Political correctness gone mad

[Sheilbh]

In many ways it is a good system. For instance, back in 1939 it allowed us to set up a totalitarian state, with the full support of the people, in very short order.

I agree.  In general I'm about the only person at my uni who strongly supports the orthodox constitutional view.  In my opinion the alternative is, ultimately, rule by judges which is unacceptable (but naturally appeals to my classful of wannabe lawyers).

But the consequence of that is that rights aren't nearly as well protected.  I mean this is a piffling example compared to, for example, detention without trial or even the position of women, ethnic minorities and gays for a long time.  All of that ultimately depends on legislators' own sense of morality and ethics, public opinion and the political consequences of supporting an unjust law. 

But my view is that it's still better than court-led protection of rights.  If it comes from people campaigning and changing the opinion of enough of the general public then I think those rights are stronger, more durable and probably more fiercely protected.

Edit:  Plus I think legal constitutionalism's fundamentally anti-democratic.  It's more okay when it's used by Jefferson, but what's happening in Hungary is a sign of the dangers with it.

[mongers]

I'd add, if there was a pressing need for a formal constitution, then this current generation of politicians would be the very last people I'd trust to draft one.

[Sheilbh]

I'd add, if there was a pressing need for a formal constitution, then this current generation of politicians would be the very last people I'd trust to draft one.

You're right.  But again I'd distinguish between the current generation of politicians and their leaders. 

I quite like a lot of our backbenchers, the 2010 intake's the most rebellious in post-war history.  I think the Speaker's willingness to grant emergency debates has, in my view, made the Commons more robust and generally I've got a lot of time for the Select Committees too (which are now elected by MPs in a secret ballot rather than being a bit of patronage for the party leadership).

[Ed Anger]

I'd pay to see 'Ed Balls' on a historical document.

[Ideologue]

Similarly we recently had an anniversary of the Supreme Court (which for a seemingly meaningless reform has been very good) and the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, was asked in an interview about what if Parliament did pass a law that totally restricted fundamental freedoms.  His answer was 'if Parliament were to do the unprecedented then perhaps the Courts would also do the unprecedented', implying the Supreme Court in those circumstances would strike down a law and provoke a full-blown constitutional crisis that would probably lead to a codified constitution

We just call it a "constitution."

I'd add, if there was a pressing need for a formal constitution, then this current generation of politicians would be the very last people I'd trust to draft one.

The current generation of politicians would say it costs too much money to draft a constitution, then lay off some more public sector employees while Britain collapses into a black hole of depression and violence waiting to be expressed in a revolution that makes the Chav Riots look like a nice bonfire after a summer rain.

[mongers]

I'd add, if there was a pressing need for a formal constitution, then this current generation of politicians would be the very last people I'd trust to draft one.

You're right.  But again I'd distinguish between the current generation of politicians and their leaders. 

I quite like a lot of our backbenchers, the 2010 intake's the most rebellious in post-war history.  I think the Speaker's willingness to grant emergency debates has, in my view, made the Commons more robust and generally I've got a lot of time for the Select Committees too (which are now elected by MPs in a secret ballot rather than being a bit of patronage for the party leadership).

And to some extent you're right to make that distinction, potentially the job of an MP is a very honourable one, however people who stand, just so they can play the political game an climb the ladder to power are what we suffer from.

I was talking to someone the other day, who'd be seen here as an unrelenting old hippy, and he was saying in some way he found the old system of landed/well-off MP doing the job out of a sense of duty, rather than as a career, a preferable political model !

[Sheilbh]

We just call it a "constitution."

We've got a constitution, it's just not in one place

[jimmy olsen]

Speaking of political correctness.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/is_game_of_thrones_too_white/singleton/

[Razgovory]

Speaking of political correctness.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/is_game_of_thrones_too_white/singleton/

Stop posting stupid shit.

[Viking]

Speaking of political correctness.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/is_game_of_thrones_too_white/singleton/

The really sad thing is that if any "race" in ASOIAF is uniformly portrayed as brave, skillful, honest and caring it is the summer islanders. There are no cruel or malevolent summer islander characters. We have

Jalabhar Xho - skilled with the bow and falsely accused of being margaery's lover
Chataya and Alayahya - while whores they successfully keep Tyrion's confidence despite torture
Quhuru Mo and the crew of the Cinnamon Wind - are honest, dutiful, helpful, brave and skillful and have a better ship than any of the "white" pirates chasing them.

Lys and Yunkai also have sacred brothels.

It's a pathetic attempt to use ASOIAF to rail against a stale trope of racism.

[Barrister]

In many ways it is a good system. For instance, back in 1939 it allowed us to set up a totalitarian state, with the full support of the people, in very short order.

I agree.  In general I'm about the only person at my uni who strongly supports the orthodox constitutional view.  In my opinion the alternative is, ultimately, rule by judges which is unacceptable (but naturally appeals to my classful of wannabe lawyers).

But the consequence of that is that rights aren't nearly as well protected.  I mean this is a piffling example compared to, for example, detention without trial or even the position of women, ethnic minorities and gays for a long time.  All of that ultimately depends on legislators' own sense of morality and ethics, public opinion and the political consequences of supporting an unjust law. 

But my view is that it's still better than court-led protection of rights.  If it comes from people campaigning and changing the opinion of enough of the general public then I think those rights are stronger, more durable and probably more fiercely protected.

Edit:  Plus I think legal constitutionalism's fundamentally anti-democratic.  It's more okay when it's used by Jefferson, but what's happening in Hungary is a sign of the dangers with it.

I saw an ad on tv today about the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and how wonderful and amazing it is, and I thought yet again to myself 'do people think we were living in some despotic hellhole prior to 1982'?

[crazy canuck]

There's around 3000 convictions under this crime every year, it may well be that he had very little chance - especially once he'd admitted everything to the police the first day - and that this length of custodial sentence is relatively standard.  In the experience of the judge and the barrister this may have been a pretty easy case.

Your statement seems at odds with what the Court said.

There are no applicable sentencing guidelines. We have been referred to no previous decided cases either in the Court of Appeal or at the Crown Court to assist in determining an appropriate sentence for this type of offence.

[Sheilbh]

I saw an ad on tv today about the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and how wonderful and amazing it is, and I thought yet again to myself 'do people think we were living in some despotic hellhole prior to 1982'?

I'm a big fan of the Human Rights Act, which I think is probably the most misunderstood law in the UK.  When devising it, though, the Blair government looked to New Zealand and Canada as two countries with similar constitutions who both introduced very different laws of fundamental rights.  They ended up rejecting the Canadian Charter method entirely and basically plumping for the New Zealand model, which I think was right.

[Sheilbh]

Your statement seems at odds with what the Court said.

There are no applicable sentencing guidelines. We have been referred to no previous decided cases either in the Court of Appeal or at the Crown Court to assist in determining an appropriate sentence for this type of offence.

But that just means there's no sentencing guidelines and neither side referred the court to any precedent for sentencing guides.  I'm saying that the personal experience of the magistrate in sentencing, the barrister in defending and prosecuting these crimes and the judge in hearing appeals may be that this is about a standard sentence for this sort of offence.

[Richard Hakluyt]

One problem that the Commons has is that for every person who watches the select committees at their work there are 20 who only ever see PM questions, where the house resembles two packs of retarded baboons.

Not that I'm blaming the public for that, one has to have a lot of free time to follow the work of the committees. But I suppose one can at least be vaguely aware that this important work is going on in the background.