What happens when a journalist gets poor service
Jul 6, 2012, 1:52 pm
#166
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,147
Seriously? When the US Supreme Court spends decades debating the exact meaning of the language used by those guys back in 1776?
Then the "Right to bear arms" is still being droned on about endlessly, as to whether it means today, in the 21st C, what the Founding Fathers meant when they first drew up the Constitution [as amended]? Ahh, it meant having an armed militia in 1776. Yes, but but but … Or does it now it mean Jake the Dick in 2012 has a constitutional right to own and shoot anything with anything?
etc etc etc
Get yourself a copy. It's a slim volume, probably available on the Web, and appears the determine everything a US citizen can do [or not] once the USSC has debated it and made numerous lawyers VERY rich in the process.
If there was ever an argument for NOT having a written Constitution, and with great respect for my American friends, the whole thing is … politically-loaded chaos.
Then the "Right to bear arms" is still being droned on about endlessly, as to whether it means today, in the 21st C, what the Founding Fathers meant when they first drew up the Constitution [as amended]? Ahh, it meant having an armed militia in 1776. Yes, but but but … Or does it now it mean Jake the Dick in 2012 has a constitutional right to own and shoot anything with anything?
etc etc etc
Get yourself a copy. It's a slim volume, probably available on the Web, and appears the determine everything a US citizen can do [or not] once the USSC has debated it and made numerous lawyers VERY rich in the process.
If there was ever an argument for NOT having a written Constitution, and with great respect for my American friends, the whole thing is … politically-loaded chaos.
Jul 6, 2012, 1:54 pm
#167
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
Jul 6, 2012, 1:57 pm
#168
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,147
Jul 6, 2012, 2:01 pm
#169
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
So your system is better because you can't make fun of it? 
A serious answer would be appreciated. You can make fun of Thorbecke if it is absolutely required to explain the merits of the UK model.
A serious answer would be appreciated. You can make fun of Thorbecke if it is absolutely required to explain the merits of the UK model.
Jul 6, 2012, 2:32 pm
#170
Ambassador
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Frankfurt
Posts: 1,755
From my perspective of legal ignorance, I like the UK's lack of a written/codified constitution since it allows the law to adapt to changing principles and values more easily. What was appropriate one/two/three hundred years ago is not necessarily appropriate to modern society and if the constitution keeps being changed to adapt to new ideals then what's the point of having one?
Jul 6, 2012, 2:47 pm
#171
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,747
An unwritten constitution like what the UK has, or a more flexible written constitution like Canada has, allows the law to evolve naturally as society changes, and the law can keep pace automatically with change. There is no need to rewrite things and do the "what would they say if" gymnastics, the law simply changes gradually and incrementally as a by-product of the functioning of the Judicial system. That's the heart of the Common Law in countries that use a British style legal system, like most of the Commonwealth countries.
For the example of the right to bear arms in the US, it's very clear (to me anyway) with the benefit of looking at the US constitution from today; that it was written in a revolutionary and siege mindset, they wanted to be able to have each citizen armed to repel a British attempt to retake the 13 colonies after they declared independence. If that right wasn’t written into the constitution, I imagine that gun control laws would have been gradually introduced and ownership of certain types ( such as handguns) would have been more restricted than it is now. Canada is an example of that, handgun restriction started in 1913 and have grown stricter over time as society’s values have changed.
Jul 6, 2012, 2:59 pm
#172
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BAEC (Silver), FlyBe
Posts: 1,649
^ +1 to all of the comments against a written UK constitution.
Perhaps we are too heavily influenced by the US, but their constitution just seems to be a way of making lawyers rich, because the meaning of the words are twisted to fit the times. "All men are born equal" came to be "unless they're black, because blacks aren't what was meant by 'men'"
I'm also thinking of Dubya trying to prevent gay marriage via the constitution: theirs is nothing more than a battleground for lawyers and lawmakers to strut their stuff.
I could probably stretch to a national version of one of those corporate "mission statements" that's all very vague and changes very few years (indeed it might give some direction to the country) but trying to freeze in time stuff that won't be relevant in a century is just plain daft.
(And this from Great Britain: a supposedly backwards-looking country too!)
Perhaps we are too heavily influenced by the US, but their constitution just seems to be a way of making lawyers rich, because the meaning of the words are twisted to fit the times. "All men are born equal" came to be "unless they're black, because blacks aren't what was meant by 'men'"
I'm also thinking of Dubya trying to prevent gay marriage via the constitution: theirs is nothing more than a battleground for lawyers and lawmakers to strut their stuff.I could probably stretch to a national version of one of those corporate "mission statements" that's all very vague and changes very few years (indeed it might give some direction to the country) but trying to freeze in time stuff that won't be relevant in a century is just plain daft.
(And this from Great Britain: a supposedly backwards-looking country too!)
Last edited by dark_horse; Jul 6, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Jul 6, 2012, 4:31 pm
#173
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
Ah, but the way we interpret the constitution in NL is slightly different. It is much more a living document and although changes to it require a 2/3rd majority they do happen often. We see the constitution as containing the rights most fundamental to us, whilst the other laws govern the details. We don't see them as the words of the founding father(s) even though ours is considerably older than the US one. We did rewrite it almost completely in 1983 though. 
I think it is good to have a set of fundamental laws that you want to base your country on.
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...he_Netherlands
By the way: I am not a lawyer. I find it interesting from a purely sociological and historical perspective.
I think it is good to have a set of fundamental laws that you want to base your country on.
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...he_Netherlands
By the way: I am not a lawyer. I find it interesting from a purely sociological and historical perspective.
Jul 7, 2012, 2:20 am
#174
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold;BA GGL; hhonors lifetime diamond; Marriott lt Gold; IH Plat Amb; Amex Centurion
Posts: 4,739
Oh, I'm definitely more than a little irked, but not for the reasons you think. Your post (#133) has now provided a little context, and I think I can understand why you seem quite so determined to defend this non-word. However, please understand that my issue is neither with society's acceptance of homosexuality nor its expectations of women. I shall attempt to explain why.
I never said it was useless. In fact it's very useful, but in a "cowardly, deceptive and manipulative" way.
Oh, no. I meant the word. Very definitely. By implication that must include the coiners of it too, but to a far lesser extent the users. Why? Because use of it in an 'ordinary' context attempts to redefine the socio-political debate as already won. In effect, the result is presented as a fait accompli and strongly suggests that the other party to the conversation should already understand this (and if not, "why haven't you 'caught up'?"). The fact that is does not exist in a dictionary is testament to the fact that this is not necessarily true (the underlined word is critical).
My objection has little or nothing to do with the battle you want to fight, so let's use a different, less emotive example. Have a listen to separatist politicians in Scotland. When they talk about independence from the UK, they talk as if Scotland was already independent. Why? Because it's easier to frame the debate as if the desired result had already happened, than to elicit change. Why bother trying to move Scotland out of the UK when it's far less hassle to pretend that the deed had already been done and that divorce wouldn't be as big a shock as in fact it would?
Another: a friend of mine has an irritating habit when a group of us plan to get together. If she wants to do something and doesn't believe many others do, she will find one person (and sometimes not even one) who agrees with her, then e-mail the rest and say "we've been talking and we've decided...", when at least 80% of the group haven't even got the faintest idea what she's on about. The starting point now suits her (although in this case it's self-defeating, because we know damn well what she's doing and work around it).
Finally: ever notice how those who dislike the EU refer to the "UK and Europe", perhaps because millions of years of geography and geology are just a little bit inconvenient?
Back to 'heteronormative': the concept behind it is clearly an emotive and important one for you, and I can understand and respect why. The problem is that its use in 'ordinary' conversation or article frames the situation as if the attitude of the majority is wrong and just needs educating. And I can understand why. Presumably the majority of people at one stage thought chemical castration was a suitable 'punishment' for poor Alan Turing. Perhaps if the minority had never educated the majority, the majority would still hold such dark beliefs. It's a horrible thought.
In which case: fine. Good luck to you. But be open and honest about it. "This is the problem and we're trying to change it", as distinct from the cowardly (avoid the battle...), the deceptive (...by pretending it's already won...) and manipulative (...so why haven't you caught up?).
I know enough people who have suffered at the hands of others due to their sexuality (including members of my family), and I can offer nothing but my profound and probably unintentionally patronising sympathies if this applies to you too. I can completely understand if you thought my criticism of the pretence of 'heteronormative' as a real word was criticism of homosexuality or its struggle; hopefully you can see now that it wasn't.
It has nothing to do with society's acceptance of homosexuality, nor its expectations of women. It has everything to do with being open and honest about what you are trying to say.
I never said it was useless. In fact it's very useful, but in a "cowardly, deceptive and manipulative" way.
Oh, no. I meant the word. Very definitely. By implication that must include the coiners of it too, but to a far lesser extent the users. Why? Because use of it in an 'ordinary' context attempts to redefine the socio-political debate as already won. In effect, the result is presented as a fait accompli and strongly suggests that the other party to the conversation should already understand this (and if not, "why haven't you 'caught up'?"). The fact that is does not exist in a dictionary is testament to the fact that this is not necessarily true (the underlined word is critical).
My objection has little or nothing to do with the battle you want to fight, so let's use a different, less emotive example. Have a listen to separatist politicians in Scotland. When they talk about independence from the UK, they talk as if Scotland was already independent. Why? Because it's easier to frame the debate as if the desired result had already happened, than to elicit change. Why bother trying to move Scotland out of the UK when it's far less hassle to pretend that the deed had already been done and that divorce wouldn't be as big a shock as in fact it would?
Another: a friend of mine has an irritating habit when a group of us plan to get together. If she wants to do something and doesn't believe many others do, she will find one person (and sometimes not even one) who agrees with her, then e-mail the rest and say "we've been talking and we've decided...", when at least 80% of the group haven't even got the faintest idea what she's on about. The starting point now suits her (although in this case it's self-defeating, because we know damn well what she's doing and work around it).
Finally: ever notice how those who dislike the EU refer to the "UK and Europe", perhaps because millions of years of geography and geology are just a little bit inconvenient?
Back to 'heteronormative': the concept behind it is clearly an emotive and important one for you, and I can understand and respect why. The problem is that its use in 'ordinary' conversation or article frames the situation as if the attitude of the majority is wrong and just needs educating. And I can understand why. Presumably the majority of people at one stage thought chemical castration was a suitable 'punishment' for poor Alan Turing. Perhaps if the minority had never educated the majority, the majority would still hold such dark beliefs. It's a horrible thought.
In which case: fine. Good luck to you. But be open and honest about it. "This is the problem and we're trying to change it", as distinct from the cowardly (avoid the battle...), the deceptive (...by pretending it's already won...) and manipulative (...so why haven't you caught up?).
I know enough people who have suffered at the hands of others due to their sexuality (including members of my family), and I can offer nothing but my profound and probably unintentionally patronising sympathies if this applies to you too. I can completely understand if you thought my criticism of the pretence of 'heteronormative' as a real word was criticism of homosexuality or its struggle; hopefully you can see now that it wasn't.
It has nothing to do with society's acceptance of homosexuality, nor its expectations of women. It has everything to do with being open and honest about what you are trying to say.
I now understand the point you are making and in part I agree with it. I fully accept that the word "heteronormal" carries with it a certain implication.the point of (respectful) disagreement between us is that I think that the "baggage" that the word carries is baggage that would be accepted now by majority opinion (or at least majority educated opinion). I do fully accept that the word is used, like "homophobe", to drive an agenda. I absolutely have an agenda; amongst other things it is to alter the law so that people can't make patronising remarks about how my marital relationship is different from theirs. I would want to be honest about that agenda.
Anyway, that was heteronormality. Now, about the Dutch constitution...
Jul 7, 2012, 2:21 am
#175
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BAEC (Silver), FlyBe
Posts: 1,649
Henky, I have complete faith in the Dutch to do something important like a written constitution carefully, intelligently and properly. In fact I have more faith in the Dutch to do something like that than we the British...
The idea of a written constitution did come up in politics a few years ago but I think the movement fell flat and was filed away in the 'Not Worth The Effort' drawer. We're a strange, unpredictable, traditional and downright weird bunch sometimes, but somehow we manage to muddle through without one and I suspect we will continue to do.
The idea of a written constitution did come up in politics a few years ago but I think the movement fell flat and was filed away in the 'Not Worth The Effort' drawer. We're a strange, unpredictable, traditional and downright weird bunch sometimes, but somehow we manage to muddle through without one and I suspect we will continue to do.
Jul 7, 2012, 2:33 am
#177
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
Anyway, you cannot constitionalize (if we are making up words....) away the fact that some countries are indeed maybe more heteronormative than others. Not being gay myself I can't really experience if you all still feel like outcasts sometimes. I do know some of my gay friends don't like visiting certain states in the US or some parts of Rotterdam and Amsterdam for that matter...
Jul 7, 2012, 2:36 am
#178
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: A metal nomad
Programs: Mucci des Delices Exotiques,Order of the Platinum Hairbrush,Her Royal Diamond
Posts: 23,735
Jul 7, 2012, 2:37 am
#179
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BAEC (Silver), FlyBe
Posts: 1,649
Jul 7, 2012, 2:42 am
#180
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,513