Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 5, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 5, 2011 I thought we did have a written constitution, just not all written in one place. Â Yeah, but that's not what's generally meant by the term "written constitution". An unwritten constitution means that a country's laws are put in place by mainly a framework and accumulation of legal precedents and decisions, over an underlying base of laws as passed by Parliament - it allows for a lot more flexibility, and makes amendments and changes in law easier. It also gives judges a lot more leaway in interpreting laws in their spirit, as opposed to the letter. Â The US constitution is a written one, meaning everything is codified into one document, with all legal boundaries and demarcations clearly outlined, and in accordance with which judges must make their decisions. Laws require more work and consensus to be passed, as they need to be reviewed before passing to see if they're constitutional. Â Personally, I prefer an unwritten constitution, because I believe it allows for interpretation of the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law; I think the literality of the US constitution is one of the reasons why America as such an entrenched litigious culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Multiculturalism is about understanding each others faiths and cultures whilst being proud of our British citizenship. Â The funny thing is in my experience it is the "natives" who are the most intolerent and good luck to Cameron in getting those knuckle draggers to respect other faiths but holding the scum sheets to account would be a good start. Â Anyway being proud of citizenship is a load of bollocks to me. Edited February 5, 2011 by The King Of Swing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted February 5, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 5, 2011 I thought we did have a written constitution, just not all written in one place. Â Yeah, but that's not what's generally meant by the term "written constitution". An unwritten constitution means that a country's laws are put in place by mainly a framework and accumulation of legal precedents and decisions, over an underlying base of laws as passed by Parliament - it allows for a lot more flexibility, and makes amendments and changes in law easier. It also gives judges a lot more leaway in interpreting laws in their spirit, as opposed to the letter. Â The US constitution is a written one, meaning everything is codified into one document, with all legal boundaries and demarcations clearly outlined, and in accordance with which judges must make their decisions. Laws require more work and consensus to be passed, as they need to be reviewed before passing to see if they're constitutional. Â Personally, I prefer an unwritten constitution, because I believe it allows for interpretation of the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law; I think the literality of the US constitution is one of the reasons why America as such an entrenched litigious culture. Â Â Cheers for that. Politics isnt really my thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 5, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Multiculturalism is about understanding each others faiths and cultures whilst being proud of our British citizenship. Â The funny thing is in my experience it is the "natives" who are the most intolerent and good luck to Cameron in getting those knuckle draggers to respect other faiths but holding the scum sheets to account would be a good start. Â Anyway being proud of citizenship is a load of bollocks to me. Â Hear, hear. The reason why movements like the Nation of Islam and other extremist groups start up is because, right from the start, they have been excluded and discriminated against. It's all very well talking about integration, but it wasn't the immigrant community that had "No Blacks, Dogs or Irish" on their guest houses, or yelled "Get Out" or "Go Home". The extremists are a problem because the natives were a problem, and if any British government wants real integration, serious moves are going to have to be made to address the underlying problems, rather than just paying lip service and making token gestures which ease the symptoms, not cure the disease. Â Being proud of citizenship is an odd one to me, as well - no-one expects you to be automatically ashamed of where you're from, so why should you be proud of it? It's an accident of birth. Be proud of where you've gone, not where you started. Edited February 5, 2011 by Carbomb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted February 5, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 5, 2011 The sun never sets, guys. Never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Multiculturalism is about understanding each others faiths and cultures whilst being proud of our British citizenship. Â The funny thing is in my experience it is the "natives" who are the most intolerent and good luck to Cameron in getting those knuckle draggers to respect other faiths but holding the scum sheets to account would be a good start. Â Anyway being proud of citizenship is a load of bollocks to me. Â Hear, hear. The reason why movements like the Nation of Islam and other extremist groups start up is because, right from the start, they have been excluded and discriminated against. It's all very well talking about integration, but it wasn't the immigrant community that had "No Blacks, Dogs or Irish" on their guest houses, or yelled "Get Out" or "Go Home". The extremists are a problem because the natives were a problem, and if any British government wants real integration, serious moves are going to have to be made to address the underlying problems, rather than just paying lip service and making token gestures which ease the symptoms, not cure the disease. Â Being proud of citizenship is an odd one to me, as well - no-one expects you to be automatically ashamed of where you're from, so why should you be proud of it? It's an accident of birth. Be proud of where you've gone, not where you started. How is it an accident of birth? Were your parents travelling round the world when you were born and they just happened to be in Britain when you popped out? Â Do you not think where you are born and grow up has a pretty massive impact on the person you eventually become? Probably one of the biggest factors in fact, other than your parents. Â To state that it is all British (meaning White Working-Class British) people's fault that extremist Islamic groups have started is an absolute load of bollocks. There was opposition to ALL immigration, and understandably so since it was clearly a ploy to lower wages and working-conditions for working people, and that has proven to be the case. However, I don't see extremist Hindu, Sikh, Chinese, West Indian or any other ethnic group that has emigrated into Britain in large number. These people seem to largely have got on with things peacefully and without complaint. Meanwhile a large amount of Muslims seem to actively buck any attempts to integrate into wider British society, and yet have the temerity to blame everyone else for their problems. Edited February 5, 2011 by Happ Hazzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted February 5, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 5, 2011 I always wished I was born in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I thought we did have a written constitution, just not all written in one place. Â Yeah, but that's not what's generally meant by the term "written constitution". An unwritten constitution means that a country's laws are put in place by mainly a framework and accumulation of legal precedents and decisions, over an underlying base of laws as passed by Parliament - it allows for a lot more flexibility, and makes amendments and changes in law easier. It also gives judges a lot more leaway in interpreting laws in their spirit, as opposed to the letter. Â The US constitution is a written one, meaning everything is codified into one document, with all legal boundaries and demarcations clearly outlined, and in accordance with which judges must make their decisions. Laws require more work and consensus to be passed, as they need to be reviewed before passing to see if they're constitutional. Â Personally, I prefer an unwritten constitution, because I believe it allows for interpretation of the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law; I think the literality of the US constitution is one of the reasons why America as such an entrenched litigious culture. Â Â Cheers for that. Politics isnt really my thing. I'm still studying up on it but my understanding is the Magna Carta - Great Charter is the basis of our constitution and the rule of (Common) law. Acts and Statutes are added onto what already exists, but what is set out in Magna Carta should not be taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 5, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 5, 2011 How is it an accident of birth? Were your parents travelling round the world when you were born and they just happened to be in Britain when you popped out? Â Do you get to choose, while in the womb, where you're from? Â Do you not think where you are born and grow up has a pretty massive impact on the person you eventually become? Probably one of the biggest factors in fact, other than your parents. Â Yes, I do. But that's very little to do with nationality, and mostly to do with social stratum, family conditions and education. Â To state that it is all British (meaning White Working-Class British) people's fault that extremist Islamic groups have started is an absolute load of bollocks. There was opposition to ALL immigration, and understandably so since it was clearly a ploy to lower wages and working-conditions for working people, and that has proven to be the case. However, I don't see extremist Hindu, Sikh, Chinese, West Indian or any other ethnic group that has emigrated into Britain in large number. These people seem to largely have got on with things peacefully and without complaint. Meanwhile a large amount of Muslims seem to actively buck any attempts to integrate into wider British society, and yet have the temerity to blame everyone else for their problems. Â Ahh, the words of ignorance spout forth. Not surprised, but will deal with this tomorrow. I'm offski to club, perchance to dance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Do you get to choose, while in the womb, where you're from? No, but my parents did. And they're responsible for me being born. Â Yes, I do. But that's very little to do with nationality, and mostly to do with social stratum, family conditions and education. Social stratums are varied in different countries though. Plenty of countries have no middle class to speak of, and working-class people live in abject poverty, with little to no education or other prospects. Â Ahh, the words of ignorance spout forth. Not surprised, but will deal with this tomorrow. I'm offski to club, perchance to dance. Well, that to me just sounds like you are unable to construct a reasoned argument. I can't see how anything I've stated can possibly be argued with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 There's a whole undercurrent that people like Carbomb think is just going away. People are worried and indigenous people are feeling marginalised and victimised and they're slowly turning towards people who they think are giving them a voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2011 Ahh, the words of ignorance spout forth. Not surprised, but will deal with this tomorrow. I'm offski to club, perchance to dance. Well, that to me just sounds like you are unable to construct a reasoned argument. I can't see how anything I've stated can possibly be argued with. Â Yeah, because obviously if I want to present a valid argument, I have to do it within YOUR time frame, and forego my social life to suit YOUR schedule. I know you can't see how anything you've stated can possibly be argued with, because your style of argument is to present a load of bullshit, have it obliterated, then bury your head in the sand and pop up again some time later to present the same argument, while denying you were ever argued down. Â I could present a ton of examples as to why you're wrong, but I'm drained, tired, I've just remembered why I hate political discussions, I've just remembered why I hate any sort of discussion with YOU, and neither of us are going to change each other's mind. Â As it is, I'm conceding the argument to you. You're right, I'm wrong, you can continue along your awful right-wing, social Darwinist path, and I'll continue along my left-wing, Socialist path. Â There's a whole undercurrent that people like Carbomb think is just going away. People are worried and indigenous people are feeling marginalised and victimised and they're slowly turning towards people who they think are giving them a voice. Â Not going to continue the argument, but present you with something to think about: do you really think it's multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicism that have caused the problems which are driving "indigenous" Britons (whatever that's defined by) into the arms of the EDL and the BNP? And do you honestly believe, truly, that the ethnic minorities in this country have no cause whatsoever for long-term, entrenched resentment? Â I'll leave with that. Yoghurt, maybe I'm mis-reading you, but I've always liked you, even if I don't like the way you argue politics, and I'd like to keep things civil. Catch you in the less heavy threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I wasn't condoning their thinking, just I believe it's wrong to dismiss their fears and ignorance. Ignoring it for so long forces more and more people to turn to the lunatic fringes. People think they are being marginalised and a more conceited effort needs to be done to prove they aren't. The government and the media have killed the idea of multiculturalism, breeding decades of fear into each race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Regardless of what you think about me, Carbomb, do you think the likes of the UAF are doing "the left" any favours at all by trying to deny the EDL and BNP their platform? What would you suggest to the people that have seen their livelihood destroyed due to the actions of Labour, many of whom come from families that have voted for Labour for generations? What is your suggestion to them, as a so-called "socialist"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) I don't want to be drawn into this argument again, Happ. I'm genuinely drained by all this. I will say only one thing: anyone who thinks Labour, new, centre-right version or old, leftist version, are truly left-wing should have a long, hard look at its history - it's one of nothing but betrayal of the people they claimed to represent. Â I'm not a Labourite. I believe that, throughout the course of their entire existence, they've sold out the true left every step of the way. They've had chances to make things work, and chickened out at each one. I despise both Labour and the Conservatives. Â Yoghurt - their fears are based in ignorance. The real way to answer those fears is to show them their suffering isn't caused by issues of culture and race, and the real way to deal with the problems stemming from those fears is to address the real causes of the problems which lead to that misperception. Look at my above point about Labour: if they had done all the things they claimed they would do over the decades, and not betrayed the trust of the working class repeatedly, said working class would not have felt they had to go to more extreme lengths to find groups they believe to be truly in their corner. Â That's all, gentlemen. It's draining, and far too tempting to keep addressing points. I must respectfully bow out. Edited February 6, 2011 by Carbomb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts