yozhik
10-07-2009, 12:13 AM
I wanted to throw this into the forum, to highlight the perverse political and legal environment, now being forged around us.
The following comes from a study by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, in a paper researching "The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship"
Here is one of my "favourite" passages;
It has been argued that:
[T]he idea of nationality is used to connote the relationship between an individual and the nation, regardless of the legal citizenship held by the person. A nation may be defined as a collection of people having some kind of corporate identity recognised by themselves and others, a history of association and a name […] By contrast, the status of citizen is used to denote the link between an individual and a State, a form of political organization with territorial boundaries which may encompass more than one nation (as in the case of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).4
Of particular interest are the following excerpts;
A nation may be defined as a collection of people having some kind of corporate identity
a State, a form of political organization with territorial boundaries
So the discussion is concentrated on Nation versus State, of which the choice then becomes CORPORATE IDENTITY versus POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.
Hmmm ... so whatever happened to the existence of a COUNTRY with MEN, WOMEN and CHILDREN? :rolleyes:
... and how does that relate to being a corporate identity or a political organization? :confused:
Reading through the document, there also seems to be an underlying paranoia and frustration brought on by the "International movement" and recognition of the inalienable rights being attributes of the "personhood";
Yet with the extension of rights to all persons simply by virtue of their existence, rights deriving from citizenship of a nation-state can be seen as duplicates of globally attributed, inalienable rights. Coupled with the assertion of rights through movements across the globe, there is potential for the break-down of the nation-state at the local level to give rise to a postnational, suprastate nexus of relations, in which rights derive from the individual, rather than the polity.
If you're interested, here is the link to the full document;
Link to PDF of document (http://www.justice.gov.uk/reviews/docs/biicl-report-full.pdf)
You'll also be heartened by the knowledge that this document is from www.justice.gov.uk, entitled "Review of citizenship by Lord Goldsmith QC".
Not a surprising view of the world, given his previously published views on major issues;
In his final advice to the Government, written on 17 March 2003, Lord Goldsmith stated that the use of force in Iraq was lawful.
With twats like this at the helm (inference fully intended), is it any wonder there are some who feel a total disconnect between the internal feelings and the external reality?
:mad:
The following comes from a study by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, in a paper researching "The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship"
Here is one of my "favourite" passages;
It has been argued that:
[T]he idea of nationality is used to connote the relationship between an individual and the nation, regardless of the legal citizenship held by the person. A nation may be defined as a collection of people having some kind of corporate identity recognised by themselves and others, a history of association and a name […] By contrast, the status of citizen is used to denote the link between an individual and a State, a form of political organization with territorial boundaries which may encompass more than one nation (as in the case of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).4
Of particular interest are the following excerpts;
A nation may be defined as a collection of people having some kind of corporate identity
a State, a form of political organization with territorial boundaries
So the discussion is concentrated on Nation versus State, of which the choice then becomes CORPORATE IDENTITY versus POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.
Hmmm ... so whatever happened to the existence of a COUNTRY with MEN, WOMEN and CHILDREN? :rolleyes:
... and how does that relate to being a corporate identity or a political organization? :confused:
Reading through the document, there also seems to be an underlying paranoia and frustration brought on by the "International movement" and recognition of the inalienable rights being attributes of the "personhood";
Yet with the extension of rights to all persons simply by virtue of their existence, rights deriving from citizenship of a nation-state can be seen as duplicates of globally attributed, inalienable rights. Coupled with the assertion of rights through movements across the globe, there is potential for the break-down of the nation-state at the local level to give rise to a postnational, suprastate nexus of relations, in which rights derive from the individual, rather than the polity.
If you're interested, here is the link to the full document;
Link to PDF of document (http://www.justice.gov.uk/reviews/docs/biicl-report-full.pdf)
You'll also be heartened by the knowledge that this document is from www.justice.gov.uk, entitled "Review of citizenship by Lord Goldsmith QC".
Not a surprising view of the world, given his previously published views on major issues;
In his final advice to the Government, written on 17 March 2003, Lord Goldsmith stated that the use of force in Iraq was lawful.
With twats like this at the helm (inference fully intended), is it any wonder there are some who feel a total disconnect between the internal feelings and the external reality?
:mad: