RE: EU Promotes Continent-Wide Censorship

["Brian Azzopardi" <brian () gfi com>]

> England's "constitution has NOT stood the test of time.

England's constitution, traditions and norms are the foundations of one the most politically stable, liberal countries 
in the whole of history. England's constitution and traditions have successfully guided England through more that 600 
years of wars, strife, the rise and fall of its empire, and the occasional power grab by its monarchs. For an excellent 
introduction and insightful analysis read "The English Constitution" by Walter Bagehot - an early editor of The 
Economist, another fine British export :)


> ... and I KNOW it hasn't stood up for as long as ours and done any better

It was your completely flat out wrong false assertion that the UK does not have a constitution and others like the 
above that raised my ire and prompted me to respond. Your comments display a level of ignorance which is simply 
astounding. Hiding behind dumps from Wikipedia is not a substitute for knowledge.

This debate about whose consitution is better is sterile - the fundamental "raison" of a polity is survival. A 
constitution is an important instrument in achieving the political stability that is required for it to survive. To do 
that it must be a living text accepted by the people and institutions it binds. Any constitution which achieves it, as 
England's has for centuries, has achieved its purpose.

I rest my case.

Brian


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Loe [mailto:knobdy () gmail com] 
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 4:21 PM
To: Brian Azzopardi
Cc: Drsolly; funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: Re: [funsec] EU Promotes Continent-Wide Censorship

On 5/22/06, Brian Azzopardi <brian () gfi com> wrote:
> > I wouldn't call anything you have a Constitution - for one, they're
> not.
>
> I hate to say this - but what a fscking idiot - yeah, personal I know.
> Sorry.

This convo has been taken off-list - but since you're calling me out...
  con·sti·tu·tion   (knst-tshn, -ty-)
n.
   1. The act or process of composing, setting up, or establishing.
   2.
         1. The composition or structure of something; makeup.
         2. The physical makeup of a person: Having a strong constitution, she had no trouble climbing the mountain.
   3.
         1. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a 
government or another institution.
         2. The document in which such a system is recorded.
         3. Constitution The fundamental law of the United States, framed in 1787, ratified in 1789, and variously 
amended since then.

I was being far to narrow in my interpretation of the word "Constitution". I had not realized that the "Magna Carta" 
fell within the term - in at least a general sense. The classical form of the word over here, with the "c" capitalized, 
only refers to our Constitution.
We call it a constitution because that's what its titled. However, if your calling me an idiot to make you feel 
superior - feel free.

> And why would I say that? Brian, you are so completely, flat-out wrong.
> You are commenting on things which you have not even the faintest 
> ideas of. Even worse, you have not even bothered to look the basics up.

Such as?


> First things first - all states _must_ have a consitution, written 
> (most
> countries) or unwritten (England), explicit (most countries, including 
> England), or implicit (failed states, dictatorships).

Now that's pretty stupid. Why would the classic monarchy need a document describing how the government is set up? I 
mean, after the monarch has given up some control, or made promises to its subjects, perhaps those have a need to be 
documented...but it still seems that your definition of a constitution is too loose.

> A constitution fundamentally describes the relationship between the 3 
> organs of power in a state - the executive, judiciary and the 
> legislature.

Well, that certainly describes the US' form of government. Of course there are a number of forms of government existing 
today - and many more have existed in the past. Many (most perhaps) did not have a division of powers, or a system of 
checks and balances. The founders of this country set out to insure just such things and based our system of government 
on several civilizations throughout history to include the Roman Empire.


<snipped generalization of governments only being democracies, dictatorships and "failed states" - which isn't really a 
"form" of government so much as a "state", or condition, of a government...but I'm the idiot without access to 
wikipedia>

Should interest you to know that I only recently learned that the UK is classified as a Constitutional Monarchy. I've 
accepted my ignorance on that having previously thought it something like a "parliamentary monarchy". The US, of 
course, is a Constitutional Republic. The fact that it is a CONSTITUTIONAL <blah> government is not a subtle matter.
It means that the GOVERNMENT'S ultimate authority comes from a Constitution, in all matters unknown, consult the 
Constitution. I do not yet know if the same can be said for the UK - I'll look into it on my own at some point today if 
my off-list conversation doesn't provide it for me.

> By explicit I mean that society and its institutions know the 
> (potentially unwritten) constition and adhere to it. The consitution 
> is not arbitrary and shifting, as it would be in a dictatorship / 
> failed state.

That is the dumbest f0cking definition of "explicit I've ever read..and it really burns my ass since its coming from 
someone who wants to jump on MY idiocy over SEMANTICS!!

ex·plic·it   (k-splst)
adj.
   1.
         1. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.

The US Constitution is EXPLICIT. Without Amendment, the government is under the control of its instruction. What you 
describe England as having is... hell, I don't know what you would call it - but not a "Constitution". Perhaps that's 
why its not in the definition - EXPLICITLY.

> > Don't you, through your country's history, have to do this several
> more times just to get where you are now?
>
> WTF?!

WTF what? Pretty straight forward question if you ask me. In my history classes I distinctly recall several civil 
uprisings occuring in England (though they are most likely called something else) which resulted in the King making 
new, written promises to his subjects.
There was even a "Bill of Rights" type of agreement that I recall reading about...sating exactly what a serf's rights 
are or are not, etc.. If you know, tell, if you don't, stfu!


> > what you call a Constitution (and its various counterparts)
>
> What a fool - what counterparts?

Well, if you were following the thread at all, with your superior debating skills, you would have seen that he had 
brought up the Magna Carta as a "for example".  He capitalized it so I assumed he meant THE Magna Carta:
Mag·na Car·ta or Mag·na Char·ta   (mgn kärt)
n.
   1. The charter of English political and civil liberties granted by King John at Runnymede in June 1215.
   2. A document or piece of legislation that serves as a guarantee of basic rights.

As I said, I was and am under the impression this either wasn't the first of such documents (definition number 2) or 
the last. Btw, this document is most assuredly filled with IMPLICIT ideas (like the US Bill of Rights) since *rights* 
can not be fully detailed in reasonable space and time (though maybe some government, some day, ought to try...making 
future amendments to only add rights, rather than government powers).


> > Then I don't see how you can know that yours is better.
>
> Each constitution is a product of history and context - it is 
> necessarily unique - such as the England's which has admirably 
> withstood the test of time (until Blair came along, but that's a 
> different matter). Where there have been imported constitutions, or 
> weak ones (say, Bolivia), the country/state is usually a basket case.

<nevermind that you are no longer replying to me> England's "constitution has NOT stood the test of time.

Screw replying to the rest of this message, your as ignorant as I ever was, and you might even be stupid. So, in the 
name of giving us both a lesson in English history (and to re-assert the memories of lessons past for myself) I give 
you the most quoted site on this list - wikipedia (some more comments follow the quoted text):

----------------------------------------
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen reigns with limits to their power along with 
a governing body (i.e. Parliament), giving rise to the modern adage "the Queen reigns but does not rule". A 
constitutional monarchy was able to form in England across different periods of history for a complex combination of 
reasons: sometimes due to a lack of strong leadership, and at other times due to strong leaders short of funding, who 
needed to raise money to prosecute wars, and needed to address public grievances to ensure this money was forthcoming. 
Historically, the English had not believed in the "Divine Right of Kings": ever since Magna Carta in 1215, the monarchy 
had been regarded as a contractual political instrument. In the 17th Century, abuse of power by the Stuart dynasty, and 
their attempts to import the doctrine of "Divine Right" from Scotland, caused the English to question the royal 
authority and revive earlier safeguards against executi!
 ve power. Parliament took several key steps to limit the power of the King. They revived the English instrument of 
impeachment, which held the King's ministers to be responsible for his actions; hence the King's servants could be 
executed for implementing unpopular policies. They forced Charles I to sign the Petition of Right that re-affirmed that 
the King must go through Parliament to enact new laws, taxes, etc. After signing the Petition of Right, Charles I 
immediately ignored it, precipitating the English Civil Wars, and the eventual beheading of the King for treason. This 
sent a message to future monarchs of England that they did not have absolute power. During Charles II reign Parliament 
passed the Habeas Corpus. The Habeas Corpus Act said that any prisoner taken by the King would be given a trial. This 
prevented the King from simply removing his enemies by sending them to jail. When James II took the throne many people 
did not appreciate it when he flaunted his Cathol!
 icism. Therefore Parliament flexed its muscles once again by asking Wi
lliam of Orange to overthrow the king. William and his wife Mary came from the Netherlands and overthrew James II 
without bloodshed. This was called the "Glorious Revolution". Once William and Mary had gained control of the throne, 
they completely supported the constitutional monarchy. Together they signed the Bill of Rights, which severely limited 
the power of the king, and gave more freedom to his subjects. One supporter of constitutional monarchy was John Locke.
He wrote in his "Treatises on Government" that a direct democracy is the best form of government. He wrote that people 
are able to improve and rule themselves, and that people have three main rights. These rights are life, liberty, and 
property, and it is the government's job to protect these rights. He also wrote that if the government is unjust the 
people have the right to overthrow it, a doctrine that was invoked during the American Revolution.

This evolution in thinking would eventually spawn such movements as universal suffrage and political parties. By the 
mid 20th Century, the political culture in Europe had shifted to the point where all constitutional monarchs had been 
reduced to the status of effective figureheads, with no effective power at all. Instead, it was the democratically 
elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister who had become the true rulers of the nation. In many cases 
even the monarchs themselves, who once sat at the very top of the political and social hierarchy, were given the status 
of "servants of the people" to reflect the new, egalitarian reality.

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.
------------------------------------------

It should be noted that: 1) there are many iterations of a contract between the monarchy and its subjects, as I 
thought, the first being THE Magna Carta; 2) John Locke was borrowed from HEAVILY in the forming of our government, to 
include our fist official document, the Declaration of Independence - though we changed property to happiness for some 
unknown reason; 3) England's form of government changed often not out of some moral high ground you can now hold over 
the US, but out of political expediency.

I'm going back to the off-list discussion where headway is actually sorta being made and where we are hopefully over 
the childish calling of names. Thanks - fun security posts continue...PLEASE!

  
This mail was checked for viruses by GFI MailSecurity. 
GFI also develops anti-spam software (GFI MailEssentials), a fax server (GFI FAXmaker), and network security and 
management software (GFI LANguard) - www.gfi.com 


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.