Slashdot Mirror

I'd say Parliamentary democracy with the English language based on common law is a British legacy, even the friggen Parliament House was built by the British.

"Australia was actually created by people running away from Britain because of persecution"

I thought it was built on the backbreaking labour of English convicts, mostly from London, you can hear their cockney influence on the modern Australian accent, they started sending convicts to Oz instead of Georgia.

"What about the natives of Australia that got wipped out!

I'm sure the aborigines swap notes with the Native Americans, to them the distinction between English/British, Yankee, Australian is rather arbitrary, they're all the same white ass bitches!

Anyway, back to persecution, so why they these people run to a country that was controlled by the British until 1901? The legacy of this is still apparent, see flag, see head of state.

Problem is... not being anti-British involves not being anti-English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh, you can't pick and choose.

That's a bad load of anti-Indian slander from 'Anonymous Coward'. Just about the only thing right in his post was that India should focus on improving life for her downtrodden.

Here's why the post's wrong: First: India is a constitutionally secular country, not a Hindu one. (I myself am an Indian Christian, a recent convert from Hinduism). The Caste system is illegal, and practising it prosecuted under Indian law. The implementation of these laws, however, is not thorough -- inefficiency and corruption plague the Indian administration and justice systems. (Though recently, things have been improving faster)

Secondy, as far as coveting Kashmir goes, the state of Jammu and Kashmir legally merged with India sometime in 1948. A UN resolution passed then, required Pakistan to withdraw it's forces, and let Kashmir come under complete *Indian* control. India was then to host a plebiscite over the entire state. However Pakistan never withdrew... and the rest is history. You can verify this here (see page 11).

Lastly, getting down to the main topic -- I think using a Carnivore-like system to promiscuously trawl for information without a court order is wrong. An analogy would be a policeman habitually entering into people's homes to check for thieves. And I also think that the spook (it must be one of ours) who released this to our media was simply indulging in wishful thinking (fundamental rights are -- we don't have that many supercomputers.

That's a bad load of anti-Indian slander from 'Anonymous Coward'. Just about the only thing right in his post was that India should focus on improving life for her downtrodden.

Here's why the post's wrong: First: India is a constitutionally secular country, not a Hindu one. (I myself am an Indian Christian, a recent convert from Hinduism). The Caste system is illegal, and practising it prosecuted under Indian law. The implementation of these laws, however, is not thorough -- inefficiency and corruption plague the Indian administration and justice systems. (Though recently, things have been improving faster)

Secondy, as far as coveting Kashmir goes, the state of Jammu and Kashmir legally merged with India sometime in 1948. A UN resolution passed then, required Pakistan to withdraw it's forces, and let Kashmir come under complete *Indian* control. India was then to host a plebiscite over the entire state. However Pakistan never withdrew... and the rest is history. You can verify this here (see page 11).

Lastly, getting down to the main topic -- I think using a Carnivore-like system to promiscuously trawl for information without a court order is wrong. An analogy would be a policeman habitually entering into people's homes to check for thieves. And I also think that the spook (it must be one of ours) who released this to our media was simply indulging in wishful thinking (fundamental rights are -- we don't have that many supercomputers.

Oh, hold it. This is India. They outlaw Christian missionaries (and often murder them).

Which joker moderated this bigotry up? India's constitution grants equality to all religions.

It's easy to make flippant statements such as this. How do you explain all the church burnings in the USA? Let the person who has not sinned cast the first stone...

A few other countries that have written Constitutions: Ireland (a neighbor to your country, surely you'd know at least a little bit about it), Australia, France, Republic of South Africa, Japan, Syria> , Belgium (in French), Cambodia, , Slovenia, Russia, Pakistan, India, Fiji

And finally, China

Just because some guy with a Pakistani or Indian sounding name says that Pakistan is breaching the line doesn't mean its _just_ Pakistan.

Read the press briefing at the Whitehouse on July 4, 1999, after Bill Clinton had talks with the Pakistani prime minister and told him to get his forces back behind the Line of Control.

Let me apply this situation to our own situation in the 1700s. What if France hadn't helped us against Britian?

France did what they did because of their enmity with Britain. What about Quebec today? Should Quebec secede from Canada? What about Ireland, and Scotland? What about the Basques in Spain? All of these countries have a democractic framework.

I'd like to see how much of what the Indian muslims want their government to do gets done. India is democratic only if your Hindu.

False. Fundamental Rights are guaranteed to all under the Indian Constitution.

if India is so open to religions, then why is the government funding a campaign to drive out catholics? Please explain. We have see reports about 6 churches being destoryed and christians being persecuted, please explain why India is doing this?

Please provide unbiased, reliable, verifiable sources of your claims. It can be argued that the United States, with its many church burnings[1] [2], is a greater threat to Christianity.

I disgree with your statements on the Muslims of East Pakistan being abused by West Pakistan. It sounds like more FUD to me.

Read about Bangladesh's independence, especially about the holocaust and the US involvement.

...and us pissing off another country or two sitting on the security council.

This is a real danger. US actions have made the UN and Security Council increasingly irrelevant in the last few years. The US government attitude runs on the lines of I'm taking the ball home if you don't play by my rules. Dues to the tune of millions of dollars to the UN have been witheld. Continuing action against Iraq is being undertaken with a rather elastic view of previous Security Council resolutions. The Kosovo intervention was without the Security Council's approval(since Russia would have vetoed any military action). This is going to make other countries justifiably scared. Can the EU expect to be bombed in the future if the banana dispute is not resolved in favour of the US? Independent-minded countries like France and China will be giving serious thought to countering the growing US influence.