Fran wrote:
> On Apr 26, 9:50 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>>> On Apr 25, 4:25 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Fran wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 25, 11:56 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We 'saved' torch relay: AOC"
>
> <snip>
In all this Fran has ignored the fact that the money spent
ensured the rights not only of the Olympians to run, but
also of the Tibetans to protest and the Chinese to sup****t,
PEACEFULLY... in accordance with the Dalai Lamas policies:
> As far as I'm aware, there is no 'human right' to hold an
> international torch relay.
Then I am astonished at your ignorance of the fact that
the runners had the same rights as the protesters and the
sup****ters.. and suggest that you need to READ the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, preferably BEFORE you carry on
pretending to be defending the rights of anyone:
Article 3 establishes LIBERTY as a fundamental human right, on what
basis do you claim the right to deny it in this instance, Fran,
....simply because you don't like the Olympics?
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Note that rights are defined BROADLY, otherwise people like you might
claim there is no RIGHT to have a torch relay, or walk on the beach,
or fly prayer flags over your Potala Palace, or protest Chinese rule. B^p
Moreover, your suggestion that the cost of protecting against a threat
of violence should cause the event to be cancelled denies both their
right to LIBERTY and their, and the community's, right to
freedom from FEAR;
"human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief
and freedom from fear" - Preamble to the Declaration.
Article 13 defines their right to move, RUN, walk, hop skip and Jump,
dance, prance, shuck and jive, and give you the finger:
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and
residence within the borders of each state.
Article 17 (1) defines their right to THE TORCH, and to PASS IT ON
TO OTHERS in free association.
Article 17 (2) also prohibits it's forcible removal by violence
or the threat of it, by anyone, including self appointed
guardians of everyone's morality:
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well
as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18 defines the right of Olympic Athletes to believe in
the principles of Olympism, the idea of s****t, fraternal relations
between nations and any other damn thoughts that pop into their heads!
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practice, wor****p and observance.
Article 19 defines their right to EXPRESS those thoughts and beliefs,
WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from those who would seek to deny their rights
for political motives
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20 (1)defines their right to PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY and ASSOCIATION.
The very thing that threats of violence and intimidation would deny
them. It also defines the SAME right for the PROTESTERS AND the
Chinese SUP****TERS. You have only recognised the rights of ONE of those
three groups... The $2m spent on security secured the rights of ALL
of them. You should hang your head in shame.
Article 20 (2) defines our freedoms NOT to have to join a protest group,
no matter how forceful they become in attempts to assure conformity to
their worldview... is this ringing any bells with you? B^D
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21 sets out the appropriate mechanism for protecting and
preserving these rights, who should decide how public monies are spent,
*****s security risks, and ensure public order and the rights of all
to PEACEFULLY pursue their various, and often conflicting, interests:
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his
country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in
his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of
government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and
genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal
suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent
free voting procedures.
I am astonished you needed that explained to you.
> The closest you come to saying something explicit on the matter is
> here:
CRAP, every post asserted the rights of ALL, although I had
assumed you knew SOMETHING about human rights, you claim to be
concerned about those of Tibetans! It never occurred to me
that you would need the basic concept explained to you, but on
reflection, I should have surmised the need from your posts.
I will try not to repeat the mistake of underestimating your
ignorance again.
It should now be clear, even to you, that were the torch relay
to be canceled due to threats of violence, as you wished,
or worse, the cost of security to protect the human rights of all
concerned been withheld, as you desired, then
>> 1. their rights would have been abused. [if the event had been
>> canceled]
>>
>> 2. Their future safety would have been threatened, as any
>> acquiescence to criminal violence only emboldens the criminals.
>>
>> [another slippery slope argument FB]
If you feel your argument is sliding away from you, you may well be
right! B^D 'Slippery slope' refers to argument by extension
and expansion (eg allow euthanasia and murder may follow) I am
merely arguing repetition, (cancel a public event due to threats
by anti-democrat, anti-rights elements and their behaviour will recur).
You may feel your argument is on a slippery slope, mine is on firm
ground. Try a facts-based, logical and balanced approach, instead.
Here's the easy remedy, just show where the comprehensive rights
argument I have put is WRONG, and then tell us why violating those
rights would not embolden those who wanted to use coercive threats to
achieve similar success again.. and again.. and again?
And try and understand the FULL context, instead of SNIPPING IT!
For example, who would have protected the Tibetans from the
large number of Chinese, had there been violent elements
in either group? Is that worth some amount of money to you?
Who would have protected the runners from the assaults
seen in other countries?
Can you tell us which Public events YOU consider worth
providing security for?
Football matches? Should they be canceled because hooligans
may disrupt them, or should order be preserved, at a cost
to the public purse?
ANZAC DAY services?
Walking on the streets?
Shopping?
In this case the event was cheap, but the security expensive
because of the threat of similar violence to that seen overseas
by people sharing your views;
>>>> So the increased cost born by the community was simply for
>>>> increased security in response to reasonable perceptions of
>>>> threat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But why run the event at all?
>>
>> Because we (athletes/Olympians/worldwide audience/THE ELECTED)
>> want to.
ie by the human rights and democratic rights arguments!
The ones we are having trouble getting you to comprehend! B^p
The real question is:
>> Why give in to threats of violence by the unelected
>> who DON'T want us to, for a variety of absurd reasons?
You didn't answer. You rarely defend your position with
rational argument once it has been questioned.
>>>> We do as much for visiting war criminals, such as George Bush,
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually 'we' did much more, but as with APEC,
>>
>> You missed the point:
>>
>> We spend money to protect the human rights even of those
>> we disagree with, you quibble at spending it to sup****t
>> the human rights even of those most aussies agree with,
>> eg Aussie Olympians.
>>
>> But as you have made clear, you believe YOUR views,
>> on the Olympics, China, Tibet, Pilots flying to the USA,
>> ..whatever ...should be forced on us, if you can create
>> a threat sufficient enough to make us give in.
>>
>>> I ask 'why run the event at all'?
>>
>> see above, plus so we don't give in to tyranny.
>>
>> It would just encourage the tyrants.
> Unpicking this,
What is there to 'unpick'.. it is perfectly clear, succinct
and accurate. Do you mean you want to paraphrase and distort,
like this:
> it seems to be your claim that because 'most Aussies
> agree with ... Olympians' that this must elevate the relay to the
> status of a human right.
That 'seems to be' a ridiculous misrepresentation! B^p
The runners have an *a priori* right to run the relay! no 'elevation'
is required, we merely have to dismiss your attempt at 'demolition'
of those rights by the simple artifice of REFUSING To RECOGNISE THEM.
Somewhat like the Chinese in Tibet! B^p
The rights basis for the relay is firmly established, as i have shown,
by introducing you to the Universal Declaration.
YOUR suggestion that the right derives 'because' most Aussies
agree with that right to run is a fallacy.
And as I said at the time, YOU MISSED THE POINT! TWICE NOW!! B^D
Here is is again, I will type slowly.
You referred to APEC and what we did for George Bush.
I replied "We spend money to protect the human rights even of those
we disagree with" 'We' being those who genuinely believe in rights,
FOR ALL, i.e including George Bush!
I contrast that with you, who quibbles with spending money
to protect rights of certain groups, even though they have
broad sup****t;
"you quibble at spending it to sup****t
the human rights even of those most Aussies agree with,
eg Aussie Olympians."
Got it now? If you sup****t rights, it is for EVERYONE,
even rat bastards like George Bush, because they are
UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS, fer Chrissake!
And yet you wont even extend them to a harmless bunch of
athletes engaged in an innocuous relay race for the
Olympics..
WTF is WRONG with you?
Instead we get this absurd twaddle, from someone who
has whined interminably about the cost of security to enable
everyone to participate in the event, peacefully:
> But if it's a human right, then surely
> everyone should have been able to participate?
THEY DID! Runners, protesters and Sup****ters! TV crews
journos and we of the audience, who could have been there!
But your lot can no more steal our torch than we can
pinch your banner!!! WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP!?!?????
> As I understand it, the
> AOC was in charge of slecting who could participate,
Rubbish, The runners ran, the protesters protested
and the sup****ters waved the red flags... !!!!!!!!! B^D
I could go and sup****t the relay, you could go and protest.
Chairman Mao could go and wave the Red Flag, if he wasn't dead!
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association.
But if, by participation, you mean 'snatch the torch',
or otherwise disrupt or prevent the event, as you have advocated,
then you need to go back and brush up on rights. B^[
You have no right to steal, damage
or otherwise interfere with the property of others
or deliberately disrupt Their rights to peacefully pursue
an Olympic relay, or a Dawn Service (even if you want to
protest the Iraq Invasion, with more than 'tacit endorsement'
as your reason!!!);
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well
as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
> which makes it
> not *a right*, but *a privilege*. Privileges can be withdrawn.
Absurd drivel.. We all have rights to participate, and the
athletes, the protesters and the sup****ters ALL exercised them!
Those rights were upheld by the security you have opposed because,
by your own admission, you do not even recognise the rights of others!
Now you want to assert YOUR Rights, which you have defined as the
right to disrupt the peaceful pursuits of others!
B^D Classic! B^D
No wonder you needed me to explain to you what rights are! B^D
------------
The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html
The true-blue Homestead;
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
The true-blue Hall Of Fame;
http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html
The Tuckerbox;
http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html
-----------
|
