There is an unfortunate tendency to dismiss everything that doesn't 100% conform to the constitutional framework of where one is living.
That's especially pronounced in the US, because the US constitution is very rarely amended and almost religiously venerated. The Founding Fathers are often seen as demi-gods who could never have gone wrong.
I wish people would separate "that's the best to handle it" from "that's the only way to handle it, and everyone who disagrees is a human rights abusing asshole".
If anyone is interested I could tell a nice story where our Federal Constitution Court got it right and ruled in the former style ("we could never accept it under our constitution, but it's not as if it were a total injustice").
> There is an unfortunate tendency to dismiss everything that doesn't 100% conform to the constitutional framework of where one is living.
Ah yes, you are adorable at generalizing. You'll notice I pretty much only defend the 1st & 4th amendments [free speech and privacy], indifferent to the 2nd, and I could go on but yeah.
A right to speak freely, worship freely, to be safe from violence, and be secure in your privacy are critical to a functional democracy and fundamental human rights.
> I wish people would separate "that's the best to handle it" from "that's the only way to handle it, and everyone who disagrees is a human rights abusing asshole".
Yes, everyone who doesn't protect those rights is an asshole. I'm not saying start a revolution over it. I'm just saying they are shitty people and its a shitty law.
That's especially pronounced in the US, because the US constitution is very rarely amended and almost religiously venerated. The Founding Fathers are often seen as demi-gods who could never have gone wrong.
I wish people would separate "that's the best to handle it" from "that's the only way to handle it, and everyone who disagrees is a human rights abusing asshole".
If anyone is interested I could tell a nice story where our Federal Constitution Court got it right and ruled in the former style ("we could never accept it under our constitution, but it's not as if it were a total injustice").