|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 13:02:33
Not exactly what I am thinking codc01. I know were you are coming from. That is Canadian law should not supersede any other foreign countries people's laws. I agree.
The direction I am heading is that democracies should be able to agree on a core set of laws. (Forgive me if these already exist at the U.N. level, if they do, then these laws are not enforced).
For example;
No penalty of death speaking out against a government.
No penalty of death for publishing a free press.
No penalty of death for illegally leaving a country.
Would this be too cumbersome? Is it practical? What do you think?
On the other hand non-democracies would probably just kill people out of public sight more often if such a system existed.
Which gets back to my original point, that a dictatorship by its nature can not have just laws of the people, or it wouldn't be a dictatorship. So why should we support/uphold the phony laws of a dictator?
Reply to this message
|
