- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 28496
1 edit
@very-rusty saidHe's been playing straight man for longer than he's actually been straight.
I thought that was you that was leaving?
Oh probably just my wishful thinking! 🙂
-VR
He's also hoping that someday I will write, "@divegeester hurt me into poetry." 😉
@trev33 saidNot all countries follow human rights.
That's not what we're talking about here.
Beliefs, unenlightened, intolerant, bigoted, racist, it's all natural for individuals. If someone doesn't like me for being Irish, or doesn't like you for being a woman, I can accept that and move on. Who cares what individuals think.
But a government, that's a entirely different matter.
illegal to be gay. (as an example, in ...[text shortened]... e with a partner before marriage.
That's insane and violation of our own rights as human beings.
In fact the UK are rethinking what Human Rights means:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9406/
I have every confidence in the UK making good choices and writing the new bill how I want it to be, but that's because I live here and I know Human rights are roughly how I want them.
If I lived in Uganda, I don't think I'd have any faith in my Human rights being upheld:
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/uganda
I might still visit though, I'd just research first what the risks are.
Maybe there's an argument to be had that having this law in Indonesia upholds the majority of peoples views (? I don't know, but maybe).
2 edits
@yo-its-me saidTwo thoughts. I am not comfortable with a system that has 50% plus one able to abrogate the basic rights of the 50% minus one.
Maybe there's an argument to be had that having this law in Indonesia upholds the majority of peoples views (? I don't know, but maybe).
Also, I can't say anything vaguely objective about the >50% v <50% thing here in Indonesia because there is no convincing scientific opinion polling carried out.
Many of the legislators who passed this law will continue to have "illicit" sex themselves, of course; what they have done is probably mostly a case of religious virtue signaling intended to appeal to traditional-minded people whose piety is sincere.
So it was three thoughts.
@fmf saidSounds like you aren't confident in the government there representing the people fairly, which is a different thing.
Two thoughts. I am not comfortable with a system that has 50% plus one able to abrogate the basic rights of the 50% minus one. Also, I can't say anything vaguely objective about the >50% v <50% thing here in Indonesia because there is no convincing scientific opinion polling carried out. Many of the legislators who passed this law will continue to have "illicit" themselves, of co ...[text shortened]... ng intended to appeal to traditional-minded people whose piety is sincere. So it was three thoughts.
If you were, would you want the government to consider 'Human Rights' being a standard the country wanted?
In the UK we've had to live with the decision 52% made and it's having an awful affect on the whole country, so for me I agree actually as I type this that 'majority rules' isn't the best way to make decisions. After all we're paying a selected (hopefully elected) group of people to make decisions for us all because of herd mentality and the ability to create a narrative that sways opinions (the Brexit campaign was flexible with the truth and it swayed too many).
1 edit
@yo-its-me saidWhile I would have voted the same way as you on Brexit [if I had considered it to be any of my business], I don't think that Remaining in the E.U. is a "right" of the 48% who wanted to. I think the 50% plus one Thing was the only way to decide a policy issue like that once it had been put to a referendum.
In the UK we've had to live with the decision 52% made and it's having an awful affect on the whole country, so for me I agree actually as I type this that 'majority rules' isn't the best way to make decisions.
@yo-its-me saidPersonally, I would like to see some change in terms of people's "rights" here but [1] such change depends on changing attitudes, which takes time [generations, even] before they manifest themselves in legislation or even constitutional amendments, and [2] as a bule, I have no political voice or identity here so I am just a foreign observer who can, I suppose, simply vote with my feet if my objections to how things are here, one day, become unbearable!
Sounds like you aren't confident in the government there representing the people fairly, which is a different thing.
If you were, would you want the government to consider 'Human Rights' being a standard the country wanted?
1 edit
@fmf saidMaybe not a right, but what happened was David C didn't think people would vote to leave, so didn't put any effort into explaining to the general public what leaving would mean. To make sure both sides were voiced, the leave campaign was given a budget to spend and weren't checked. Result- poor decision making. Most agree neither side really knew what the right decision was before they made it, but it was clear to me at least that the leave campaign were stretching the truth.
While I would have voted the same way as you on Brexit [if I had considered it to be any of my business], I don't think that Remaining in the E.U. as a "right" of the 48% who wanted to. I think the 50% plus one Thing was the only way to decide a policy issue like that once it had been put to a referendum.
Anyway, what I was agreeing with, about Human Rights- was that governments are paid to protect their people from outside and threats within and to create laws so that society works. If society is concerned (like you said in your first post in this thread) that allowing things to go on as they are (influenced by the west) then their culture will be contaminated (/diluted?)- would you want that government to put in laws that protects the whole country from slipping into the standards us cheery lot over here in the west have?
Edit- I see you already answered.
@yo-its-me saidWhat I would prefer is that personal psychological and moral inhibitions and prohibitions pertaining to consensual sex are shaped by the values that arise from families, schools, communities, and religious congregations etc. as opposed to them being criminalized and enforced by governments.
If society is concerned (like you said in your first post in this thread) that allowing things to go on as they are (influenced by the west) then their culture will be contaminated (/diluted?)- would you want that government to put in laws that protects the whole country from slipping into the standards us cheery lot over here in the west have?
@fmf saidYes, there are somethings the government shouldn't get involved with.
What I would prefer is that personal psychological and moral inhibitions and prohibitions pertaining to consensual sex are shaped by the values that arise from families, schools, communities, and religious congregations etc. as opposed to them being criminalized and enforced by governments.
Perhaps a better policy, if there really is a concern about the influence from the west would be to spend more on the arts and investing in Indonesian artists so their work is more influential than art from the west.