[net.politics] Americans: Response to Dave London

jmm@bonnie.UUCP (Joe Mcghee) (08/15/84)

*******************************************************************************

David London says:

> 3. Americans put far more emphasis on "the right of the individual" than the
>    "societal good". c.f. net.abortion, net.gun_control, net.dirty_cities,
>    etc. (I can't believe how many people have said something like,"Well, at
>    least *here* you have the right to say what you are saying. Hey, wake up!
>    I have this same right in dozens of countries, not just yours.)
> 5. Americans believe that they live in the best country in the world; the
>    most free, the most democratic, the fairest.
> 6. Americans know less about other countries than any other people. (I know 
>    that this is a bit strange, in view of (5), that is, how can someone 
>    believe their country to be the best, without knowing about other 
>    countries? see (7).)
> 7. Americans are very anti-intellectual; Americans read less than anyone
>    else. (Well, that explains (6): (5) is based on faith and propaganda, 
>    not knowledge.)
>
> For the record, I have lived in Canada, Europe and the U.S. I have travelled
> extensivelyl throughout Europe, Canada, the States and Mexico. If you want to
> flame me, let's have some intelligent arguments.
>
>					David London
>					..!ihnp4!oddjob!london

	Dave, I have a book you might be interested in because it deals with
the liberties enjoyed by the people in one of those countries in which you've
probably lived or traveled. It's called:

	The Public General Acts of 1922

	passed in the twelfth and thirteenth year of the Reign of His Majesty
King George the Fifth being the second session of the First Parliament of
Northern Ireland...Belfast. Printed by R. Carswell & Son, Ltd for... the
Parliament of Northern Ireland.

	This book describes the laws written and passed at the time that
Northern Ireland was carved out and partitioned from Ireland in 1922. On pages
6 thru 21 you will find the laws entitled "Civil Authorities (Special Powers)
Act (Northern Ireland (1922).
	This law was written and worded to appear to be a piece of emergency
legislation with an automatic expiration if not extended by the government, but
each and every year from 1922 to 1984 it has been renewed as a matter of
formality without any significant debate.
	At the top of page 8 we find:

	"(5) Where the offence against the regulations is committed by a
	corporation or company, every director and officer of the corporation
	or company shall be guilty of the like offence, UNLESS HE PROVES that
	the act constituting the offence took place without his knowledge or
	consent."

	This demonstrates the principles of "guilt by association" and
"assumed guilt until proven innocent" where the burden of proof is placed upon
the accused.

	"(6) Where under the regulations any act if done without lawful
	authority or without lawful authority or excuse is an offence against
	the regulations, THE BURDEN OF PROVING that the act was done with
	lawful authority or with lawful authority or excuse SHALL REST ON
	THE PERSON ALLEGED TO BE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE."

	This speaks for itself. On page 9 we find:

	"5. Where after trial by any court a person is convicted of any crime
	or offence to which this section applies, the court may, in addition
	to any other punishment which may lawfully be imposed, order such
	person, if a male, TO BE ONCE PRIVATELY WHIPPED, and the provisions
	of subsection (6) of section thirty-seven of the Larceny Act, 1916,
	AS TO SENTENCES OF WHIPPING shall apply accordingly."

	This demonstrates a continuing use of corporal punishment under their
legal system which would be rejected as "cruel or unusual punishment" under our
legal system. On pages 10 and 11 we find:

	"10.-(1) For the purpose of preserving the peace and maintaining
	order, the Minister of Home Affairs may by order:-
		(a) PROHIBIT THE HOLDING OF INQUESTS BY CORONERS ON DEAD BODIES
	IN ANY AREA IN NORTHERN IRELAND SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER, EITHER
	ABSOLUTELY OR EXCEPT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES OR ON SUCH CONDITIONS AS
	MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER; OR,
		(b) PROHIBIT THE HOLDING OF ANY PARTICULAR INQUEST SPECIFIED
	IN THE ORDER"

	This demonstrates the obstruction of justice by the withholding of one
of the primary tools of a judicial inquiry by the government. At the bottom of
page 11 we find:

	"(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving to any
	person, where an offence against the regulations has been committed,
	any right to compensation in respect of lands, buildings, goods,
	chattels or other property taken, occupied or destroyed in connection
	with such offence."

	This demonstrates interference with the rights of private property. On
pages 12, 13 and 14 we find:

	"3. (1) The civil authority may make orders prohibiting or restricting
	in any area:-
		(a) The holding or taking part in meetings, assemblies
	(including fairs and markets), or processions in public places;

	4. Where there appears to be reason to apprehend that the assembly of
	any persons for the purpose of the holding of any meeting will give
	rise to grave disorder, and will thereby cause undue demands to be
	made upon the police forces, or that the holding of any procession
	will conduce to a breach of the peace OR WILL PROMOTE DISAFFECTION,
	it shall be lawful for the civil authority, or for two or more such
	persons so authorized, to make an order prohibiting the holding of the
	meeting or procession, and if a meeting or procession is held or
	attempted to be held in contravention of any such prohibition, IT SHALL
	BE LAWFUL TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO DISPERSE THE
	MEETING OR PROCESSION OR TO PREVENT THE HOLDING THEREOF; and every
	person taking part in any such prohibited meeting or procession shall
	be guilty of an offence against these regulations."

	This demonstrates the destruction of the right of freedom of assembly.
On pages 14 and 15 we find:

	"8. It shall be lawful for the civil authority and any person duly
	authorised by him, where for the purposes of this Act it is necessary
	so to do:-
		(a) To take possesion of any land and to construct works,
	including roads, thereon, and to remove any trees, hedges, and fences
	therefrom;
		(b) TO TAKE POSSESSION OF ANY BUILDINGS OR OTHER PROPERTY,
	including works for the supply of gas, electricity or water, and of any
	sources of water supply;
		(d) TO CAUSE ANY BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES TO BE DESTROYED, OR
	ANY PROPERTY TO BE MOVED FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER, OR TO BE DESTROYED;
		(e) TO DO ANY OTHER ACT INVOLVING INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE
	RIGHTS OF PROPERTY WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT."

	This demonstrates the complete destruction of all rights of private
property at the whim of the government. On page 17 we find:

	"16. If any person attempts or does ANY ACT CALCULATED OR LIKELY TO
	CAUSE mutiny, sedition, OR DISAFFECTION IN ANY POLICE FORCE OR AMONG
	THE CIVILIAN POPULATION, or to impede, delay or restrict any work
	necessary for the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order
	he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.

	19. Where the civil authority, or any superior officer of police, IS
	OF AN OPINION that a meeting or assembly is being held or is about to
	be held of such a character that an offence against these regulations
	may be committed thereat, he may authorise in writing a police
	constable or person to attend the meeting or assembly, and any police
	constable or person so authorised may enter the place at which the
	meeting or assembly is held and remain there during its continuance."

	This demonstrates the destruction of the rights of freedom of speech
and freedom of assembly. On page 18 we find:

	"23. Any person authorised for the purpose of the civil authority, or
	any police constable, or member of His Majesty's forces on duty when
	the occasion for the arrest arises, MAY ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT ANY
	PERSON WHOSE BEHAVIOUR IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO GIVE REASONABLE
	GROUNDS FOR SUSPECTING THAT HE HAS ACTED OR IS ACTING OR IS ABOUT TO
	ACT IN A MANNER PREJUDICIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE PEACE OR
	MAINTENANCE OF ORDER,...

	Any person so arrested may, on the order of the civil authority, be
	detained in any of His Majesty's prisons as a person committed to
	prison on remand, until he has been discharged by direction of the
	Attorney General or is brought before a court of summary jurisdiction.
	Any person to be brought before a court under this regulation SHALL
	RECEIVE AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS NOTICE IN WRITING OF THE NATURE OF
	OF THE CHARGE PREFERRED AGAINST HIM."

	This demonstrates the power of arrest without warrant on the flimsiest
of excuses, that a person may be imprisoned "on remand" for an indefinite
period of time without a trial and if given a trial he may be tried with only
24 hours notice of the charges against him. On pages 19 and 20 we find:

	"25 No person shall by word of mouth or in writing, or in any
	newspaper, periodical, book, circular, or other printed publication-
		(a) spread false reports or make false statements; or
		(b) spread reports or make statements intended or likely to
	cause disaffection to His Majesty, or to interfere with the success
	of any police or other force acting for the preservation of the peace
	or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland; or
		(c) spread reports or make statements intended or likely to
	prejudice the recruiting or enrolment of persons to serve in any
	police or other force enrolled or employed for the preservation of the
	peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland, or to prejudice the
	training, disipline, or administration of any such force; and no person
	shall produce any performance on any stage, or exhibit any picture or
	cinematograph film, or commit any act which is intended or likely to
	cause any disaffection, interference or prejudice as aforesaid, and if
	any person contravenes any of the above provisions he shall be guilty
	of an offence against these regulations.

	26. The civil authority may by notice PROHIBIT THE CIRCULATION OF ANY
	NEWSPAPER FOR ANY SPECIFIED PERIOD, AND ANY PERSON CIRCULATING OR
	DISTRIBUTING SUCH NEWSPAPER WITHIN SUCH SPECIFIED PERIOD SHALL BE
	GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AGAINST THESE REGUATIONS.

	27. If any person in any newspaper, periodical, circular or other
	printed publication, or in any public speech, without lawful authority
	shall publish the contents of any confidential document belonging to,
	or of any document which has in confidence been communicated by, or any
	confidential information obtained from, any Department of the
	Government of Northern Ireland, or any person in the service of that
	Government, such first mentioned person shall be guilty of an offence
	against these regulations."

	This demonstrates a complete abolition of the rights of freedom of
speech and freedom of the press.
	If anyone on the net would like a xerox copy of the complete text of
this law complete with royal seal just send me your address by email.

	So Dave, could you please make at least a feeble attempt to explain
away this disgrace to humanity known as the Special Powers Act? I eagarly await
your response.

					bonnie!jmm
					J. M. McGhee
					just another bloody wog.

gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (08/15/84)

Excuse me, but what a disingenuous bit of arguing. I'm certainly not going
to feel much like trotting out an argument about the Brits and the Irish
(you've got a bone to pick, eh? Well, just be glad you live in America 
during the second war where we can put you in the internment camps.......)

I sympathize with your position, but you're being a bit myopic, I think-hey,
wasn't that one of our Brit pal's comments. You wanna try curtailed rights?
Okay, how about Blacks? The Nisei? Curfews during the 60's? (But wait, those
were not *legitimate* complaints like.....) The pure and simple reason you
can trot out the old "Colonial Oppressor" argument is that this country missed
its share of the colonial pie during the 19th century. We were too busy putting
our own native-born third world on reservations where they wouldn't bother us.

As for the legal end of things, if you'd look at something besides English
jurisprudence, you'd notice that the "guilty until proven innocent" (How
do the British describe this legal principle?) has a long history of its own
with its origins in the dim past. Perhaps we could talk about the notions of
British/European Jurisprudence vs. the American notion here. ANyone up for it?

As I read our British friend's posting, I can't say as I find much to disagree
with. Not that it's not understandable or anything. My lovely wife (who is 
Dutch) found the original very interesting, and said that it was, in fact, one
of the politest mentions of what "Americans are like in general" that she'd
ever heard in American company from a Non-American.

I don't think that the original posting was concerned in any way with the
superiority of the British system. It merely suggested that some AMericans
are *painfully* ignorant of the rest of the world, and unworried about it.
They may be uninterested in the rest of the world, (except for the cuisine
;-)  ) and all the more ready to point to the ethnic background of the US as
a grounds for exemption for knowing what the world out there is like. Sad
to say, I think he's right, and no amount of Olympic broadcasting is gonna
mess up that sense of shame.

gtaylor
________________________________________________________________________________
If you ask me, I may tell you   gtaylor@cornell
it's been this way for years	Gregory Taylor			 
I play my red guitar....	Theorynet (Theoryknot)		  
________________________________________________________________________________

rb@houxn.UUCP (08/15/84)

Gee......sounds just like our American system....the
part where you are guilty until proven innocent, at least....

Ever been in traffic court?? (Especially in NJ!)

People have been convicted of crimes where laws didn't even exist!!

Also tax court, for that matter! Guilty until proven innocent is the
way both courts operate, and if you believe otherwise, you ain't been
there!!

berry@zinfandel.UUCP (Berry Kercheval) (08/15/84)

Jeez.  No wonder the Irish hate the British....

-- 
Berry Kercheval		Zehntel Inc.	(ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry)
(415)932-6900

garret@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Trisha O Tuama) (08/16/84)

*****

Hey, jmm, what is all this?  My people come from County Armagh
and as a founding member of the Royal Society to keep Ulster
Free of the Papist Influence, I certainly have no problems with
this Act.  Are you doing your Don Rickles imitation again, you old
hocky-puck you? 

love, 

   Trisha (the Red Hand) O Tuama


ps: oh gawd, please don't tell me you're a member of NORAID

ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) (08/17/84)

	Ever been in traffic court?? (Especially in NJ!)


Well, maybe NJ.  But not Chicago.  You're not guilty here unless
you are stupid enough not to hire a normal traffic court lawyer.

Greylord is no surprise at ALL to ANY Chicagoan who's been here
any time at all.  Ah, the tales I have to tell...

	"Go Greylord....
		And leave the bribing to us!"

			Dave Ihnat
			ihuxx!ignatz