Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Some good news from overseas

House of Lords approves civil partnerships

As drewan said, why is it we continue to lag behind all of these other countries in basic civil and human rights? We have the strongest military but the weakest view of our own people - what an empty shell we've become (or at least that's how it seems at times).


( 16 comments — Comment )
Nov. 18th, 2004 12:51 pm (UTC)
"We have the strongest military but the weakest view of our own people "

Best equiped military maybe, but one of the most poorly trained...
Nov. 18th, 2004 01:07 pm (UTC)
My point is that we treat our own people far too shabbily for a first world country. It's appalling.
Nov. 18th, 2004 01:08 pm (UTC)
Well if you will stay attached to that archaic constitution of yours... Of course you can have a gun... but no, you can't marry...
Nov. 18th, 2004 01:12 pm (UTC)
Exactly. I don't have a problem with the constitution in and of itself, I have a problem with how it's been interpreted legally over the last 200 years...
Nov. 18th, 2004 01:17 pm (UTC)
It's codified - that's the problem with it - it can't adapt because everyone's slavishly following it word for word.
Nov. 18th, 2004 01:26 pm (UTC)
Well that's part of the furor over the Supreme Court - interpretist judges vs. literal judges. Yes, we've always said it's a "living document," and I agree that sometimes it's a little too revered, but we have tried to change it and mold it and it's for the most part worked (ignoring that whole Prohibition thing).
Nov. 18th, 2004 01:27 pm (UTC)
Of course - our uncodified constitution is more effective - the law changes swiftly and often - also we have no need for judicial oversight.
Nov. 18th, 2004 01:36 pm (UTC)
What is your system of checks and balances?
Nov. 18th, 2004 01:39 pm (UTC)
The Executive is split into to parts, and so it the legeslature... they all check one another - because Judges are appointed, not elected, it's against the law for them to get involved.
Nov. 18th, 2004 02:41 pm (UTC)
Ours is similar - Supreme Court justices are also appointed with confirmation by both the House and the Senate. Sadly, some of the executive branch is trying to use the legislative brance to curtail the scope of the judicial branch, which is upsetting the delicate balance, and I'm none too happy about it, but so far we're holding out. :)
Nov. 18th, 2004 01:51 pm (UTC)
Do those other countries have a religious right like ours?
Nov. 18th, 2004 02:39 pm (UTC)
Well surely there are fundamentalists everywhere, but I don't know what the percentages are like in comparison, nor how vocal they are. An interesting question, though.
Nov. 18th, 2004 08:26 pm (UTC)
Our fundies are pretty much confined to Alberta, which -- not so coincidentally -- is the one province committed to denying us marriage rights.

So glad I live in Toronto.
Nov. 18th, 2004 09:17 pm (UTC)
Yeah. When the last PM started to advance SSM legislation, the Archbishop of Ottawa threw a little hissy fit and threatened to excommunicate him.

This being Canada, His Grace was laughed off the stage, pretty much.
Nov. 18th, 2004 04:50 pm (UTC)
The religious fundamentalists in the United States are significantly more influential than most other places, as I understand it. (I've talked to a number of Europeans who are baffled by it.)

My pet silly theory is that the European nations punted their people who were inclined to such behaviours to North America, thereby causing the resulting nation to suffer the logical results of a population significantly descended from religious loonies.
Nov. 18th, 2004 08:47 pm (UTC)
It seems that in a lot of countries (at least the European ones), religion is a personal thing. Even in countries like Sweden which recently have had (or still have) a state church, the church doesn't seem to have as much influence on the government.
( 16 comments — Comment )

Latest Month

August 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner