Reddit mentions of The British Constitution

I read one of his books for my degree and plagiarised was influenced by much of its commentary, so I have a personal debt of gratitude to owe Anthony King.

Hi.

I shall be starting:

'Wanderings in South America' by Charles Waterton soon.

Followed by:

'The British Constitution' by Anthony King.

> Since they clearly want to stay allies with us due to our strategic positioning?

Our strategic positioning which does them precisely no good at all, you mean?

They are only there because of Indonesia, and we have shown that we are more than capable of handling them ourselves.

> Where condemnation means condemnation? Hell did any nation even use the word 'condemn' once?

You're fucking kidding me. YES!

> Oh yes your vague, possible future 'realities'.

Which are a hell of a lot more reliable than your 'but… but… but… this is the way it's always been so this is the way it will stay!'

> And what exactly leads you to think that?

Oh I don't know - how about actually being familiar with what the ICC has done?

> So you agree that it's basically powerless then and dictators can committ all the crimes they want in their borders until it becomes something the UNSC cares enough about, usually becoming an international conflict, (since China basically has a policy to veto anything that allows action in internal matters as much as it can).

No, it is not basically powerless. It has power. You are deliberately being an idiot. I was simply agreeing that the ICC does not have any kind of direct control over UN security council forces. It is not basically powerless.

> Ahahaha, 1990? No wonder I couldn't find it, I was looking for something actually relevant. Oh yeah Israel is clearly on the verge of losing US support since they let that one whole wording issue through a quarter-century ago, nevermind all the times up to the present it's stopped any resolution that would actually hurt it.

Oh, yeah, it's not like even stuff from years ago can still have effects, can it?

Do you even think before you post?

Oh and er, nice job dodging all the more recent and serious resolutions against it too.

> Both are powerful, but ideology remains a strong force. And the only countries in the mid-East that genuinely care about Israel (it's direct neighbours and Iran basically) are of little importance to the US.

And the ones that don't care about Israel are even more important to the US - like Saudi Arabia.

> Because we, the citizenry, didn't know about it. Our government however doubtlessly knew all along. We've been in this for a while.

I'm sorry but your links prove absolutely nothing. There is no proof to support your claim that they were aware of it. They probably suspected, but there is nothing to suggest that they knew about it. Like I say, we share information, and work together. That is it.

> The entire case history of the court whose job it is to interpret the Constitution is irrelevant.

Yes it is - because it only deals with our constitution.

> Generally accepted where exactly? In every Australian case or legal text it's consistently capitalised.

Patently BS because the sources I showed you before demonstrate that it is not.

> The dick are you on about? The point is in not a single part of the excerpts is it ever used in the lower case. And you've still provided no evidence for even a single usage of it in the lower case in its noun form in that textbook, or any other Australian legal text or case.

Yes it is. Look inside the book.

> Also nice try dodging the point about how it's not even an Australian text.

Which is irrelevant to the initial point I was making.

> But hell I'll give you credit if you can provide a photo of a single usage of it in that book, I mean surely you didn't just cite it randomly and you have a physical or digital copy of it, right?

Well, you could have tried Amazon…

> I can only assume you're going for these completely non-sensical arguments now in attempt to confuse and hope no one else notices you have no idea what talking about.

It's not my fault you can't follow basic logic. It's also not my fault you don't know the difference between a codified Constitution (capitalisation intentional) and a non codified constitution and how that affects the convention of how the word is written.

> But hey don't let that stop you from linking to another quality source like Ask.com, go for Yahoo Answers next time maybe.

It's better than having a source irrelevant to the point.

> Ahaha, even assuming that was a thing, watering down a far more basic human right like that to free speech to protect one from 'emotional injury' is insanity.

What's more insane? Infringing on several other basic human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just so one political right can be upheld, or maximising everybody's personal freedom and rights by limiting that one right?

FYI - freedom of speech only ever referred to the right in government to get up and say what you wanted. What you are referring to in terms of rights is the right to freedom of expression, which is already more than amply allowed for in our current legislation.

> Except 18C prohibits it anywhere in public, the legal definition of which is extremely very wide. For example it could easily catch a situation where someone overhears two friends making 'offensive' and 'hurtful' jokes between themselves on the bus or a street corner.

Then do it as part of an artistic presentation, or as part of a political speech, or do it as part of academia, or as part of the public interest. You can do all of that in my state.

Failing that, if it is that important to you, you can go to a different country and have your free speech there. Like I say - 18C effectively does not limit your free speech - just where you can do it.

>Oh now there's the name of the crime you can prosecute at your Aus Nuremberg!

No - the crimes I would try this government for at any trial would be crimes against humanity.

> Yes, and they're covered by s18D, which I assumed (and was correct) you are already aware of.

Exactly. 18D removes a lot of the teeth of 18C and provides ample space for people to express racist views.

> Yes, and? I never said the law was wrongly applied. It's just that it is, in my opinion and the current government's, a terrible one whose only solution is repeal.

Well thank God it seems the majority of Australians are against you and them.

> One shouldn't need to meet any standards to make their speech legal outside of where it may cause imminent actual damage/lawlessness similar to the US standard.

But racist speech does, in every instance, cause imminent actual damage. That's what you don't understand.

Emotional damage is actual damage. End of discussion.

> Oh no, not calls.
This has never ever happened before and truly Israel will collapse within the month!

Yeah - nice job ignoring the staggeringly long list of genuine sanctions against them.

> Except it is. Again:

No it is not. Three words: stop the boats. They can only ever mean stop the boats. They cannot mean 'stopping the boats from leaving' or 'stopping the boats from arriving'. The phrase 'stop the boats' can only ever mean 'stop the boats'.

Even if you could take your interpretation as true (which you can't) his claim still does not come true. It's not true because the boats are still 'leaving' and they are still 'arriving'.

My view that the EU is bloated comes from this book.

I rate Anthony King highly.