Trouble in Norway

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
This would not suprise me from some nut bag Holy roller Teabagger here in this country but in a country like Norway, yes. I hope the people can find comfort and solace.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
171
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The fundamantal document is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the USA is a signatory. This requires nations to change their laws to comply with the Declaration, and requires all individuals, organisations and nations to work to achieve compliance by all nations. The Preamble states:

"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

Enforcement can be through national or international courts (within the context of the EU frequently the European Court of Human Rights) or through the resolutions of the United Nations, which may be supported by international actions.

The contrary argument is "might is right". Nation X can do what it jolly well pleases because no-one is going to take them to task. China pretty much asserts this, as does Iran. By contrast the nations of Europe signed up to the UDHR as part of the retreat from the imperial age and accept international jurisdiction. The USA is unique among developed nations in that it sets itself above international law, and the might of the USA is such that at the moment no-one feels it worth their while to demand sanctions.

I completely missed the part where the death penalty is prohibited.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I completely missed the part where the death penalty is prohibited.

Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

This is modified by Article 29(2) "...everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others..."

The application of the UDHR has been a matter for courts. Yes people can be deprived of ther right to liberty because of recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of other (ie they can go to prison), but they cannot be deprived of life. There is no right to revenge in the UDHR, and no-one has the right to have another murdered.
 

rawbone8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Posts
2,827
Media
1
Likes
294
Points
303
Location
Ontario (Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

This is modified by Article 29(2) "...everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others..."

The application of the UDHR has been a matter for courts. Yes people can be deprived of ther right to liberty because of recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of other (ie they can go to prison), but they cannot be deprived of life. There is no right to revenge in the UDHR, and no-one has the right to have another murdered.

That's bullshit, in practice. No international body is going to meddle in a country's national jurisdictions. Unless they are willing to go to war over it. You are interpreting in an extremely idealistic manner.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
171
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Like I said, I am against MOST applications of the death penalty- but I have to say that incertain instances it is VERY difficult to argue against it- for instance, when the perpetrator rapes and then murders his victim, or the rape of a pre pubescent child. Especially with violent pedophiles- there is no way to rehabilitate some of these people. That kind of thing is a sickness, one that calls for permanent separation from the mainstream of society.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Like I said, I am against MOST applications of the death penalty- but I have to say that incertain instances it is VERY difficult to argue against it- for instance, when the perpetrator rapes and then murders his victim, or the rape of a pre pubescent child. Especially with violent pedophiles- there is no way to rehabilitate some of these people. That kind of thing is a sickness, one that calls for permanent separation from the mainstream of society.



It's not that hard to argue against. Execution, otherwise known as judicial murder, is vengeance, not justice.

You either live in a society which believes in justice or you don't. There are no exceptions and grey areas.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It's not that hard to argue against. Execution, otherwise known as judicial murder, is vengeance, not justice.

You either live in a society which believes in justice or you don't. There are no exceptions and grey areas.
Bullshit. If you are going to make a case against capital punishment, step forward and make an honest case for it. Don't try to cheat your way to the desired conclusion with verbal swindles.

First, to say "otherwise known as judicial murder" is analogous to saying "war, otherwise known as mass murder," or "meat eating, otherwise known as animal murder," or "abortion, otherwise known as fetus murder." You're just trying to smuggle your moral convictions into the very names of things.

Second, capital punishment is not "vengeance" any more than is any other form of punishment. You're playing with words again—and cheating, again. Some people may get satisfaction from seeing an offender put to death. That is not the basis on which the death penalty is imposed any more than it is the basis on which life imprisonment is imposed. People's desire for vengeance is not part of the judicial process.

Third, even if it is granted that the death penalty is inherently unjust—a possible position, but not one for which you have yet offered any rational defense—it is absurd to say that a "society" does not "believe in justice" because the criminal justice system somewhere contains unjust punishments. By that standard, there never has been and never will be a "society" that "believes in justice," as all systems of criminal justice are bound to contain imperfections.
 

hsarge

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Posts
1,184
Media
0
Likes
36
Points
73
Location
PA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I read that the maximum prison term in Norway is 21 years. That would not be right for such a cataclysm.
 

Attila the Hung

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Posts
677
Media
11
Likes
773
Points
248
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
It's not that hard to argue against.
Sure it is, when the guilt of the accused is undeniable and the crimes are as horrific as what took place in Norway, I do not see a problem with executing such a person.

But I gather that you are the type of person who would prefer that the taxpayers foot the bill for keeping this man alive, clothed, fed and protected from others and simply kept behind bars for the rest of his natural life eh?

Yeah, because Norwegian society should be merciful towards this monster who gunned down in cold blood over one hundred innocent people, right.:rolleyes:

Execution, otherwise known as judicial murder, is vengeance, not justice.
What an absolute crock of shit, pathetic really. That is your opinion and your opinion alone, has it occured to you that other people might not share your view on such matters? What if the familys of the victims feel differently that you do, and would want to see this man put to death, I`m guessing in your eyes they would be considered murderers as well then according to your way of thinking?

You either live in a society which believes in justice or you don't.
Has it occured to you that not everyones opinion of what justice is is the same as yours?

There are no exceptions and grey areas.
Oh yes there is, remember not everyone shares your opinion on such matters. Certain crimes are so senseless and horrific in nature that the people who perpetrate these acts have forfeited their right to stay alive should they be convicted beyond any reasonable doubt, and in this case there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the accused now is there?
 

helgaleena

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
5,475
Media
7
Likes
43
Points
193
Location
Wisconsin USA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Female
He should have immigrated here could have fit right in with teabaggers. oopps immigrant sorry.
well yes, it is rather USA style armed wackery, isn't it? Sad it happens other places as much as here.

If Norway still had human sacrifice, like in Viking days, he'd be perfect for the wicker cage. But they don't.

In USA prisons the inmates would likely be allowed to unofficially visit him, after which he'd be dead of unspecified natural causes, like Dahmer.

In UAE he'd be beheaded.

In China he'd be at hard labor until his health gave out.
 
Last edited:

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Some interesting information about the political angle from which this Breivik character comes in this article by David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars. It quotes a couple of other articles, including one by Chip Berlet, which contains this passage:
Chip Berlet said:
Breivik, charged in the terror attacks in Oslo, Norway, described himself in online posts as a cultural conservative and a Christian conservative who felt that Protestantism had lost its way and that Christianity should recombine under the banner of a reconstituted and traditionalist Catholic Church. These views are almost identical to the views of the late Paul Weyrich, founder of the Christian Right epicenter in the United States, the Free Congress Foundation. Weyrich and his colleague William S. Lind developed an aggressive theory of Cultural Conservatism as a way to save Western Culture. . . .

This vein of culural conservatism warns of a "Demographic Winter" a term which is a coded racist warning that Muslims are outbreeding "white people" in Europe and the United States. . . .

Breivik thought Cultural Marxists=multiculturalists=Islamization of Europe. This racist right-wing conspiracy theory is tied to the Islamophobic "Demographic Winter" thesis. In his online posts, Breivik considered himself a cultural conservative and condemned "Cultural Marxism."The idea of "Cultural Marxism" on the political right is an antisemitic conspiracy theory cliaming that a small group of Marxist Jews formed the Frankfurt School and set out to destroy Western Culture through a conspiracy to promote multiculturalism and collectivist economic theories.
Neiwert also quotes from a piece by Bill Berkowitz from 2003 on the Web site of the Southern Poverty Law Center, on the anti-Jewish underpinnings of the jargon of "cultural Marxism." One of the themes of Neiwert's writing—see his book The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right—is that far-right thinking like this, minus only the most overt manifestations of racial and religious hatreds, has been finding its way into the mainstream of conservative politics in the US. He gives instances of this with the use of the term "cultural Marxism" by Andrew Breitbart in videos on the first-cited page.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
That's bullshit, in practice. No international body is going to meddle in a country's national jurisdictions. Unless they are willing to go to war over it. You are interpreting in an extremely idealistic manner.

But it is already the norm, and has been for many years. Take the example of the European Court of Human Rights. This is a supra-national court which has jurisdiction over most of Europe (both the EU and beyond, and including Norway). It gets through thousands of cases a year. It requires nation states to implement its decisions both through the national courts and by changing their national laws to comply. It trumps both national courts and national parliaments.

The UK receives several hundred rulings a year which directly apply to the UK. The vast majority are individual "hard" cases which are subsequently simply implemented by the UK legal system, but a few really do make new law. Some demand a change in UK law. We've recently had a requirement that we make changes to our electoral law to give prisoners the vote, even though this is overwhelmingly opposed both by parliament and the people of the UK. This is causing all sorts of difficulties, but the one option that the UK does not have is to simply ignore it.

The ECHR does have some enforcement powers, including fines levied on nations. It pretty much always gets its way.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Bullshit. If you are going to make a case against capital punishment, step forward and make an honest case for it. Don't try to cheat your way to the desired conclusion with verbal swindles.

First, to say "otherwise known as judicial murder" is analogous to saying "war, otherwise known as mass murder," or "meat eating, otherwise known as animal murder," or "abortion, otherwise known as fetus murder." You're just trying to smuggle your moral convictions into the very names of things.

Second, capital punishment is not "vengeance" any more than is any other form of punishment. You're playing with words again—and cheating, again. Some people may get satisfaction from seeing an offender put to death. That is not the basis on which the death penalty is imposed any more than it is the basis on which life imprisonment is imposed. People's desire for vengeance is not part of the judicial process.

Third, even if it is granted that the death penalty is inherently unjust—a possible position, but not one for which you have yet offered any rational defense—it is absurd to say that a "society" does not "believe in justice" because the criminal justice system somewhere contains unjust punishments. By that standard, there never has been and never will be a "society" that "believes in justice," as all systems of criminal justice are bound to contain imperfections.



Bullshit yerself, you can dress execution up in all manner of sophistry and pretence but it remains a form of legally sanctioned life taking. The origins and underlying justifications for execution are primitive eye for an eye-type logics which are about nothing but taking vengeance. The exact purpose of execution is to meet out death for death (or in some cases death as the punishment for other transgressions).


If the state executes murderers it is taking vengeance on them. You may be satisfied with a system which does this. I personally find such systems morally bankrupt.

War is mass murder, that is a fact. Denying that is absurd, just as denying that execution is judicially sanctioned murder makes no sense whatsoever.


That the law sanctions something does not imply that this something is qualitatively any different from the same phenomenon taking place in the absence of legal sanction.


If you execute a murderer by judicial sanction there is no particular difference to that murderer having been lynched by a mob and strung up in a tree. The Judge and Jury merely lend a spurious legal and ceremonial camouflage to an act of vengeance. In fact the Judge and the Jury are the formalised proxies of the lynch-mob.


That you object so strongly to execution being described in terms which most simply express what it actually is suggests that you do not wish to examine the real nature of the phenomenon. This is perhaps because you are aware that too close an examination would reveal aspects of this phenomenon that you would be uncomfortable with, and that because I suspect you to be a person of thoughtful morality.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Sure it is, when the guilt of the accused is undeniable and the crimes are as horrific as what took place in Norway, I do not see a problem with executing such a person.

But I gather that you are the type of person who would prefer that the taxpayers foot the bill for keeping this man alive, clothed, fed and protected from others and simply kept behind bars for the rest of his natural life eh?

Yeah, because Norwegian society should be merciful towards this monster who gunned down in cold blood over one hundred innocent people, right.:rolleyes:

What an absolute crock of shit, pathetic really. That is your opinion and your opinion alone, has it occured to you that other people might not share your view on such matters? What if the familys of the victims feel differently that you do, and would want to see this man put to death, I`m guessing in your eyes they would be considered murderers as well then according to your way of thinking?

Has it occured to you that not everyones opinion of what justice is is the same as yours?

Oh yes there is, remember not everyone shares your opinion on such matters. Certain crimes are so senseless and horrific in nature that the people who perpetrate these acts have forfeited their right to stay alive should they be convicted beyond any reasonable doubt, and in this case there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the accused now is there?




Your arguments actually prove my point you know. :rolleyes:
 

Attila the Hung

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Posts
677
Media
11
Likes
773
Points
248
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Your arguments actually prove my point you know. :rolleyes:

In your own mind perhaps, and I daresay you will find more people that disagree with you than agree with your opinions on this subject, you are definately in the minority with your views to say the least.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

OhWiseOne

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,518
Media
251
Likes
2,967
Points
358
Location
Florida
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Religion, politics have nothing to do with this, he is a man with serious issues. People try to use them as reasons for their delusional thoughts.

This is not the time for all the BS comments being made. Pray for the families in Norway.

That's all I have to say.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
In your own mind perhaps, and I daresay you will find more people that disagree with you than agree with your opinions on this subject, you are definately in the minority with your views to say the least.

:cool:

On the eastern side of the pond I think most will agree with Hilaire.

The UDHR reflects an earlier law: "Thou shalt not kill", and "love thy neighbour as thyself".
 

luka82

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
5,058
Media
0
Likes
44
Points
193
Age
41
Location
somewhere
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In your own mind perhaps, and I daresay you will find more people that disagree with you than agree with your opinions on this subject, you are definately in the minority with your views to say the least.

:cool:
No he is not. I agree with him 100%.
No one has the right to take other person`s life.
The system that lets that happen is as screwed up as the mass murderor.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
171
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It's not that hard to argue against. Execution, otherwise known as judicial murder, is vengeance, not justice.

You either live in a society which believes in justice or you don't. There are no exceptions and grey areas.

I was going to post a response, but I'll let Calboner take it below.

Bullshit. If you are going to make a case against capital punishment, step forward and make an honest case for it. Don't try to cheat your way to the desired conclusion with verbal swindles.

First, to say "otherwise known as judicial murder" is analogous to saying "war, otherwise known as mass murder," or "meat eating, otherwise known as animal murder," or "abortion, otherwise known as fetus murder." You're just trying to smuggle your moral convictions into the very names of things.

Second, capital punishment is not "vengeance" any more than is any other form of punishment. You're playing with words again—and cheating, again. Some people may get satisfaction from seeing an offender put to death. That is not the basis on which the death penalty is imposed any more than it is the basis on which life imprisonment is imposed. People's desire for vengeance is not part of the judicial process.

Third, even if it is granted that the death penalty is inherently unjust—a possible position, but not one for which you have yet offered any rational defense—it is absurd to say that a "society" does not "believe in justice" because the criminal justice system somewhere contains unjust punishments. By that standard, there never has been and never will be a "society" that "believes in justice," as all systems of criminal justice are bound to contain imperfections.

This.

Bullshit yerself, you can dress execution up in all manner of sophistry and pretence but it remains a form of legally sanctioned life taking. The origins and underlying justifications for execution are primitive eye for an eye-type logics which are about nothing but taking vengeance. The exact purpose of execution is to meet out death for death (or in some cases death as the punishment for other transgressions).


If the state executes murderers it is taking vengeance on them. You may be satisfied with a system which does this. I personally find such systems morally bankrupt.

War is mass murder, that is a fact. Denying that is absurd, just as denying that execution is judicially sanctioned murder makes no sense whatsoever.


That the law sanctions something does not imply that this something is qualitatively any different from the same phenomenon taking place in the absence of legal sanction.


If you execute a murderer by judicial sanction there is no particular difference to that murderer having been lynched by a mob and strung up in a tree. The Judge and Jury merely lend a spurious legal and ceremonial camouflage to an act of vengeance. In fact the Judge and the Jury are the formalised proxies of the lynch-mob.


That you object so strongly to execution being described in terms which most simply express what it actually is suggests that you do not wish to examine the real nature of the phenomenon. This is perhaps because you are aware that too close an examination would reveal aspects of this phenomenon that you would be uncomfortable with, and that because I suspect you to be a person of thoughtful morality.

You actually didn't address his arguments at all, you merely called the kettle black and accused him of sophistry. What are punishments other than governmentally sanctioned vengeance? Like a typical European debating with an American on morals and ethics, you pompously claim that there is no grey area or room for debate.