Two arrested in Chicago for conspiracy to attack Jyllands-posten

[Maximus]

By doing fine you mean parliament taking enormous dumps on the constitution, right?

Constitutions are undemocratic. Try to keep up.

[Pat]

@miglia:

1. Sorry, the supreme court is not an effective means of keeping parliament in check.

Take the famous Åke Green case as an example.

The lower courts followed Brottsbalken accurately and sentenced him for hate speech (a travesty, I know, but entirely according to the letter of the law).

When the case came to the Supreme Court, they acquitted him because a sentence would go against the European Convention of Human Rights (which is a part of Swedish constitutional law).

2. While I am not talking specifically about the FRA law I will observe that you can't seriously be arguing that what you quoted makes it OK. Any limitation of freedom of speech is OK as long as it is done for national security? Even your own quote contradicts that (second paragraph).

No it doesn't, you'll have to read that second paragraph again. The second paragraph is left deliberately vague to allow the Supreme Court a free interpretation.

If you were arguing our constitution was weak on this matter, then I'd agree with you.

[Pat]

And if you're not talking about the FRA law, then what are these "enormous dumps" on the constitution you talk of?

[The Brain]

@miglia:

1. Sorry, the supreme court is not an effective means of keeping parliament in check.

Take the famous Åke Green case as an example.

The lower courts followed Brottsbalken accurately and sentenced him for hate speech (a travesty, I know, but entirely according to the letter of the law).

When the case came to the Supreme Court, they acquitted him because a sentence would go against the European Convention of Human Rights (which is a part of Swedish constitutional law).

2. While I am not talking specifically about the FRA law I will observe that you can't seriously be arguing that what you quoted makes it OK. Any limitation of freedom of speech is OK as long as it is done for national security? Even your own quote contradicts that (second paragraph).

No it doesn't, you'll have to read that second paragraph again. The second paragraph is left deliberately vague to allow the Supreme Court a free interpretation.

If you were arguing our constitution was weak on this matter, then I'd agree with you.

1. AFAIK the case didn't lead to the abolishing of existing unconstitutional laws.

2. You argue that the law is vague yet claim that the law makes it OK? Sorry, you can't both have your cake and eat it.

[The Brain]

And if you're not talking about the FRA law, then what are these "enormous dumps" on the constitution you talk of?

EU membership comes to mind. Whether a person was for or against it the constitution would have had to be changed in important ways to accomodate it. It was not. There's little excuse for the lawmakers themselves to go against the law instead of changing it.

[DGuller]

Fuck you, moonworshippers.

I never realized what an insensitive, sick individual you are.

[Pat]

@miglia:

1. Sorry, the supreme court is not an effective means of keeping parliament in check.

Take the famous Åke Green case as an example.

The lower courts followed Brottsbalken accurately and sentenced him for hate speech (a travesty, I know, but entirely according to the letter of the law).

When the case came to the Supreme Court, they acquitted him because a sentence would go against the European Convention of Human Rights (which is a part of Swedish constitutional law).

2. While I am not talking specifically about the FRA law I will observe that you can't seriously be arguing that what you quoted makes it OK. Any limitation of freedom of speech is OK as long as it is done for national security? Even your own quote contradicts that (second paragraph).

No it doesn't, you'll have to read that second paragraph again. The second paragraph is left deliberately vague to allow the Supreme Court a free interpretation.

If you were arguing our constitution was weak on this matter, then I'd agree with you.

1. AFAIK the case didn't lead to the abolishing of existing unconstitutional laws.

2. You argue that the law is vague yet claim that the law makes it OK? Sorry, you can't both have your cake and eat it.

1. The decision will have value of precedent, and so lower courts will judge differently.

2. I'm saying that I don't agree that it is against the constitution. Someone else could do a different interpretation, though I don't see how.

[Pat]

And if you're not talking about the FRA law, then what are these "enormous dumps" on the constitution you talk of?

EU membership comes to mind. Whether a person was for or against it the constitution would have had to be changed in important ways to accomodate it. It was not. There's little excuse for the lawmakers themselves to go against the law instead of changing it.

But the constitution was changed

[The Brain]

@miglia:

1. Sorry, the supreme court is not an effective means of keeping parliament in check.

Take the famous Åke Green case as an example.

The lower courts followed Brottsbalken accurately and sentenced him for hate speech (a travesty, I know, but entirely according to the letter of the law).

When the case came to the Supreme Court, they acquitted him because a sentence would go against the European Convention of Human Rights (which is a part of Swedish constitutional law).

2. While I am not talking specifically about the FRA law I will observe that you can't seriously be arguing that what you quoted makes it OK. Any limitation of freedom of speech is OK as long as it is done for national security? Even your own quote contradicts that (second paragraph).

No it doesn't, you'll have to read that second paragraph again. The second paragraph is left deliberately vague to allow the Supreme Court a free interpretation.

If you were arguing our constitution was weak on this matter, then I'd agree with you.

1. AFAIK the case didn't lead to the abolishing of existing unconstitutional laws.

2. You argue that the law is vague yet claim that the law makes it OK? Sorry, you can't both have your cake and eat it.

1. The decision will have value of precedent, and so lower courts will judge differently.

2. I'm saying that I don't agree that it is against the constitution. Someone else could do a different interpretation, though I don't see how.

1. Sorry, that's just not good enough for something that is put forward as a serious alternative to a constitutional court.

2. Gee, I guess that's why it would be useful to, you know, have a constitutional court to settle these things. Funny that.

[The Brain]

And if you're not talking about the FRA law, then what are these "enormous dumps" on the constitution you talk of?

EU membership comes to mind. Whether a person was for or against it the constitution would have had to be changed in important ways to accomodate it. It was not. There's little excuse for the lawmakers themselves to go against the law instead of changing it.

But the constitution was changed

Not enough to accomodate EU membership.

[DGuller]

Will this senseless violence never stop?  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091028/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids_michigan

[Pat]

Why not?

2 kap. 23 §

Lag eller annan föreskrift får ej meddelas i strid med Sveriges åtaganden på grund av den europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. Lag (1994:1468).

This is one of the changes in Regeringsformen, there's a crapload more of them.

[The Brain]

Why not?

2 kap. 23 §

Lag eller annan föreskrift får ej meddelas i strid med Sveriges åtaganden på grund av den europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. Lag (1994:1468).

This is one of the changes in Regeringsformen, there's a crapload more of them.

All offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket.

This is still the first line of the constitution. But it's not true given EU membership.

[Pat]

1. Sorry, that's just not good enough for something that is put forward as a serious alternative to a constitutional court.

Why not? Can you give any examples of when our current system has produced unwanted consequenses?

edit: because of this, I mean

2. Gee, I guess that's why it would be useful to, you know, have a constitutional court to settle these things. Funny that.

And why can't the supreme court settle these things?

[Pat]

Why not?

2 kap. 23 §

Lag eller annan föreskrift får ej meddelas i strid med Sveriges åtaganden på grund av den europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. Lag (1994:1468).

This is one of the changes in Regeringsformen, there's a crapload more of them.

All offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket.

This is still the first line of the constitution. But it's not true given EU membership.

That's a so called "Portalstadgande" and not to be interpreted literally. And yes it's true lol.