Slashdot Mirror

without comparing them to other executive orders, how can you classify those in any meaningful way? In fact, the usnews link doesn't even make the case that the EO creates a new law nor contravenes existing law. It's just a bunch of impassioned statements for or against. Reading it carefully, he's choosing to focus on enforcing certain portions of immigration over others. The only interesting thing is the deferments, which there isn't enough about to make any meaningful statement. If he had truly overstepped his bounds or done anything you claim, a Republican congress certainly would have passed legislation to counter his orders.

I have to add a comparison, BUSH's EO for military trials and you can always review certain actions such as asserting that the prisoners were not subject to the Geneva Conventions which seems an interesting twist on legality, as the US is subject to said conventions as a signatory.

In France you are not innocent until being proven guilty. If you are suspect, you are arrested, jailed, and investigated, in that order.

From the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" :

"9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law."

And wikipedia tells us : "According to the preamble of the Constitution of the French Fifth Republic (adopted on 4 October 1958, and the current constitution), the principles set forth in the Declaration have constitutional value. Many laws and regulations have been canceled because they did not comply with those principles as interpreted by the Conseil Constitutionnel ("Constitutional Council of France") or by the Conseil d'État ("Council of State")."

See also "French Law Presumes Accused Innocent", letter to the editor of the New York Times by Michael H. Davies Prof. of Law, Cleveland State U. Cleveland

In fact there is. The most supreme text in law is the Constitution, and its preamble is the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which at article 9 states:

"As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law."

Of course, world-wide, we have different laws.

Hateful speech is not illegal.

See R. v. Keegstra. In Canada at least, you do not have an unlimited right to free speech, even if you are not targeting a specific person.

tl,dr: Making hateful statements against a particular identifiable group is illegal in Canada.

[in the U.S. Constitution,] There is no provision on juridical persons. As for natural persons, key rights-related provisions including the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments), and the 14th Amend. due process and equal protection clauses, are phrased as applying to "all persons." These rights therefore have been construed as offering substantial protections to non-citizens residing within the U.S.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1791 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.

You do not understand the point of S1. The point of S1 is that laws (e.g. hate speech laws) CAN BE PASSED which limit your free speech and this does not infringe on your charter rights of S2.

See for example R. v. Keegstra

Donating money is normally just a waste of your own money; little of it gets to other countries, and even less of it does any good. Giving money is a largely irrational response to poverty, and makes little difference.

I agree, I'd rather teach a person to fish than give them one.

The correct answer is to make it easier for them to sell their products to us, or make it easier for them to immigrate over to the West.

While making it easier to sale products will help it'd help more if the US, EU, Japan, and other developed nations didn't give farmers and big agribusinesses hugh farm subsidies. In 2004 the US gave $47 billion in subsidies. But the EU and Japan gave even more, $133 and $49 billion respectively. In the US Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, are poster children for corporate welfare. ADM is a great example of a corporate welfare queen. These subsidies allow these businesses to export food to sell in the Third World cheaper than Third World farmers can grow food.

There aren't a lot of resources in many places in the Third World, and it seems pretty pointless to try and continue the settlements.

Actually there's plenty of resources in the Third World. Some, not all but some, of the problems the Third World has is from the Washington Consensus and Neoliberal policies. Other problems stem from natural resources. The abundance of a natural resource can and frequently does lead to conflicts and fighting. Coltan, used in cellphones, for instance. Rebel groups there fight to control the mining of coltan along with copper, diamonds, gold, and other natural resources. In the Niger Delta of Nigeria rebels are fighting over a share of money from oil. The Bushmen of Africa is another good example. In Botswana they are being forced off their ancestral lands so mining companies can mine for diamonds.

Heck some US based multinational corporations are being sued, under the Alien Tort Claim Act of 1789, in US courts for supporting those who violate human rights. Coca Cola is being sued for supporting paramilitary units in Colombia while Unocal was being sued for supporting "human rights abuses committed by Burmese soldiers" in Burma.

Furthermore, the value of "a dollar a day" depends entirely on how inflated their economy is compared to ours and thus their cost-of-living. This "dollar a day" statistic is just a comparison of costs of living and inflation. It's no measure of poverty.

Heck poverty, as used to the west, needs to be redefined. A farmer in Africa can grow enough food to barter or trade with others to feed their family and keep a roof over their heads yet they can still be said to be living in poverty. Sure, they may not have enough money to take a vacation for 4 weeks a year but they make enough to live on. And by opening up international trade and cutting subsidies they could make enough to afford to go to Disney.

Falcon

Are they illegal in Australia? They probably should be (tho of course, Australia doesn't have freedom of speech: http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expression/freedom_spe ech.html

Personally, I have a deep love and respect for Canada (including Quebec) and her people, based on spending many years up there and would live and work up there if presented the opportunity. However, before you start immigrating to Canada in massive droves, understand what you are getting into.

Freedom of Speech? Canda has a wonderful section in its criminal code prohibiting willful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups (s. 319(2)) http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/limitations/r_keegstra .html for an example.

Just Google on "willful promotion of hatred" and "Canada" for examples on how this statute is being used. If I were to utter the phrase "Slashdot readers really need to get a life and maybe a girlfriend". That theoretically could fall under the Criminal Code :).

Then of course you will have to stomach:
Lower wages
Higher Taxes:
>50% of your income between Federal and Provincial taxes (if you're a technogeek like me and get paid for it)
Last time I looked, 9% Provincial sales tax (depending on the province) + 7% Federal GST on goods purchased in Canada.

Then there is of course the politics. If you like politics in the U.S. you will *love* them in Canada. Watching the proceedings in the House of Commons gives new meaning to the phrase "spirited debate".

Do you like unions in the U.S.? You'll love them in Canada. Think about what it means when the nurses go on strike, or the postal service, or ...

I could go on. Like any other country, Canada has its good as well as bad points. Make sure you understand what those are and can live with them before you pack up your bags and go.

Here's my source

Austrian / Chicago school of economic thought is far closer to freedom than any of the garbage Marx, Engels, and Lenin were spewing

I know none of these are perfect examples, but simply because a place has free markets, does not make them inherently free.

I believe many people should remember that all countries which have declared themselves to be based off of Marx and Engels have also been one-party dictatorships. Thus, even though all means of production were in the hands of the Government, since the Government was in the hands of a small cadre of party leaders, the Government, and thus the nation, could be considered to be in private ownership by this small clique, and the means of production again created what their owners told them to create, only this time without any effective means of staying out of bankruptcy due to bad management.

Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the People's Republic of China does not qualify as Communist nowadays, as they permit private ownership of the means of production (about fifty percent, iirc), and encourage Capitalism, that thing which Marx and Engels were trying to replace.

From section 139 of the UK Criminal Justice Act:

139.--(1)Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.

(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.

(3)This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.

Swiss Army knives (at least the ones I have seen) have a locking mechanism, therefore they are not "folding pocketknives". This has been tested in the appeal courts.

why the big quote from the U.S. Constitution? . . . Can't you quote someting Australian? :-)

No, sorry. Can't quote anything Australian on the issue of freedom of speech or the press. Australia has no constitutional clause or bill of rights on this topic. These issues seem to be decided by Australia's High Court, which since 1992 has said that there is an implied right in the Australian constitution to freedom of expression of public political topics, but not on much else.

What the Australian constitution does say is, "Chapter I. Sec. 51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: ... (xviii.) Copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks." This is a great deal simpler than the version found in the U.S. Constitution: "Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". The actual Australian Copyright Law of 1968 makes for pretty dense reading.

IANA Australian (in fact, IAA American), but it seems that Australia lacks a rallying cry to match that part of the U.S. constitution that the *IAA keeps trying to monopolize for themselves: Amendment I. Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .

None of this should be taken as a disparagement of Australia, of course. For instance, the U.S. copyright laws are at least as dense and a good deal more restrictive besides. It just seems that prohibiting the ownership and use of presses (e.g. CD burners) in the U.S. would involve slightly more hypocrisy than doing so in Australia. It is an equally bad idea in both places.