Thursday, March 08, 2007

emergency vote and political posturing

sri lankan parliament have to vote every month to extend the emergency regulations. this is a very democratic procedure. anyway yesterday's vote passed with a large majority since both unp and jvp supported it as usual. this routine clearly exposes the hypocritical political posturing of unp.

ngo peaceniks typically oppose any laws that aim to restrain the 'actions' of the group they have accepted (after forgetting all the principles of democracy and human rights) as tamils' 'sole representative'. though they try to portray such opposition as concern for deterioration of human rights (! yes they have no shame) situation and increasing totalitarianism (! to them it doesn't matter that they cannot point to anything that does not happen in any other democratic country) of the government.

for instance peaceniks at sri lankan blogosphere's conspiracy blog ("aliens... ooops government is conspiring to abduct opponents and tamils using white vans!!!" ) grundviews not satisfied with comparing sri lankan government to a big brother like totalitarian regime has started to compare it to hitler's regime as well. that is to be expected from people who are so unconnected with sri lankan reality that they prefer to read the latest pussy propaganda through some foreign news source forgetting that they can get the same uncensored propaganda through newspapers bought at a local new stand.

unp posturing and reality
some opposition unp politicians (not all, its great that some promising second tier ones do not) also repeat some of these unsubstantiated claims. they do it probably to embarrass the government, or more to the point to score points with the opposition leader, who has unwisely tied himself to a policy that is perceived as peacenik (peace at any cost including at the cost of freedom, democracy, justice, and human rights, and through appeasement of terrorists). in fact he is not a real peacenik but he is so incompetent when it comes certain aspects of politics that he has let others define him and his position.*

if they are really concerned about the abuse of emergency regulations unp should vote against the emergency or at least propose amendments. instead they continue to vote for it. they do not even attempt even purely symbolic measures like the non binding resolution that congressional democrats in u.s.a. tried the pass recently opposing the increase in troops to iraq. sri lankan parliament with its standing orders and procedures borrowed from english one, does offer opposition party with various options for such tactics, which would require concerted and tiresome efforts by the government to defeat. in fact opposition forced the government to withdraw several (non emergency regulations) bills before votes were taken last year, but when it comes to emergency, nothing.

why?

because even the unp leader knows that what the government is doing is necessary and in accordance with similar measures in other democratic countries faced with terrorism. unp knows that such measures meets with public's approval. they also know that in order be back in power they will have show that they are not living in a fantasy (or cooperating with ltte) like the ngo peaceniks. in fact unp is well aware that if they were in power they would do the exact same things when faced with the same situation.

is anybody (other than the naive peaceniks) deceived by such empty posturing and statements by some in unp? imo no.

so it would be far better for the unp and its prospects, not to mention the country at large, if their statements accord with their actions. in other words if they do not want to look ridiculous do not criticize the emergency laws while voting for them



ps
as for peaceniks if they want to oppose emergency regulations they would have to get their hands dirty and find real evidence to back up their so far unsubstantiated allegations about government sanctioned human rights violations and totalitarianism. so far it is the government that has arrested people who were engaged in rights violations (ltte terrorists including sinhalese ones, other militant groups, criminals, and even corrupt military personnel aiding those) without any help (in fact in the face of opposition in some cases) from those who make such accusations.

if they are really sincere about human rights and democracy, instead of saying that ''some people were killed like dogs in some place (without specifying a date) ", making unwarranted racist statements accusing 'sinhalese' and 'muslims' of ever readiness for genocide, and total ignoring of ltte atrocities (all this was done in this groundviews post by consortium of humanitarian agencies (cha) which includes ltte front tro as a full member), they should provide the specifics and details. they should then expose the evidence to scrutiny so that veracity can be judged instead of censoring anyone questioning them

unfortunately these people would rather pluck false facts out of thin air in order to get some foreign donor to part with money.

---
* ranil wickremasinghe has an over rated idea of his own cleverness for political intrigues and manipulations. this in spite of the fact he was outplayed by almost all his opponents; gamini dissanayake in 1994, cbk for long time (specially in 2004), mahinda, and even the pussies. he seems to have an erroneous belief that politicians can really deceive opponents (as opposed to forcing the opponents to choose between unfavorable options).

it’s a pity he is so delusional about certain aspect of politics, because imo most of his policies esp. economic ones are not bad. anyway i will reserve all that for a future post.

41 comments:

Sri Lankan said...

UNP says it will reconsider its stand on the emergency in the future.

http://www.dailymirror.lk/2007/03/08/front/2.asp

I think they said that before too.

aadhavan said...

Don't know how you can claim to be a libertarian when your own Supreme Court has said that the 'laws' you are so fond of that kick in when emergency is declared violate the basic civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution. It said it was powerless to do anything about it because these 'laws' are immune from any challenge on the issue of constitutionality. These so called 'laws' that deal with terrorism are thus given a higher place than Constitutional guarantees of basic liberties.

I assumed that you are not exactly familiar with the principles of liberalism and libertarianism besides posting the definition on your site, but a little reading up on these theories and on the PTA and emergency regulations might just help. Then again, that's only if you comprehend what is being said in whatever you read.

sittingnut said...

sri lankan:
thanks for the link. yes they talk but never act .

aadhavan
your are argument is confused in the extreme. are you saying that supreme court said the emergency laws are unconstitutional? why did it say 'laws' are immune from any challenge on the issue of constitutionality? why don't you give the full determination. type it out if you cannot link it.

fact is these laws are passed monthly by a huge majority by a democratic legislature and they have not been found unconstitutional according procedure stipulated. they are also similar to anti terrorist laws passed in other countries.
-
a libertarian is a person who subscribe to the principle that ppl should be free to do what they want as long as they do not interfere with the others' ability to do the same. how to act with regard those who do interfere with others' freedom and liberties ( like terrorists) should be decided through democratic means. i don't see any inconstancy with that in the post. why not point out where i fall short.
-
as i said if the laws are being abused, unp should oppose/try to amend them and others like peaceniks should put forward the evidence to back their claims instead of making unsubstantiated allegations.

but then you are not interested in that given your primary motivation is finding excuses for the terrorists and their supporters as demonstrated by your past comments here. easily found by putting your name in the search box above.
-
anyway thanks for the comment

Anonymous said...

"As already noted, Article 13(2) provides two safeguards: first, that a person deprived of liberty must be brought before a judicial officer, and second, that any further deprivation of liberty can only be upon a judicial order. Section 9(1) expressly authorised such further deprivation of liberty upon an executive detention order, and thus nullified the second safeguard - and that is "law", because the PTA was enacted with a two-thirds majority"

Fernando J in Weerawansa v AG 2000 1 SLR 387 at page 307.

The safeguard in 13(2) that only a udicial order can extend admin detention has been violated by the PTA.

Also, the PTA allows confessions to police officers, and puts the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that there was duress. This violates the right to fair trial as has been laid down repeatedly by the Geneva Human Rights Committee of the UN.

You're obviously not familiar with these laws and not worth my time. Read a little more, that's my only advice.

aadhavan

sittingnut said...

you are going on a tangent but no matter. i don't mind.
-
it is a law bc it was passed according to the correct procedure set out in the constitution. it doesn't say it was unconstitutional.
similar laws preventing exercise of similar rights where 'a person deprived of liberty must be brought before a judicial officer' and putting 'the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that there was duress' were passed in other countries as well.

legal rights flow from the constitution. otherwise anyone can say this or that is a right. if the constitution allows a procedure for suspension of some rights in it in some cases and laws are enacted according to that procedure such suspensions are legally valid.
they are also pragmatically and morally justifiable in the face of terrorism

when ppl try to deprive others of their legal rights there is no inconsistency in taking away some of their rights according to democratically sanctioned laws. we do that to criminals every day when for instance we deprive their right to free movement according to law.

ideally we would not need to curtail rights of anybody, but
in real world there must be some way to prevent ppl interfering with freedom of others. and thses laws arepart of that.

and as i said if there is abuse of such laws they should be exposed with evidence and acted on by the relevant ppl through correct legal methods ( in this case unp has a responsibility as the opposition if they really believe there is abuse.they have not)

aadhavan said...

But the point is that if you can be detained by the executive for years and you don't have the right to prove your innocence before a court of law, you have no way of proving your innocence. So the liberty of those who have not been proved to be those who violate others' liberties are violated. This is the problem. Those who have been arbitrarily arrested and detained by the executive have no redress at all as the Courts are not allowed to rule on the arrest.

Re the proper procedure being followed, this is the problem with the SL Constitution. There are many devices allowed for the Parliament to pass legislation that violates the substantive rights laid down in the Constitution. When it comes to basic civil liberties, this is very problematic and suggests that the Constitution is not really supreme, and that civil liberties in Sri Lanka can be dome away with by Parliament.

sittingnut said...

you exaggerate. even under the pta the detention has to be extended every three months. and should not exceed 18 months altogether. as i said there are similar laws in other countries.

anyway,
the liberty of those who have not been proved to be those who violate others' liberties are violated.
that argument depend on what you mean by "proved" and how proof is determined. there is no restriction that says a democracy should appoint a particular type of judge and court procedure do so. if a democracy decides through constitutionally valid laws that a different type of proof and procedure can be applied in some cases, it can do that.

you are free claim that arrests are arbitrary and that authorities keep innocent ppl in prisons for months. there may even be real 'injustice' in few cases . but that is present in any court system everywhere. nobody can say that a particular method is perfect. all laws are unjust since nobody can know everything. in particular the 'defendant' ' is not necessarily 'heard' properly in any case anywhere. there are always some limitations. only an omnipresent god ( if there is one ) will be able to properly judge what happened .

in the real world innocent ppl do get convicted by 'properly' constituted juries following procedure you would approve.see what happens in u.s.a, even in death penalty cases. same probably may happen under the pta detention orders too ( perhaps more so. but then danger of mistakes on the other side, is higher too when it comes terrorists, that is why there are specific anti terror laws in all countries with this problem). fact is there is no perfect method anywhere to judge cases. in reality we have to have some method appropriate to the situation.

since we individually cannot decide the method that have to be imposed on others, the best solution here is to let the method be determined through democratic means.
-
if anybody thinks innocent people are detained and that they are 'unjustly; treated by the methods instituted by the law. ( whether it is happening through emergency regulations, pta or normal laws and courts )lobby to change the law. that is why opposition and others should counter with real facts and evidence. instead we have public posturing and protests to protect ppl who are photographed training for terror acts . this only helps them to lose credibility further, with public who ultimately decide what laws to pass and how ppl are judged.

-
you should be more specific with regard to the parliament's methods that violate the constitution.what are they? being vague does not help. be specific

ppl are not free to do exercise liberties as they wish, they are limited by the need to respect others' liberties. how these limits are applied is determined by the democratically elected representatives ( and not us individually).

as i said laws( not just anti terrorist ones ) suspend civil liberties every day (as with imprisoned criminals) here and in other countries. so please explain what is different here, be specific.

Anonymous said...

It is a fundamental principle of democracy and the separation of powers doctrine that there be checks and balances on the powers of the executive. It is also a basic civil right to not be detained unless through a judicial order. A constitution is not worth its salt if it allows these civil rights to be trampled on by the majority.

If the executive acts, the courts must have the power to review those decisions to make sure that there are no arbitary and unjust decisions. As it is, there can be arbitrary and unjust decisions that violate the liberties of those who have not even touched the liberties of others by a bargepole. Worse still, they can be kept for a very long time without even a chance to prove their innocence.

"that argument depend on what you mean by "proved" and how proof is determined. there is no restriction that says a democracy should appoint a particular type of judge and court procedure do so."

Ya, but you must have access to some kind of judicial or quasi judicial authority with a right to appeal who can rule on the validity of executive action. And under the PTA you don't.

There is no difference between the PTA and the thinking under which the Guantanamo bay prisoners are kept. Only thing is under American law, all citizens and aliens within the territory of the states have the right to plead their innocence before a judge. That's why there are only foreigners there and they are kept outside the US to avoid these laws. It's a practice by the Bush admin to avoid the provisions of the US constitution.


Which developed democracy has laws like the PTA? The Patriot Act doesn't come close but since you say there are other countries with similar laws what are the laws and please type them out here with the relevant section, or else its pointless since you are making unsubstantiated claims.

Also, let me know in which countries the burden of proof to prove that there was duress during a confession to police officer while in custody falls on the defendant. Give me names of legislation and the relevant section.


aadhavan

sittingnut said...

you are repeating the same argument. and you do not see the fundamental flaws in your argument

1/
you do not decide what a right is. and who is interfering with others' liberties. you are not god. .

then who does ?
in the real world legal rights and liberties are determined by constitution sanctioned through democratic means. this is true in every democracy .

if you think that is wrong and know of a better method say that clearly.

2/
civil liberties are not absolute. they are limited when ppl interfere with other ppl's liberties. all governments limit or ('trample on ' according to you) civil liberties through constitutionally valid laws every day . for instance as i said everyone do that to ordinary criminals when they are imprisoned.

if you think it is wrong to limit anyone's liberties and know of a better method than laws say that clearly.

3/
the procedure for determining whether a person is interfering with others liberties, is also be approved by democratic means. you individually do not determine what is the correct procedure.

if you think that is wrong and know of a better method say that clearly.

---
yes there there are checks and balances in a democracy but they defer from country to country ( those in france are different from usa) as (again) sanctioned by democratic means. you individually cannot say which are the correct checks and balances. public do

if the legislative want to grant some authority to the executive it can. and it does to varying degrees in every country. it can also take these powers away . so if you think pta is wrong and unjust get the ppl to vote against it. if you cannot do that that means others do not think as you do.

Which developed democracy has laws like the PTA? ...
almost all the democracies have passed pta like laws (sometimes with the same name) giving executive more powers. detention time before court appearance have been increased , police etc. have been immunized( for instance for shooting to kill bc looking like asian sorry terrorist) etc

there may be differences in degrees but then they they do not face terrorism in this scale in their own countries. they have on the other hand allowed tougher laws to be passed in places where they control and are in conflict.

as for differences in degrees, if you want to argue on principle, it is foolish to claim that 3 week detention( even 1 days detention) is better than three month detention and that is why you admit the validity of one law and not the other. esp when the motivation and intention of the legislatures that passed those laws democratically are the same. either you approve the democratic way of passing laws or you do not.

instead of making such absurd arguments you should try to change the detention period to one acceptable to you through democratic means.

Also, let me know in which countries the burden of proof to prove that there was duress during a confession to police officer while in custody falls on the defendant. Give me names of legislation and the relevant section.
why ? you are missing the point as i said above. the point i was making was that what constitute the valid burden of proof ( in all the differing degrees it is applied around the world ) is laid down by laws passed through democaratic means.

or are you saying that the rules governing admissibility of evidence, or validity of confessions, are absolute ? and there should only be one method (laid down by god perhaps ?)everywhere regardless of law ?

if you really think they are laid down by any other method ( god etc.) let me know clearly

on the other hand if you admit that the valid method of laying down the correct method is through laws passed by democratic means and that provisions in the pta are unfair, you should lobby to change it through the same means.

that is what i recommend to unp in the post as well .

aadhavan said...

Snut, it's clear you are not a student of political philosophy or constitutional law. The basic thrust of that long post of yours is that anything goes as long as it is passed by a majority in a democracy in keeping with established procedure. You need to read machang. The whole point of a constitution is that you don't allow the majority in parliament to do anything they want, because it would lead to the 'tyranny of the majority' or what is called 'majoritarianism. You seem to be like one of those school kid debaters i judge all the time who seem to think that democracy is merely majority rule.

The whole point of a 'bill of rights' is that it is a solemn promise to minorities and individuals that the parliament in a moment of excited majoritarianism will not trample your rights. The only remedy to your ignorance is reading dude.

You failed to point out the provisions in other countries. Just because the name is the same doesn't mean the provisions are. Am I to assume that there aren't other developed democracies with such draconian provisions.

You want a Universal standard? Why not check the ICCPR that Sri Lanka has signed and ratified.

On admin detentions and the right to access a court:

Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.


on the burden of proof:

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

If you are presumed to be innocent you cannot be placed with a burden of proof. It's legally impossible. per Sinharasa v Sri Lanka

sittingnut said...

it is clear that you have not read the main post ( let alone political philosophy etc. ) before you went on the tangent as i warned you . so i will highlight several things to make you read.

even in the tangent course did i say anything about a majority ? i always said 'through constitutionally valid democaratic means'. democracy is not majority rule. there is a difference. a determined opposition can force amendments ., use delaying tactics, etc . unp forced government to withdraw several bills last year. read the post you haven't.

so before you accuse me of equaling democracy with majority rule and make silly points countering a point i did not make, read what is written here.
--

then you repeat the same arguments without answering questions i raised above.
so i will ask them again

do you think there is a better way than democratically sanctioned constitution and constitutionally valid laws to determine ,

1/ what the rights are? ( are they absolute and god given for instance ?)

2/ to limit the rights of those who have interfered with others liberties ?(do you think it is wrong to limit rights of anyone ? should we free all criminals for instance?)

3/ to lay down the method by which such interference is determined? ( is there a perfect, perhaps god given, method to judge that you want to apply to everywhere ? or do you agree that the procedure is determined by law? )

if you know let us know.

if not,all the unfairness etc of pta ( in your opinion ) should be addressed through changing the law throgh democaratic means. and in a democracy you do not get everything you want. it is there to take account of everyones' opinion not just yours. but you are free to cry as long as you wish ( like a child) bc you do not get your wish.

--
another repeat
You failed to point out the provisions in other countries..
i answered that before, -why ? you are missing the point as i said above. the point i was making was that what constitute the valid burden of proof ( in all the differing degrees it is applied around the world ) is laid down by laws passed through democaratic means.- so i ask again, why? should i point out provisions when they are not the point,

and another repeat
Am I to assume that there aren't other developed democracies with such draconian provisions.
'draconian' is a subjective measurement of degree of severity. anyway here is my answer from above -as for differences in degrees, if you want to argue on principle, it is foolish to claim that 3 week detention( even 1 days detention) is better than three month detention and that is why you admit the validity of one law and not the other. esp when the motivation and intention of the legislatures that passed those laws democratically are the same. either you approve the democratic way of passing laws or you do not. -- so unless you saying for instance there isn't any provision at all for any period of detention in those other laws you have not made any counter argument but is merely repeating. be clear are you saying there isn't any provision for detention before producing a suspect before a judge. do they bring the suspect straight to the court room ? :-)

-
You want a Universal standard? Why not check the ICCPR that Sri Lanka has signed and ratified......
a universal standard need to be ratified ? what happens to it when it is not ratified? it is clear that you are still missing the point even when it is inside your own sentences. the point is that what is ratified by democratic means is how legal rights are determined in the real world. that means their determination can also be varied through the same democratic means.
-

all your other points about detention and burden of proof are based in extracts. if you base your arguments on extracts from constitutionally valid and democratically enacted (past judgments are part of the process ) laws you have to give the same validity to other laws that have gone through the same process and are the current law in certain cases ( including pta) .

if you accept the process ( as you show by extracting from them) you cannot say some laws are valid and others are not. or rather you can say that repeatedly ( as you are doing here )but since it is very poor logic and you wont get anywhere with your argument.

instead what you should do is try to change the laws you do not approve of through the same democratic process. that is hard work, if you cannot do that, it is your weakness ( given your logical deficiency displayed here that will not be a surprise ). but at least the unp should.

Anonymous said...

Emergency was there during Chandrika time and for a while when Ranil was there too. But the abuse of these powers/human rights violation/ large scale arbitrary arrest/detention/abductions and kidnapping for ransom (largely by state forces) with absolute impunity wasn't there. I think it's time UNP acts with as a responsible opposition and tell Mahinda, this behavior is cannot be tolerated.

GK

sittingnut said...

gk:
.....(largely by state forces) !?
can you give one example with evidence for involvement of state forces. or are you referring to few rogue elements in it( some of whom were arrested)?

imo it is good that laws are being toughened and the impunity which which terrorist acts were carried out through the years (only a blind man or a ltte supporter would have missed the large scale bombings, killings, abductions, money collections, and other criminality perpetrated by ltte during the cbk and ranil years ) are being addressed and ppl (terrorist supporters and others criminals) are being arrested. (of course you can have a different opinion. but if so better come up with facts not allegations.)

unp if it is wise should support such efforts. they know that, that is why as a responsible opposition they vote for the emergency. unfortunately some of them also engage in empty public posturing as if they oppose it. if what they are posturing about is their real position they should try to opposes and change the law through action as well.

aadhavan said...

"even in the tangent course did i say anything about a majority ? i always said 'through constitutionally valid democratic means'. democracy is not majority rule. there is a difference. a determined opposition can force amendments ., use delaying tactics, etc . unp forced government to withdraw several bills last year. read the post you haven't."

Your dumber than I first thought. When did I ever talk about democracy not being government in power rule. Majority rule is where the majority of members in parliament voting can make decisions unfettered by external constraints. This can be a simple or 2/3rds majority and can comprise members of the govt and opposition. In a liberal democracy civil liberties and political freedoms should not be contingent on the bona fides and effectiveness of the opposition party.

----
"do you think there is a better way than democratically sanctioned constitution and constitutionally valid laws to determine..."

You miss my point. Once you accept that there are civil liberties and enshrine them in a Constitution, it is meaningless for that same Constitution to make provisions for the legislature to violate that Constitution. It renders those civil liberties nugatory. Whether you subscribe to libertarianism or political liberalism, you will find that those theories of governance recognize that civil liberties must be the foundation on which the democratic institution is built.

Now with there being international human right laws playing an international role, there are standards without the Constitution by which the state is bound. i.e - the ICCPR.

Sri Lanka has ratified the ICCPR and is bound in international law by it's guarantees. You need to read more dude. How did you form this erroneous idea that SL has not ratified it....

----

"all your other points about detention and burden of proof are based in extracts."

I think this highlights your confusion. Some laws that violate civil liberties are passed through the proper procedure. Parliaments can be authoritarian at times. These laws are of legal force, but they are still unfair since they violate substantive rights. Yes the Constitution allows this. Such a Constitution is not worth its salt.

"instead what you should do is try to change the laws you do not approve of through the same democratic process."

No to remedy this you have to change the Constitution. The libertarian and the liberalist however value the rights of those who have no bargaining power or political strength. eg- the individual and the minority communities. Otherwise, it would be majoritarian rule, which is the case in SL.

sittingnut said...

you still fail to clearly answer the questions asked so i will ask them again
do you think there is a better way than democratically sanctioned constitution and constitutionally valid laws to determine ,

1/ what the rights are? ( are they absolute and god given for instance ?)

2/ to limit the rights of those who have interfered with others liberties ?(do you think it is wrong to limit rights of anyone ? should we free all criminals for instance?)

3/ to lay down the method by which such interference is determined? ( is there a perfect, perhaps god given, method to judge that you want to apply to everywhere ? or do you agree that the procedure is determined by law? )

if you know let us know.


---
your whole attitude ( see at the bottom where you betray it ) is that since you do not get your way sri lanka is not a democracy , its laws are not valid etc etc.
--

When did I ever talk about democracy not being government in power rule........

get this : legal rights flow from constitution and the laws. and as long as they are in accordance with the constitution and passed democratically they are the valid law . this true in every democracy. you are free to disagree but that only makes you look stupid and blind.

all democracies have ways to change the constitution and laws. that means they can change the status of rights or place restrictions on legal rights through amendments to constitution and other constitutionally valid laws passed by democratic means ( that doesn't mean majority vote alone as i explained before) if they want to. in fact they have done that and still do.

--
Once you accept that there are civil liberties and enshrine them in a Constitution, it is meaningless for that same Constitution to make provisions for the legislature to violate that Constitution.....
you are repeating the same thing in same comment. so i will give the same answer.
all democracies have ways to change the constitution and laws. that means they can change the status of rights or place restrictions on legal rights through amendments to constitution and other constitutionally valid laws passed by democratic means ( that doesn't mean majority vote alone as i explained before) if they want to. in fact they have done that and still do.

if you know of a democratic constitution that says it cannot be amended through a democratic process let me know.

--

Whether you subscribe to libertarianism or political liberalism, you will find that those theories of governance recognize that civil liberties must be the foundation on which the democratic institution is built....
you have a very abstract otherworldly concept of civil liberties. as i said before libertarianism is based on the principle that ppl are free to do as they wish as long as they do not interfere with others freedom to do the same.

in the real world ( as as opposed to the imaginary one where you seem to live) ppl ( like terrorists ) do interfere with others freedom. in this real world democracy what happens then is controlled by law. laws including the basic one, the constitution, determine what the rights are, what is to be done to ppl who violate them, and the process of judging those violations. all three aspects may vary in degrees between countries and circumstances, but the basic principle is the same. so as long as the laws are passed according to constitutionally valid democratic process they are as valid as other laws that were passed through same means on other countries.


...How did you form this erroneous idea that SL has not ratified it....
in the first place you should read before replying, where did i say sri lanka has not ratified it ? don't imagine things this the third time you did that. point was that if it is the law it was so bc it was ratified democratically according to constitution the same as pta, not bc it was some god given thing. i can see why you imagine things given the muddle you have got in to .
constitutionally valid laws that were passed through democratic means are the laws here. and at the moment that include pta.

...Otherwise, it would be majoritarian rule, which is the case in SL.
you are free to have that opinion but it does not accord with the facts. as i said opposition and minority parties have changed laws and faced government to withdraw some. democratic minority parties have won great political victories through democratic means. to cry bc your individual judgment is not made in to law merely demonstrates your inability to convince anyone else of vlaidity of your argument . given your performance here that is not at all surprisng .

--
Some laws that violate civil liberties are passed through the proper procedure. Parliaments can be authoritarian at times. These laws are of legal force, but they are still unfair since they violate substantive rights. Yes the Constitution allows this. Such a Constitution is not worth its salt.

that says what kind of an attitude you have; it says if others do not agree with your subjective judgment about fairness and unfairness , all the laws and even the constitution are wring, all the judges and others who follow those laws are fools, democratic process is not valid and authoritarian etc. only your value judgments are worth the salt.
i saw through your attitude from the first that is why i said you are not god then.

a person who respects other ppl's judgments and ideas will not have that attitude. a person who understands democracy will know that it takes account of other ppls opinions as well as theirs . you do not understand that.

a person who understands that others have( and have a right to have ) different opinions and respects democracy will work to get the laws he disagrees about changed through democratic means instead of condemning the whole thing with as not worth the salt.

aadhavan said...

Snut, you are making an observation, I'm making a value judgement.

What is your yardstick for making a value judgement about the law? Would a law supporting apartheid be wrong even if it were passed by constituionally valid means. Or slavery?

Also, what if a dictator were to come to power through democratic means, changed the Constitution through valid means if one were to follow Kelsonian theories of grundnorm, and then changed the Constitution to ensure that his every whim is valid legal law. Would you have a problem with that sort of arrangement.

Anonymous said...

I have been monitoring this argument between u and aadhavan for awhile, and feel compelled to share my views with you.

Despite all the ranting it seems that the two of u are making some very basic points:

Sittingnut says:

1. Emergency has been successfully passed in order to surpress terrorism. It has received a majority in parliament and thus has been democratically passed.

2. Emergency is an appropriate method to surpress terrorism within our country.

3. The UNP should have opposed it in parliament if they feel that it violates rights of individuals. The UNP are being hypocrites by doing one thing and saying another.


Aadhavan in turn says:

1. Emergency violates the rights of an individual to prove himself innocent and to normal judicial procedure and rights that are granted to any citizen. He also brings the PTA into the argument (Snut has no objections to this). Therefore both these laws are flawed and should not be present in a proper democracy.

2. The method in which laws are passed in parliament is not appropriate. Any law can be passed with a majority. Even though there is a majority, these laws may not be for the good of the people.


Aadhavan consistently argues on the concept that a law that violates the basic rights of a human being is not becoming of a democracy. He consistently points out how Emergency and the PTA in particular violates the basic rights of a citizen to a fair trial. He points out how one should not be subject to the treatment meted out to those detained under the above laws without being proven guilty. He provides factual and conceptual arguments that are very strong in this regard.

He further implies (imo) that the constitution should be more restrictive when letting the parliament deal with laws such as emergency and the pta.

Sittingnut on the other hand says that Emergency and the PTA are acceptable laws. He says that it is quite alright that injustice happens and innocent people are convicted, as it happens all over the world, and no system is perfect. He says that many other countries have similar laws. He fails to point out any.

He puts forward a very interesting challenge to Aadhavan. He asks him to specify how an
individual's interference into others liberties is determined... Funnily enough Snut provides the answer to this question himself.

After an accusation is made by an anonymous commentor GK, Sittingnut tells him that he should substantiate his accusation with evidence before making an accusation. Snut makes similar statements in some of his previous posts and comments.

Dear Sittingnut, if someone has to substantiate a simple statement with concrete evidence, then how much more would you have to substantiate an accusation against an individual who is faced with the prospect of detention, possibly even torcher and imprisonment???

Snut asks another very silly question. "Should rights of those who interfere with others liberties be limited?" He asks whether criminals should be set free. Aadhavan has said nothing to this effect. He has not spoken against the punishment of criminals. He has spoken about how they are proved to be criminals. As pointed out in the 2 previous paras, Snut has the answer to that question.

Snut engages in abit of mud slinging and accuses Aadhavan of being a supporter of terrorists. He goes one step further and encourages the reader to search his blog for previous comments... Hitting abit below the belt there Sittingnut!!! (I'm surprised you didn't call him a peacenik)

Summing up:

Aadhavan drives his first argument home without a doubt and shows very clearly how Emergency and the PTA violates an individuals basic judicial rights.

He argues his second point clearly as well, but is not able to come up with a black and white suggestion for a change in the constitution to prevent such laws from being passed. His recognition and understanding of the problem is however admirable and the answer to the problem will be found in time to come by those who diligently seek it.

Sittingnut lost his way on both his initial points. He went on various detours, made ridiculous and childish arguments, asked stupid questions and actually answered them as well. He seems very confused and uninformed.

His third argument got lost in the fray, but is valid. The UNP are a confused bunch who are trying to ensure that their party doesn't go extinct and hold onto their political principals at the same time.

Sittingnut, I have nothing much to say to someone as stubborn and blind as you are. I hope one day your eyes will be open and that you will see.

Regards
THOT (The Holocaust of Thought)

sittingnut said...

aadhavan:
still no answers to my questions. why ? your head too muddled? why be so afraid they are just questions?
anyway i will answer your new questions but i expect your answers in the next comment. if you want to discuss this in a principled way

...What is your yardstick for making a value judgement about the law?...

in the first place to clarify it is you who went on a tangent about the validity of laws.

anyway you have again got the wrong end of the stick. ppl are free to make value judgments. as i said you are free to express your opinion. and i have my own value judgments and opinions. i don't agree with some provisions in the pta but since i accept the way the process works i would want it be changed through the same democratic process. that is why i find it hypocritical and ridiculous that some in unp condemn and then vote for emergency for instance. similarly i find it hypocritical and ridiculous that you accept the results of the same process here( you are reluctant to say that clearly even after prompting, but your extracts and your non replies indicate that you admit the validity of some laws. if you reject the whole system say so clearly as i asked you to do before) and elsewhere in the world, and completely reject some other results.

Would a law supporting apartheid be wrong even if it were passed by constituionally valid means. Or slavery?.
wrong? yes, according to my personnel value judgment.
question is how to change it. if the country is a democracy and i have accepted other laws passed through the same process i would work through the democaratic process. esp bc in a democracy all the ppl whose liberties are affected by the laws have a say in the process of making them. democratic process will take all opinions in to consideration though it cannot satisfy each individual or interest group in the resulting law.

of course compared to a modern democracy ( including sri lanka ) 19th century u.s. and apartheid south africa were not democracies, since slaves and non whites ( and many other slike women) did not have any say in the laws that affected them. so there was good grounds for rejecting the whole thing esp if you were a slave or a non white. but if one was a white or a u.s. citizen who accepted part of the system it would be hypocritical by definition to condemn the whole thing. instead such ppl, if they were not hypocrites, would have worked through the system to change that if they opposed apartheid and slavery.

so if i was a us citizen in early 1850s and opposed slavery, i would certainly have joined a democaratic anti slavery movement and would have voted for abe lincoln even if that meant a good chance of war. in fact we are doing something similar here by supporting the democaratic government defeat the terrorists oppressing the ppl under them and killing others.

in fact we can make lot of comparisons with u.s civil war situation and the actions of the union army, with sri lankan situation, but i will keep that for later. for now i will say that lincoln and union by making laws that changed the legal rights status of some ppl ( extending rights to slaves and taking away some rights (such as some 'property' rights) from slave owners) provide a good example of how in the real world it is the law (enforced with government sanctioned violence if needs be against those who refuse to obey the law ) that determine the legal rights.

what it comes down to is that, if you accept some of the laws and the process of making them here or elsewhere, work to change pta through the same process, or be a hypocrite. its your choice.

your question about dictator indicate your extremely muddled thinking. if a dictator abolishes the democratic way of making laws (in whatever way) ppl will have no say in making laws and they will be not be bound by or responsible for them. on the other hand ppl are bound by and are responsible for the laws made through a process where they have a say even if they do not agree with the result. in such a case they can always try to change the results through the same process if they really care.


i replied to your questions, now answer the questions i asked. if you know what you are talking about.

sittingnut said...

anon at 3/12/2007 2:14 am (thot (the holocaust of thought))

it is clear your understanding is as muddled as your comment.
that you felt the need to give your own interpretations of our comments instead of quoting the relevant parts indicate that you are well aware that you are misrepresenting them
i will point out few ( in the interest of length though most of your comment is a misrepresentation) points where you misunderstood or purposely misrepresented.

Aadhavan consistently argues on the concept that a law that violates the basic rights of a human being is not becoming of a democracy. He consistently points out how Emergency and the PTA in particular violates the basic rights of a citizen to a fair trial. .... He provides factual and conceptual arguments that are very strong in this regard.

what he does not point out is how those basic rights are defined in spite of repeated questioning. are they defined by laws passed through democratic means ? i accept that in the real world they are so defined. what is aadhavan's position? that they are universal and god given?

a person who advances arguments about validity of rights without clearly stating how the rights are defined is not advancing valid arguments. if you think his arguments are valid may be you should explain how the legal rights are defined. if you accept that in the real world they are defined by laws and constitutions, clearly state why you accept some laws and not others even though they are all passed in the same democratic way. bc you are the holder of god given truth?

Sittingnut on the other hand says that Emergency and the PTA are acceptable laws. He says that it is quite alright that injustice happens and innocent people are convicted, as it happens all over the world, and no system is perfect.
:-)
did i say it is 'quite alright' ? where? care to point out?
that you are confusing the basic distinction between a description and a value judgment says a lot about your metal abilities. what i said was that there wasn't a perfect method of determining guilt. only an all powerful god ( if there is one) would be able to do that. ( i did not say i am ok with it ).
anyway since the method of determining the guilt is laid down by democratically passed laws ( if not say so both of you) in all democracies all of them have the same validity.ppl who think some method is unfair ( a value judgement ) should act through the system to change it. you cannot have the cake and it.

...He says that many other countries have similar laws. He fails to point out any.
i answered this before. who or what define the process by which ppl are arrested and punished here and in other democratic countries ? laws passed through democratic means or by some other entity ( god perhaps)? i accept it is such laws and they have the same validity whatever their provisions. if not please explain why some laws are more valid if the process is the same.

for instance isn't it such laws that determine the period of detention before the suspect is produced before a judge in every democracy ? if so isn't it silly to argue that a law with a longer period is not valid just bc of that given that they went through a similar process ? who gave you the right to determine perfect detention period? god ? unless you answer the basic question about rights i highlighted above clearly and thus clear your own mind about where you stand in th question you would be forced advance such empty arguments as my not pointing out similar laws . take any constitutionally valid democratically passed law in any democracy, they are as valid as any here not more not less.

He puts forward a very interesting challenge to Aadhavan. He asks him to specify how an
individual's interference into others liberties is determined... Funnily enough Snut provides the answer to this question himself.
After an accusation is made by an anonymous commentor GK, Sittingnut tells him that he should substantiate his accusation with evidence before making an accusation. Snut makes similar statements in some of his previous posts and comments.

Dear Sittingnut, if someone has to substantiate a simple statement with concrete evidence, then how much more would you have to substantiate an accusation against an individual who is faced with the prospect of detention, possibly even torcher and imprisonment???

your intelligence takes an another big hit. we were discussing how guilt is determined legally. and i was prompting aadhavan to admit that it is determined in the real world by a method laid down in a democratically passed constitutionally valid law. as i do. and if he admitted that ( he fails to give clear answer ) he know he has to admit that all such laws have the same validity whatever the method laid down in them. you of course do not get what the argument was all about . :-)

as for my asking for substantiation? why not ? here i have a right to say what process i will use here to judge accusation based on my values.
in democaratic societies that judge crimes that process is defined by the properly passed law.( this is a description of fact) it is not up to you or i to define that as we wish, but for law. if you think that method is wrong ( you are making value judgement ) you better work to change that through the democaratic process.


Snut asks another very silly question. "Should rights of those who interfere with others liberties be limited?" He asks whether criminals should be set free. Aadhavan has said nothing to this effect. He has not spoken against the punishment of criminals. He has spoken about how they are proved to be criminals. As pointed out in the 2 previous paras, Snut has the answer to that question.

another remark anther hit to your intelligence and understanding
question was asked from aadhavan bc he seem to believe that civil liberties should not be restricted even by law. if he accepts the argument that they can be legitimately restricted by application of law ( as we do with criminals ) after a certain method of determining guilt also defined by law, i will ask why he is objecting to some other laws that restrict liberties which have the same validly ( bc they were passed through the same constitutionally valid democratic process) ? he probably knowing this and understanding this ( unlike you ) avoid the question and fails to answer. understand the argument before jumping in.

personal attacks were made by both. that you chose only mine to remark on say something about you. as for mudslinging etc. as i said read the history it is there to see . :-) btw i have called aadhavan by a worse word than 'peacenik' ( bc he is not a peacenik as i define it but something else ) with reason. refer history


it is inevitable that with your level of intelligence you have missed the basic points of arguments
in other words while aadhavan avoids the questions raised bc he probably knows the implications, you simply do not get them .
so in the future understand what is being discussed and the points made before jumping into things way out of your depth

aadhavan said...

I reserve the right to respond in any way and will not take lectures from you. When I'm done, you will answer those questions yourself.

You see, your parameter for validity is not a legally binding constitution at all. It is democratically mandated constitution. But this is a reflection of your own value judgement. I may ask you

1. Is participation in a democracy a god given right?

2. cannot democratic rights be restricted by a valid constitutional process. In the usa Black's weren't allowed to vote for a very long time, since the SC and state laws were in effect that restricted those rights. We don't allow kids to vote, didn't allow women to vote until recently and foreigners will probably never be allowed to vote, so if you follow proper procedure what is wrong about limiting other people's rights to vote.

3. What is the procedure for determining whether a person is interfering with other's liberties to vote?

Courts, legislation, dictator's dictat??
-----


You see Snut, I hope its clear to you now. Democracy is your parameter for validity. Otherwise there's nothing wrong about a dictator or apartheid or hitler.

I don't even have a parameter. I have a yardstick to judge whether a Constitution is a good one, though. Hitler's constitution was legally valid, so was the apartheid constitution of SA. There are a variety of ways to change this, from armed resistance to democratic means where the option is available and non violent action.

Also, civil rights and democratic freedoms are different sides of the same coin. Democracy is just a word without the right to freedom of expression, thought and conscience, freedom from arbitrary arrest and a system of law of checks with checks and balances.

So before you ask me to justify an external assumption(civil liberties), you better start doing your thinking on democracy and i'll show you how civil liberties necessarily fits in that equation.

sittingnut said...

if you are unable to answer and state how you think legal rights are defined in the real world that is your choice . but if you cannot even say how rights are defined your other argument about their validity do not have any meaning

You see, your parameter for validity is not a legally binding constitution at all. It is democratically mandated constitution
did i say i accept all constitutions ? i accept democaratic constitutions as i said from the start. you as usual argue against imagined things

yes my preference for democracy is a value judgment. so? if you do not prefer democracy say so

you ask questions about things i have already answered ( except perhaps no 1)

1. Is participation in a democracy a god given right?
no :-)

so if you follow proper procedure what is wrong about limiting other people's rights to vote.
bc it is not democratic
.
What is the procedure for determining whether a person is interfering with other's liberties to vote?
Courts, legislation, dictator's dictat??

the method laid down in constitutionally valid laws passed through a democratic process as i have said from the start. actual methods laid down is such laws will vary from democracy to democracy.

Democracy is your parameter for validity
yes nothing new :-)

I don't even have a parameter. I have a yardstick to judge whether a Constitution is a good one, though

what is your yardstick? that was what i asked from the first.
if it is purely personal and arbitrary one that explains why you prefer some laws and not other even though they were passed in same way . since you are not god don't expect that others will accept your purely personal yardstick. esp since you cannot even explain what it is

There are a variety of ways to change this, from armed resistance to democratic means where the option is available and non violent action.

:-) so what method do you prefer to impose laws that pass your personal yardstick on others ? be specific, what do you say to terror is that pass your values ?

Also, civil rights and democratic freedoms are different sides of the same coin. Democracy is just a word without the right to freedom of expression, thought and conscience, freedom from arbitrary arrest and a system of law of checks with checks and balances.

your muddleheadedness is again apparent. you cannot talk about civil liberties without saying how you define them. or rather you can talk all you want, but without saying how you define rights all your arguments about rights will not make any logical sense. are they defined by democratic laws ? or by god ? your own purely personal definition? you talk about few rights, and do not say how you selected them and not others. are the ones you mention the only ones you accept ? are we all able to define rights as we wish ? what prevents us from doing so ?

it is precisely to avoid all that confusion, that in the real world legal rights are defined by the constitutions in democracies (and even in some non democracies). i accept democratically defined legal rights. if they are incompatible with my democratic and libertarian values i will try to change them through the same democratic means or support others who are so engaged.

So before you ask me to justify an external assumption(civil liberties), you better start doing your thinking on democracy and i'll show you how civil liberties necessarily fits in that equation.
well if it wasn't clear to you. my preference for democracy is purely personal choice . you are free to prefer dictatorship. my preference for libertarianism is also a purely personal choice. as such i think ppl should be free to act as they wish as long as thy do not interfere with others freedom.

since in the real world for practical purposes such as finding and restricting rights of those who violate others rights it is a requirement to define legal rights, i will accept legal rights defined through a democratically mandated constitutions and laws. i also accept( indeed welcome) that these rights can be changed democratically as country and circumstances change.

all this i have said before. but your real purpose in asking about them was to hide behind them in order to not answer how you define civil liberties. if it is a purely personal definition and if you do not accept democratic process of defining legal rights, say so. why hesitate ?

i have answered . now its your turn, give a straight answer if you dare, how do you define rights?

ashanthi said...

Well there machan - looks like you are back and all fired up again.

Have had a bit of a read through this and have to say - the only person that is taking these so called "peaceniks aka wanker juvenille self-obsessed don't really give a shit wannabes" - is you.

I think - most of us have actually come together on these Sri Lankan blogs via Morquendi and not - as you are promoting, with your labourious arguments from indi. His banal posts interlopped with grandiose musings about how he's the main man in Colombo in that flat of his with a view, are just pathetic.

There are others and I know you know who I'm talking about.

Bottom line is - you should not be wasting your time with indi, but as I have asked you over and over again to try and reconcile your differences with Morq and let us all move on.

Why can't you do this and stop wasting your time responding to these anon bloggers? Unless maybe you know who they are? Come I expect more from you. Just forget it. Don't you think there are more important things for you to be doing that bothering about mojo and kottu.

Please - move on and stop giving indi the attention he craves.

Having said that - below is a comment I left on indi's blog about abductions (it was so patronsing to Tamils) after many, many months - again to encourage this anon guy called Jey to just move on.

Read it - and take my advice. Hope all is well with - talk soon. PS - how's Keshi?

[Jey - don't waste your time. He's a brainwashed little monkey puppet living in la la land (I believe it's called Lanka land of the Demons these days) What these idiots have done now is open the door for anyone and everyone to commence killing anyone and everyone.

Picture this - there are only a few million Tamils left in Sri Lanka. They go home early, they lie low like sleeping dogs, they make no noises, they pretend to be Sinhalese even and sometimes they learn how to use a gun and defend themselves. That is why there are still a few million left. Albeit, divided, ruled and being killed everyday at the rate of 5-10 a day. We know that you can't kill all of us.

But - what they are doing now is killing Sinhalese people too now. Because, hey guess what, look who's back in power and even in government and ... hasn't this happened before? Who was tried, who was prosecuted for the so called communist insurgencies? When did Sinhalese people face up to what they did to each other. Never, nor are they going to face up to it now. So - History is about to repeat itself.

Mahinda with the JVP and a huge number of monsterous monks are just common criminals who have given people like Indi the Sri Lanka he deserves. He'll be fine though, as I dare say Sittingnut and Morquendi will say, because he's never going to go there and see first hand what young men of his age are going through. So long as he can swan around with a bottle of booze on under his driving seat and avoid actually serving in the army for his country - then hey he's sweet.

If we had the middle classes and the upper middle classes of Sinhalese Sri Lanka serving in the army, the war would end. This is because the horror of it all would be too much for them to bear.

My best advice to you Jey is get yourself a real blog name and start a blog in your own right and start a debate about how we are going to stop this killing.]

s/nut - I support you saying anyting and everything on your own blog. What I can't support is you giving indi and kottu all this attention and missing the real point.

Go back to the ashanthi blog and read those words that you wrote for the bloggers peace plan. Thats what you need to do. Of all of us - you were the most coherent and precise about those points.

Let's go back there and let's stop wasting time.

aadhavan said...

Ok, here goes civil iliberties 101 for dummies.

Of course the PTA is legally binding. So is the law in Saudi permitting people's hands to be chopped off for theft, apartheid, segregation , slavery and Hitler's edicts. They were all valid law. The test of whether a law is valid is if it is consistent with the Constitution of the land and is enforce by the authorities concerned.

In a constitution civil rights are given effect to. Sometimes they are unduly restricted. Democratic rights are also sometimes given effect to. They are also sometimes unduly restricted -women not having the right to vote for instance.

I asked you - what's wrong with these laws that restrict democratic rights of people?

You seemed to say because they restrict democratic rights. That means to you democratic rights are a value to be preserved regardless of whether the constitution respects those rights. Where do you get this idea from- pure personal preference. What would you have done if you were a black in America of pre emancipation? Utilised democratic means?

I now tell you- in the same way that we say that democratic rights must be preserved, civil liberties also must be preserved. Just because a Constitution does not respect them does not mean that these rights ought not exist. If a Constitution protects these rights- good. If not - bad. Do whatever you can to get them enshrined- civil war, democratic agitation, satyagraha. Depends on the exigencies of the situation.

How do i come up with the idea of civil liberties- from the same place you came up with the absolute parameter of democracy and more. Intl human rights law and the theory of liberalism and libertarianism and the idea of human dignity. The idea comes from there- the details are in intl covenants.

Oh, snut, how do you define democratic rights?

Anonymous said...

international covenants are also fallible. everyone except aadhavan seems to be prepared to make a tradeoff between a degree of civil liberty and a government's duty to protect citizens. the US, the UK, Sweden, Austrlia - all those countries fall short of the aadhavan ideal of civil liberties. somehow, they seem to manage without a descent into anarchy and chaos.

really it seems to me like aadhavan is abusing his knowledge opf articles of penal codes to impose his own value judgements on the rest of us. I do not see an alternative to the state of emergency. aadhavan avoids mentioning an alternative in his own political posturing.

tell me this, aadhavan. why is your opinion on this matter important to anyone other than you?

aadhavan said...

Anon, I'm not imposing my judgments on anyone. Democracy seems to be value Snut and I agree on, so my question really is why civil rights cannot be accepted with the same accommodation of absolutes.

I've never mentioned any provisions of the Penal Code anywhere, so I'm assuming you have no clue as to what the penal code is in the first place.

Intl instruments are a fairly good standard to abide by since they reflect the standards that SL has bound itself by in intl law.

Anonymous said...

as usual, aadhavan somehow mixes patronizing comments with not answering to the point.

you were right in one thing. I made a mistake by saying articles of the penal code. I mean your quote of Weerawansa vs AG.

with examples of countries which violate your standard of civil liberties, you still think everyone should be at your ideal? I gave you 4 example countries that violate civil liberties according to your standard. You choose not to answer. It seems that you want to set a perfect standard for sri lanka. does sweden have a terrorist threat? no. but they still tap their citizens phones without warrant. does the uk have a threat like the ltte? no - but anyone can be detained for upto 30 or 90 days without charge.

your standards for civil liberties are your personal opinions dishonestly dressed up with legal quotes. now if you had asked if the PTA is of any use in actually preventing terrorism or if it is effective that is a different argument. but you did not. instead you push your standard and your own opinion on us.

since you have not bothered to keep the conversation polite let me ask you why are you being such a weasel? is this like your justifying ltte actions in other comments?

since you cannot answer anything except by repeating yourself I will assume that you are dumber than you look and incapable of conducting an argument. ok?

aadhavan said...

I'm coming to the question of derogations once I get Snut to realise that his democracy parameter is arrived at from a platform no different to my civil liberties standard.

I'll give you a clue - I would like to apply the Rawlsian analytical approach in arriving at a conception of civil liberties that could meet varying demands of security and liberty. I think this is an attractive option since the Rawlsian 'overlapping consensus' displays that the principles arrived at from the 'original position' are feasible theories to work with in order to arrive at a coherent hierarchy of values in constitution making. I will display that the PTA could at best be consistent only with a utilitarian approach that I reject from a Rawlsian position. I will show that the PTA cannot have been agreed by those in the original position and thus is unjust as per Rawls, but also unequal in a Dworkinian sense.

Anonymous said...

I see aadhavan is back to talking nonsense again. hope he is joking but he might have his head too far up his own ass for jokes.

I think it is our responsibility to conveniently fashion economically sound infrastructures to set us apart from the competition. we can authoritatively foster innovative benefits as well as to seamlessly fashion value-added sources to exceed expectations also

aadhavan said...

I see someone is in a spot of bother in trying to comprehend political theory! Don't ever get into an argument about the source of civil rights without acquiring at least a passing knowledge of the liberal political writers.

Anonymous said...

a valid argument mate. exactly like saying don't bother using the internet without knowing how the browser works. perhaps you should stay off the internet too. you wannabe lawyers don't belong here - go play in a pretend courtroom.

your 'argument' on civil liberties is a single opinion. no one else arguing with you had to hide behind texts and rawlsian quotes to make their point. only you did.

how your promises to show us anything will change this fact i dont know. i will let those reading decide.

aadhavan said...

Still having problems with rawls mate? Anyways what are you doing on the site of an avowed libertarian without knowing balls about rawls and dworkin. Next thing you'll say is that you haven't heard of Mill!!

I think wikipedia should have an entry on rawls. let me know your mail id if not, i can mail you some stuff.

Anonymous said...

arent you assuming what i know or dont know abt rawls? is trying to mail me the best answer you have here? could it be that you have nothing better to say and distraction is your only chance?

thanks but i have the same texts you do. still funny to watch you avoid questions. oh and still waiting for those promised explanations.

i look forward to hearing how you pass off your own biased opinion as best practice for sri lanka. should be interesting.

aadhavan said...

No dude. This was a conversation I was having with Snut. When i have his discussed his reply about democratic parameters and their justification i will expand on rawls to demonstrate the source of civil liberties and permissible derogations . You my friend can sit and watch...and actually read that book on Rawls that you have :-)

Anonymous said...

i had no idea you wanted to get a private room with sittingnut to have a heart to heart talk. perhaps you should ask him first.

even more funny how you replied to a bystander and then changed your mind after two comments.

we are still waiting for you to present your personal opinion as fact. running out of excuses?

aadhavan said...

Ok anon, you want to engage? Is democracy a parameter for the legal validity of a Constitution in your opinion?

Anonymous said...

leading questions now? what happened to the aadhavan who had all the answers out of text books?

aadhavan said...

Engage or bugger off mate.

Anonymous said...

two days ago you said
" I reserve the right to respond in any way and will not take lectures from you "

something different for us anons now. even when it isnt your own blog lol. did you show sittingnut your law degree and ask him if you could chase anons off his blog?

at least 5 comments of avoiding the questions raised. am i going to be your excuse for running away?

sounds like your opinion on civil liberties. only democratic when you get your way.

aadhavan said...

put up or shut up mate. if you want an answer from me, ask snut to respond, or answer my question. Do you recognise democracy as a parameter for legal validity? yes or no or anything inbetween. Don't be chicken.

sittingnut said...

everyone thanks for the comments.

i was out of colombo ( was in trinco for most part) for the week and got back only on saturday evening and then watched the match.

so far i merely skimmed through the comments. will reply later tonight or tomorrow. now i am going to sleep :-)

sittingnut said...

sorry again people :-( . was busy, with work and matches :-), last week too. will certainly reply this week.