested in your far fetching interpretations. If you have a direct unmodified quote of me as saying the above please post it here now. Otherwise, adieu.

That itself is a lie, isn't it? You were provided with the address of the original post that caused the issue, as well as explanation of your misrepresentation. I'm sorry but I have to conclude that you either have trouble reading, or deliberately wouldn't notice. That makes any further argumentation pointless.

1. Obviously, in your definition any kind of kangaroo gathering (Saddam's own included) would qualify as full and fair court of justice. There's a common understanding however what a reasonable system of justice is and it would include all of the elements I listed and probably more. Now you're admitting that UNSC does not satisfy any of these. Just as was pointed out. And anyways, one shouldn't wait a week to respond to a belated and still non existent argument. 2. I posted example way above (post #78) which explains how someone would challenge an offending action in a proper court of justice. It wouldn't involve UNSC other than as a witness. The judge(s) would consider the resolution in question, along with other actions and arguments to determine its intent and decide whether the action of the coalition were in full compliance with the resolution and international law. 3. Nowhere in my post did I say "controlled by US". What you assumed is entirely your problem. BTW mixing up quotes from different posts is also highly misleading. Anyways I'm not going to spend any more of my time on analysis of "who said what". Finally, I believe that it was already said before and I'll say it again: there're serious questions and doubts about what coalition did in Iraq; if there's no legitimate legal process that can lead to a resolution of this matter, it will be left for interpretation by everyone according to their understanding. You can't say that it was legal by default just as I can't prove it was illegal. Justice cannot be achieved in this case.

Personally I agree that it wouldn't be easy (and may very well be counter-productive) to regulate "rights" issues in what's considered to be private domains, i.e.: individual life (can one discriminate inviting guests for a party?) , business practices, employment (by private business), etc. The few exceptions I can think of would be: 1) where practice instigates hate or violence (i.e. falls under hate laws); 2) where public is involved in any way (e.g. property / grants or sponsoring); 3) where essential service is denied by exercising the practice. That being said, I recall there's been "pay equity" ruling against Bell, which is a private business. So, it looks like there's some kind of legislation that can enforce rights related policies even in private domains. It would be interesting to hear from someone knowledgeable about the scope of that legislation.

I listed a number of arguments why UNSC is not a court and you didn't challenge one of them. All we have is your word what it is - second time (counting the post to which I'm replying, to be precise). Looks like you believe that if you say it enough times, it'll miraculously become true. But for me, enough is enough. You've had ample opportunity to respond in a logical manner and chose not to. The matter is closed, unless you want to start a new thread in which you'll follow common rules of discussion. For a change, a fresh idea. The way I understand it, only a state which has been a victim of aggression can bring action to the court against the agressor, and that state ceased to exist (or will never do it as a puppet government of the US). But I'm no expert and cannot contend that it's necessarily so. Would be interesting to hear from others here, would it be possible, even if theoretically, for another state to bring charges against the coalition to the ICJ? What I mean is that (for the x... and last time) that only a court of justice would have legitimate authority to hear and and judge these matters. UNSC is not a court (see above), ergo it cannot make this judgement. For the personal matter, check post #77 (as the more recent example I didn't go much further and I have no desire to reread the entire thread).

I pray you're right because I'll never vote Concervative, Ignatieff or Rae!

Uhm, no. If you just go back on this thread there'll be no problem finding those (hint: usually begins with words like "please show me where I ..."). I can count at least two such instances but I'm not sure now it's all as it's been quite long thread. Re the rest of the post - sorry, but won't work either. It simply reiterates statements made over several days (first one dated Oct 11), none with any reasonable response from your side. For all I know about rules of fair discussion, failure to challenge an argument raised by opponent in a reasonable time equals acknowledgement thereof. I think I just leave it at that. I do not enjoy, nor see any value in cyclical polemics one sees so often on some boards. I'm no expert in the international law and cannot contribute to the legal argument around the resolution, however I can state that 1) there are seroius doubts that the actions of the coalition were legitimate with respect to the international law; and 2) there's currently no legitimate body to resolve these doubts in the common civilized sense of justice. I believe that both points were clearly demonstrated or proven, so there isn't much else I can or am willing to contribute here.

My apologies. Misinterpreted or misreported would be a better word. And again, I take it, you have no problem with the rest of my post? We'll leave it at that then.

There would be by-laws against excrementing on public properteis and internals rules on private. You just can't seem to get it right. Make up your mind. Either every single thing people do must be legislated, because otherwise there'd always be a risk of inconformity, or people should be allowed to dress in what they like?

I'm not an expert in the international law and only would like to understand one point: with the well developed body of international law and no lack of experts therein, how do legal arguments get resolved? The Iraq affair demonstrates it very clearly: there's strong opinion on both sides, but without a resolution (i.e. hearing in a court which is recognised as legitimate and authorised) the matter will be in suspense forever?

That speaks VOLUMES about your understanding of freedom. What other aspects of private life would you like to be dictated by the law?

You know what? I was thinking this way and (in this particular instance) I have to agree with you. Hard as I tried, I just can't find any better explanation - he did sound like one, and a pompuos one at that, too.

Sorry, KrustyKidd, but I very clearly outlined why UNSC cannot be considered a court of law in the sense of justice accepted in civilized democaratic societies in one of the prevous posts. As you failed to challenge one single point of that post, I take it as your acceptance of my argument. I'm not really interested in trading "yes it is - no it's not" kind of polemics. The case is closed on that - you and myself agreed or accepted that UNSC is not a court of law in the common sense of justice. One thing missing though was logic and honest discussion. You misquoted your opponents and did not answer direct questions. No quotes and links can make out for that. You're right there isn't much sense in continuing in this line of polemics.

All wrong of course. There's no law to not wear a veil. Unless you'd like to make one.

I just heard him (Ignatieff) on the House this morning and by the goodness of God (in whom I don't believe) I just can't make sense of the guy. "I won't loose any sleep" - "It was a war crime" - "Everybody committed war crimes" - "I'm a friend " - I'm everybody's friend ?? He flips on a dime, no on a microchip. Then the interviewer asks him about Iraq. Another puzzle: "I thought they (Iraqis) deserved better than Saddam even when Bush Jr. was walking under the table" - "Americans committed every possible mistake and betrayed them (Iraqis)" - " I now hope they somehow make it out on there own" (quotes aren't exact but should be pretty close in meaning; there should be a transcript somewhere on CBC too). Ho How do one figures that out? Was it OK to invade but not on the WMD pretence but to liberate? Do those mistakes (never explained them) make all the difference? I.e., scenario 1 - complete and glorious triumph of democracy in Iraq - Ignatieff and Co are victorious as its "professors" (pun intended). Scenario 2 - not so obvious triumph of democracy in Iraq - Ignatieff scorns coalition for the mistakes and "betrayal" (whatever that supposed to mean?). Sounds like win-win. Can anybody explain him to me?

I think the main idea is that if there's any reasonable grounds to expect that a recidivist violent offender will reoffend again, the crown should have a tool to achieve it without undue stress (as the trend or pattern of violent behaviour would have already been established by the previous convictions). It doesn't have to be automatic, just that if the crown comes up with such a request, it'll be up to the criminal to convince the court that once released, they won't be a risk to the community. The cost or general crime down arguments absolutely miss the point. The factor here is the risk of violent offence by a particular individual. Leaving them out on the street while knowing that they were at a significant risk to reoffend would be like leaving a bridge with a known structural defect in operation on the presumption that 1) it'd be to expensive to fix and 2) general trend in bridge failures has been downward.

You're actually bringing whole two good points: "conform" and "freedom". One has to conform to qualify for freedom? Or it (the freedom) also means the right to not conform? Which of the two?

They don't have to prove negative. To me, they'd only need to prove that leaving them in the streets won't represent any measurable risk to the public. Going over the specifics of the previous crimes it shouldn't be very hard to establish with reasonable certainty.

Well, yeah, each case must be judged on its own merits. One of them being, if someone's was convicted of a violent crime three times, the likelihood of them doing it again could not and should not be ignored (it's called a trend or a pattern). Which isn't the case the first time, when it could have been a one time fluke or aberration of behaviour. Giving a perfectly "correct" sentence first time around would require no less than Godly knowledge of the person's mind and the future. Giving the prosection right tools to put dangerous criminals away from the streets for as long as it's necessary, seems like a reasonable idea. I agree with FTA lawyer though that it shouldn't be automatic. At the very least, the crown should make a submission to make this designation following the third conviction. Then, the criminal (with their lawyer) should have to prove before the court that it should not be imposed. That would include proving that there's no identifiable public risk. I'd find this reasonable and fair.