From: J Corbally (icorb@indigo.ie)
Date: Thu Jun 07 2001 - 16:46:49 MDT
>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:39:40 +0200
>From: Francois-Rene Rideau <fare@tunes.org>
>Subject: Re: France to fight cults
> >>: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>, Re: France to fight cults
> >> [the french] believe the state can and should decide what is supposed to
> >> be suppressed for the "good of all". This is worse than a thousand cults.
> >: J Corbally <icorb@indigo.ie>
> > Noble intentions, bad execution.
>How that, "noble intentions"? I question this assertion.
>Just don't let yourself blinded by official propaganda.
I haven't seen the official propaganda. I'm just saying that showing
"cults" for what they are is a noble endeavor. Never said I trusted the
French to do it right.
>It serves the (self-ignoring) totalitarian agenda of french statists.
>Repressing cults is just another step toward totalitarianism;
>it just cannot be done right, and is another way to destroy
>anything that's new and weak, and promote the old and strong.
Agreed, hence my "bad execution" bit. I'd go so far as to say while the
idea (within reason) is sound, I doubt the French Govt. had "noble
intentions" on its' mind when it created this monster.
> > Then again, sooner or later European Law will get round to removing laws
> > like this.
>European Law is not freedom; it's just another tyrant replacing ours.
Speak for yourself. We're voting on it, not having it rammed down our
throats. We're deciding.
>
>Many people count on international pressure to bring freedom to France;
>they don't realize that the french government would rather the french
>starve than let power go, and that those that do pressure our government
>most are other governments and lobbies - other tyrants, and
>privilege-seekers.
>The only good politician is the dead politician.
>The only good government is no government.
> > We're voting on the removal of the death penalty here tomorrow,
> > and to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
>I emphatically recommend you vote "NO".
I voted Yes. The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate its' function
of making it easier to bring to justice those who commit genocide and other
crimes against humanity.
>Good courts need no jurisdiction to be respected.
They do need it clearly defined to be effective when dealing with a
geographical area with many "borders". Cases can be screwed up due to
jurisdiction disputes.
>If there must be jurisdictions, then the more there be,
>the more competition between them and the better off we all are.
Not sure what you're getting at here.
>Down with Criminal Courts. They shouldn't exist. Only civil courts should.
>Yours freely,
Civil courts? So, we should only have courts designed to deal in monetary
justice?
James...
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and
crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures
to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
-Q, Star Trek:TNG episode 'Q Who'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:00 MST