|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Antrax
ESL Student
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:20 am Post subject: 1 |
 |
|
I was pretty sure someone else will post about it, but if I have to do it myself, here's a somewhat biased coverage:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-passes-law-banning-calls-for-boycott-1.372711
(Ha'aretz is a left-winged Israeli newspaper)
What's inaccurate about the article I linked to above is that the law doesn't "penalize" anyone, instead it states it's a breach of civil law (and not criminal law) and allows people to sue for damages without having to prove the exact amount of the damage (not sure what the English term is for this one).
What is accurate about the media coverage is how controversial this law is. Supporters show that the US had a law against boycotting Israel since the 1970s and it seems to do fine as a democracy. They also argue the boycotting produce due to where it's manufactured is discrimination. I'm sure you can fill in the opinions of those opposed.
So, what do you think?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:33 am Post subject: 2 |
|
|
I foresee a lot of boycotts in response to this.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:30 am Post subject: 3 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Supporters show that the US had a law against boycotting Israel since the 1970s and it seems to do fine as a democracy. |
1) I'd like more details on this law.
2) I wouldn't hold "we do fine as a democracy" as the measure of right and wrong. I'm sure we're doing something wrong, even though we may do fine as a democracy. That's no reason to follow suit.
| Antrax wrote: |
| They also argue the boycotting produce due to where it's manufactured is discrimination. |
And there's a heck of a lot of discrimination that's perfectly legal and accepted in the USA. I can donate money solely to Jewish causes if I like, and encourage others to do likewise (as an example). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:07 am Post subject: 4 |
|
|
I thought discrimination only applied if you're hurting someone, not benefiting others.
Sadly the law is in Hebrew, though if you can tell me what you want to know, I can translate. Or maybe you'll have better luck than I had, currently googling "boycott ban law" nets a whole lot of relevant results.
[edit]
Here's an accurate rephrasing of the law:
“According to the law, a person or an organization calling for the boycott of Israel, including the settlements, can be sued by the boycott's targets without having to prove that they sustained damage. The court will then decide how much compensation is to be paid. The second part of the law says a person or a company that declares a boycott of Israel or the settlements will not be able to bid in government tenders.”
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:15 pm Post subject: 5 |
|
|
I mean more details on any law against boycotts in the USA. I can't imagine it. Any individual is free to not do business with anyone, and people are free to suggest to others they should do likewise.
That's not to say a boycott itself can't be wrong and discriminatory. I remember when this was almost daily news in NYC in 91 ... a black boycott of 2 Korean run grocery stores in a predominantly black neighborhood: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-22/news/mn-588_1_black-mayor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:34 pm Post subject: 7 |
|
|
Coming from the home of the boycott, I must say I believe them to be a valid expression of people power. Of course they can be oppressive and bigoted, but they can also be laudible and on the whole I think they should be supported. (the idea of boycotts, that is, not necessarily the boycotts themselves).
The American law does not prevent a boycott of Israel, rather it protects U.S. companies from the requirement to show compliance with the Arab League's boycott. Not really the same thing.
I would support a law that could award damages where a boycott was shown to be based on bigotry or hatred, or even where participants were coerced to comply, but that's as far as I'd go. Of course, State contracts should only be awarded to companies that do not interfere with the State's affairs, so I'd have no problem with that part of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:07 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
Neither do I. I am worried about the other part, though, and wondering if I'm hysterical for no reason.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:09 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I would support a law that could award damages where a boycott was shown to be based on bigotry or hatred |
I would not. The accusation is far too subjective. It in essence would require the accused to prove they weren't bigoted or hateful. And furthermore, so what if they are? As long as the boycott is voluntary by any individuals involved in it, motives do not matter. Saying that motives do matter smacks of "thought crime" to me.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:32 am Post subject: 10 |
|
|
Samadhi, how is it any more subjective than any other anti-discrimination law? For instance, in Israel you can be sued for disallowing entry to your nightclub due to the person's "race" (not sure what the accurate word is, so race will be close enough). Obviously the defendant has to show that he disallowed entry for other reasons.
As for your other point, that's a fair reflection of your ideals, but we (and you) live in a country that disagrees with them.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:05 am Post subject: 11 |
|
|
You've missed Samadhi's point. He is against all forms of anti-discrimination legislation. This sort of sign, for instance, is just fine with him.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:16 pm Post subject: 12 |
|
|
No, I didn't, I specifically addressed it. I am quite familiar with the opinion he presents, I don't think it's relevant to the discussion. If we're having a religious debate and someone pops in and says "I don't even believe in God so your point is moot" he's making a valid argument, but one that doesn't progress the discussion we were having.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: 13 |
|
|
I think that sign is far less subjective than the motives of the boycotts.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:13 pm Post subject: 14 |
|
|
When I first heard of this suggested law, my immediate reaction was that I hope it does not pass through the legislation process. After all, it should be anyone's right to boycott whoever they want.
But, then I hit upon an example similar to Zag's (a one-day Nazi boycott on Jewish businesses during April 1st 1933). For me, the two instances of boycott are examples of wrongful/bad/evil boycott that should be prevented if possible.
So, from flat out against I turned to try and see if this law actually achieves some kind of (an impossible) balance between wrong and right.
Here is the definition of the term "boycott against the state of Israel" as originally drafted a year ago by the knesset/parliament members who came up with the law. Its here in Hebrew
| Quote: |
| Purposeful avoidance of an economical, cultural or academic relations, with a person/company, solely because of their affinity with the Israeli state, Its institutes, or a territory Israel controls, that can harm them in an economical, cultural or academic way |
(I think I got the translation mostly right).
Even though they put "solely" in the definition I still think this definition is too broad as stated. I am not sure how it restricts my rights to speak against the government and its policies. On the other hand, the definition does not include a boycott of all Mexicans, which I would want the law to cover.
So all in all I still think some law with regards to boycott should be drafted but with some clarifications and modifications. As it is, the law reeks of Israeli political right wing tactic to prevent left wing organizations from doing the passive activity of boycotting.
I think the consensus in IL is that this potential law, in its current form, will not pass the legislation process. A committee raised by the Knesset itself to look into similar laws in other countries stated other countries have mostly indirect laws about boycott and non has it as stated/arranged/formed nor as wide as this law. (US, Germany, UK, Canada, France, Holland, and Belgium). It adds to mentions by media that legal people say the law will not pass. Unfortunately I cannot find the legal reasoning why that is so.
Another thing to note. Even if Israel does pass this or similar law it only has validity in Israel. I am not sure how can this influence, for example, a Korean citizen that wishes to boycott Israel. As long as they don't plan to visit Israel they have nothing to worry about.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:14 pm Post subject: 15 |
|
|
It's interesting that the law is now being used to prevent people from labelling products in a way that shows it was produced from within settlements.
Inhibiting consumer choice really is going too far.
If the law is bad, in principle, and it is allowed to stand, then it will likely be used to introduce measures that were unforeseen and, given the spirit of the law, abhorrent to civil liberties.
(Edit: Misunderstood the story. Apparently there is a movement that places stickers on produce from the occupied territories after it reached the stores. Not quite the same, but nevertheless, the point about the possibility of the law being abused still stands, even if this is not a good example).
For more info see here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:33 pm Post subject: 16 |
|
|
In Phoenix, Arizona, and surrounding areas, there are the occasional boycotts spurned on by Hispanic groups trying to make points about illegal immigration. Should those be illegal too, and the groups and individuals responsible for promoting them fined, or worse?
I don't think so. After all, "voting with your dollars" is one way people actually have to voice their opinions about things. Boycotts for whatever reason, even racism, should all be valid.
Besides, those boycotts in Phoenix? They tend to have the opposite effect. You see, people who are outraged by the illegal immigration problem tend to hold an anti-boycott during those times, and go out of their way to shop on those days. The first big May Day boycott they tried a few years back blew up in their faces when businesses did far more business than usual. Hell, I managed to conveniently time a trip from ND to Tempe during one of their boycotts and made sure to do a bit of extra shopping while I was in the area.
If people want to try to boycott, let them. If you disagree with the boycott, then counter it by spending specifically on what they're boycotting.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:38 pm Post subject: 17 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| I think that sign is far less subjective than the motives of the boycotts. |
No one ever accused the sign of subjectivity. It is, after all, quite cut and dried, purely objective.
My subjective response to it, however, is that it is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:43 pm Post subject: 18 |
|
|
Zag, have you ever heard of this little quote: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:03 pm Post subject: 19 |
|
|
That's somewhat perplexing. For instance:
| Quote: |
What do the Laws Prohibit?
Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:
Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
... |
So, hypothetically:
| Antrax wrote: |
| Extro, do business with or in Israel please. |
| extro...* wrote: |
| No, I refuse. (I've no need for doing business with anyone now) |
So there's "actual refusal". Now, I can be penalized under this law? If not (I presume not), I agree with Samadhi: One person's refusal to do business is fine, another person's refusal illegal, because of differing motives? Laws should govern acts, not the thoughts behind them. (there may be special exceptions, but I don't see this as one of them) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:36 am Post subject: 20 |
|
|
I think maybe we should set a baseline. "You can't have this job". "-Why not?". "Because you don't have the academic credentials we're looking for" = legal. "Because you're a woman" = illegal. "I'm refusing you service because last night you came here and puked all over the place" = legal. "I'm refusing you service because you're black and black people are thieves" = illegal.
We all live in societies that allow or forbid refusal of services based on the motives. Some of us may disagree this is a good idea (I do) but to have a meaningful discussion we must take this law in that context.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itisally
Master of Disguise
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:26 am Post subject: 21 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
I think maybe we should set a baseline. "You can't have this job". "-Why not?". "Because you don't have the academic credentials we're looking for" = legal. "Because you're a woman" = illegal. "I'm refusing you service because last night you came here and puked all over the place" = legal. "I'm refusing you service because you're black and black people are thieves" = illegal.
We all live in societies that allow or forbid refusal of services based on the motives. Some of us may disagree this is a good idea (I do) but to have a meaningful discussion we must take this law in that context. |
Laws that are directly related to motive are difficult to enforce because motive is so hard to prove.
As far as allowing or disallowing boycotts in regards to doing business with another country, I assume that they are trying to enforce a foreign policy one that the US normally would use embargos and import fees to actively discourage business with a particular country. In this way they take the choice completely away from the consumer and it happens all the time.
_________________
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:37 am Post subject: 22 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Saying that motives do matter smacks of "thought crime" to me. |
While I do agree, motives have been part of laws from the beginning. What's the difference between murder and manslaughter? Intent. I cannot be certain for all areas, but in same places, because of the way the laws are written, shooting a corpse without known the person was already dead can still get you arrested - and convicted - for murder, because of intent.
Still, there has to be a line somewhere. I firmly believe that freedom of speech should extend to thought. Once you start arresting or penalizing people for what they believe, a line has been crossed. And that should include choices made, such as where someone will and will not shop.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:33 am Post subject: 23 |
|
|
| itisally wrote: |
| Laws that are directly related to motive are difficult to enforce because motive is so hard to prove. |
I know. So?
| Death Mage wrote: |
| Once you start arresting or penalizing people for what they believe, a line has been crossed. And that should include choices made, such as where someone will and will not shop. |
Not sure I follow. If I think Asians are demons in disguise, I can't be arrested for that. If I kill a bunch of Asians, then I can. Is that thought police? No, I'm being penalized for the action, not for the thought. I can believe what I want as long as I don't carry it out.
It's pretty convoluted. It can't be illegal not to shop somewhere, regardless of the motive. As others have said, you can't penalize someone who goes into one shop and not the other, or buys one brand and not the other, since they can always claim they irrationally just prefer that brand, so to prosecute you'd have to follow one customer around and show that irrationality exhibits a pattern and even then it's not sure to hold. However, the law doesn't prohibit that either, it prohibits calling for a boycott. The thing that separates this law from others is that advocating murder, for instance, is illegal, and murder is illegal. Advocating a boycott is illegal, but the actual act of the boycott is legal (because a boycott is inaction and not an action, really). That's the key difference I was able to figure out that makes this more "thought police" than other laws.
What I'm wondering mainly is what would you do if similar legislation passed in your area.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:59 am Post subject: 24 |
|
|
Antrax: You can think about killing Asians all you want. Once you act on it, you've performed an illegal act. However, the *REASON* you killed the person shouldn't matter. ("Hate Crime" laws are complete BS.) It's a very clear, obvious difference. BTW, motive is not the same as intent.
As Extro pointed out, the law in question can, with questionable wording, penalize people for making that choice. If I choose not to buy something made in Israel, am I now guilty of boycotting them? Every time someone buys something that's not made in Israel, vs something that is, can they be prosecuted for these hypothetical losses becuase they are "boycotting"? Can corporations who use distributors not from Israel? Governments?
Is it conspiracy, or incitement to Boycott, if I suggest to someone a product not made in Israel? If two CEOs are talking, and one of them gives business advice for a product not made in Israel vs one that is, are they guilty? Governments?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:10 am Post subject: 25 |
|
|
I really don't understand the US law I linked to, so it's difficult to answer any of that.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:34 am Post subject: 26 |
|
|
So answer it in regards to the law you were talking about.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:36 am Post subject: 27 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
If I choose not to buy something made in Israel The Settlements, am I now guilty of boycotting them? |
No, it's not against the law, as I wrote above.
| Death Mage wrote: |
Every time someone buys something that's not made in Israel The Settlements, vs something that is, can they be prosecuted for these hypothetical losses becuase they are "boycotting"?Can corporations who use distributors not from Israel? Governments? |
No. As stated, boycotting is legal, calling for it isn't.
| Death Mage wrote: |
Is it conspiracy, or incitement to Boycott, if I suggest to someone a product not made in Israel The Settlements? |
That's what the court will have to decide if you're sued.
Not sure how enlightening that was.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:40 pm Post subject: 28 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| but in same places, because of the way the laws are written, shooting a corpse without known the person was already dead can still get you arrested - and convicted - for murder, because of intent. |
Not in the US*.
Malice aforethought and premeditation are entirely different animals than prejudice or the like. The key is mens rea. If you have time to think about the crime (especially if you plan it out) then you know you are committing a crime and intend to do so (and unlike your example, actually DO commit a crime). Instances where you don't have the time are mitigating because you may not have intended to commit any crime at all.
*On a side note, if a man jumps off a 100 story building aiming for a pit of spikes filled with acid and man eating acid swimming firebreathing eels with lasers on their heads (IE he gonna die) and you take careful aim with a rifle and shoot him just before he hits the pit killing him instantly, are you guilty of anything? Yup. Murder.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:00 pm Post subject: 29 |
|
|
| One could argue that you've saved his soul, at the risk of your own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:40 pm Post subject: 30 |
|
|
For the record, I did indeed make a mistake in that post. Yes, laws in the US require that murder actually be the cause of death to be prosecuted for murder. However, corpse or no, that's still Attempted Murder.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:34 pm Post subject: 31 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Death Mage wrote: |
Is it conspiracy, or incitement to Boycott, if I suggest to someone a product not made in Israel The Settlements? |
That's what the court will have to decide if you're sued.
Not sure how enlightening that was. |
And that is why I have a very, very big problem with this law. Because, by it, discussing and/or recommending ANY product not from "the settlements" can now be considered illegal via that law.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: 32 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| And that is why I have a very, very big problem with this law. Because, by it, discussing and/or recommending ANY product not from "the settlements" can now be considered illegal via that law. |
I dont think so. Its the difference between a positive definition and a negative definition. i.e.
1) "Buy produce from stores A, B and C - they are very cheap"
2) "Buy produce from stores A, B and C - its in Tel-Aviv right next to you"
3) "Do not buy produce from store D - its expensive"
4) "Do not buy produce from store D - its in the occupied territories"
Only the last two are boycotts and of these only the last one would be a violation.
After reading all the posts here, especially yours and Samadhi's I am convinced that the only part that should remain of the law is the 'reciprocity' section (you boycott IL -> IL will not do business with you).
All the rest should be handled by other means than law. e.g. anti-boycott.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:43 am Post subject: 33 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| I think maybe we should set a baseline. "You can't have this job". "-Why not?". "Because you don't have the academic credentials we're looking for" = legal. "Because you're a woman" = illegal. "I'm refusing you service because last night you came here and puked all over the place" = legal. "I'm refusing you service because you're black and black people are thieves" = illegal. |
I like the approach. I like the examples. I think it will take only a couple more examples before we run into a lot of subtlety, which has to be a good thing.
Is shifting to hiring practice helpful for arguing about those subtleties? I suppose it should be, if only because it's more decided, no newness to distract us.
"You can't have this job." "Why not?"
5a) "Because you came to an interview in jeans and a t-shirt, and that's unprofessional."
5b) "Because you came to an interview with green and red stripes in your hair, and that's unprofessional."
6a) "Because people your age tend to leave for a new job after a few months, and we're looking for someone long-term."
6b) "Because people with your (over)qualificatons tend to leave for a new job after a few months, and we're looking for someone long-term."
7a) "Because our sales manager's sister knows you, and says you're lazy."
7b) "Because you're lazy. Dinner's at eight; don't forget to pick up some milk on the way home."
How do you categorize these?
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:46 am Post subject: 34 |
|
|
| "You can't have this job." "Why not?" "Our attorneys have advised us never to answer that question. If you need an answer, have your attorney contact ours." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:06 am Post subject: 35 |
|
|
| Only 6a would be discriminatory against a protected class in the US (and then only if the prospective employee was over 40) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:48 am Post subject: 36 |
|
|
These are actually still easy, I agree with RSA. I also agree that if you keep going, it gets gradually harder for non legal experts to tell the difference - same as with sexual harassment, really.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:20 am Post subject: 37 |
|
|
I thought that was the idea - to start easy and keep going until it was difficult. Doesn't setting a baseline require finding and agreeing upon where the line between okay and not okay falls?
Also, I don't think the age one is easy. It seems to me exactly the sort of question which could make it's way through several layers of courts. Especially if the age in question is in a group not yet formally protected.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:34 am Post subject: 38 |
|
|
| You either need a bankroll or a strong case to make it through several layers of court. You need to be facing 6a and over 40 to have strong case in the US. If you have a sufficient bankroll, all bets are off.But at the same time, who has a sufficient bankroll and cares about striped hair or reverse nepotism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:49 pm Post subject: 39 |
|
|
I'm a little confused, because your post sounds corrective, but I haven't been saying the things it would be correcting.
I don't think that hair stripe and reverse nepotism discrimination cases would meet with success. I wasn't listing interesting legal cases, I was presenting a spectrum of different grades of unfairness to later hold up next to the question of boycott inducement.
7b is perfectly fair, 7a is probably slightly unfair.
5a might be slightly unfair, 5b is unfair, but no one would want it prosecuted.
6b is unfair to some people, but not really unjust as a policy, 6a is unjust, and right on the edge of being a serious legal issue.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:52 pm Post subject: 40 |
|
|
| Yeah, my previous post was unnecessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
