Brunei plans to pass law to stone homosexuals

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

Rights are a legal provision, so saying a law violates human rights makes no sense.

Rights are enforced by a legal provision not necessarily created by it.
Also the UN Charter requires support for human rights, as does ASEAN.
International law also has human rights provisions.
You do know one law can violate another right?

Brunei should be expelled from ASEAN and the UN for example (not going to happen but would be nice).

And countries against this doe not have to trade with Brunei.

The UN charter says sodomy is a human right?

[Likar]

Yeah, no.

[Chowkaria]

It is part of their new Sharia penal code but will apply to Muslims and Non Muslims.

As far as I know, sharia only applies to Muslims.

It's called theocracy.

[Purpelia]

Rights are enforced by a legal provision not necessarily created by it.
Also the UN Charter requires support for human rights, as does ASEAN.
International law also has human rights provisions.
You do know one law can violate another right?

Brunei should be expelled from ASEAN and the UN for example (not going to happen but would be nice).

And countries against this doe not have to trade with Brunei.

The UN charter says sodomy is a human right?

The UN says a lot of stupid things meant to cater to western morality in order to give western superpowers justification to beat up on, or as they like to say "help" other nations. The UN it self is basically just an organization founded by said powers + USSR to carve up the world and ensure they could keep on avoiding WW3 by making sure which brown and yellow people who gets to bomb.

[Greater Germany]

Seeing any country pass a law like this is truly scary. Its like some want to regress to the Middle Ages.

What's next bringing back drownings and burning at the stake for witchcraft?

Maybe. Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for witchcraft.

After two Wizarding Wars something has to be done to protect us muggles

[New Legland]

When did I ever express my sentiments over those events? Anyway, that does not excuse Brunei for its reprehensible actions.

What is reprehensible about it? I mean sure, we wouldn't want to see it happen in our countries. But it isn't. It's happening in their country. And the fact the people there aren't starting revolutions over it clearly indicates that is what they want. So what is wrong about it?

People aren't starting revolutions because those affected by it lack numbers and would be brutally crushed. General support doesn't excuse oppression. All that support means is that the general populace is fine with disenfranchisement and barbaric punishment for what are often completely harmless "crimes."

[New haven america]

The UN charter says sodomy is a human right?

The UN says a lot of stupid things meant to cater to western morality in order to give western superpowers justification to beat up on, or as they like to say "help" other nations. The UN it self is basically just an organization founded by said powers + USSR to carve up the world and ensure they could keep on avoiding WW3 by making sure which brown and yellow people who gets to bomb.

So why is China a member of the security council?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Seeing any country pass a law like this is truly scary. Its like some want to regress to the Middle Ages.

What's next bringing back drownings and burning at the stake for witchcraft?

Gays are real and capable of acting.

Witchcraft is not.

[Far Easter Republic]

Rights are a legal provision, so saying a law violates human rights makes no sense.

Rights are enforced by a legal provision not necessarily created by it.
Also the UN Charter requires support for human rights, as does ASEAN.
International law also has human rights provisions.
You do know one law can violate another right?

Brunei should be expelled from ASEAN and the UN for example (not going to happen but would be nice).

And countries against this doe not have to trade with Brunei.

And that wont happen in the name of multiculturalism and the OIC.

[New haven america]

Rights are enforced by a legal provision not necessarily created by it.
Also the UN Charter requires support for human rights, as does ASEAN.
International law also has human rights provisions.
You do know one law can violate another right?

Brunei should be expelled from ASEAN and the UN for example (not going to happen but would be nice).

And countries against this doe not have to trade with Brunei.

The UN charter says sodomy is a human right?

We get it, you have a sadomasochistic need to whip people.

Please, take it elsewhere.

[Bear Stearns]

The UN charter says sodomy is a human right?

The UN says a lot of stupid things meant to cater to western morality in order to give western superpowers justification to beat up on, or as they like to say "help" other nations. The UN it self is basically just an organization founded by said powers + USSR to carve up the world and ensure they could keep on avoiding WW3 by making sure which brown and yellow people who gets to bomb.

Quite. A UN that was organized by the third world would excuse a lot more of this behavior.

[Far Easter Republic]

The UN says a lot of stupid things meant to cater to western morality in order to give western superpowers justification to beat up on, or as they like to say "help" other nations. The UN it self is basically just an organization founded by said powers + USSR to carve up the world and ensure they could keep on avoiding WW3 by making sure which brown and yellow people who gets to bomb.

So why is China a member of the security council?

It was originally the ROC. Then the Communists won the Chinese Civil War.

[Purpelia]

The UN says a lot of stupid things meant to cater to western morality in order to give western superpowers justification to beat up on, or as they like to say "help" other nations. The UN it self is basically just an organization founded by said powers + USSR to carve up the world and ensure they could keep on avoiding WW3 by making sure which brown and yellow people who gets to bomb.

So why is China a member of the security council?

Because letting red china in was a political move by the americans to sow dissent in the communist block. And even before that China was a major pawn in great power politics in Asia that had the strange mix of being too big to conquer or ignore but also wanted by everyone.

People aren't starting revolutions because those affected by it lack numbers and would be brutally crushed. General support doesn't excuse oppression. All that support means is that the general populace is fine with disenfranchisement and barbaric punishment for what are often completely harmless "crimes."

On the contrary general support shows that people generally support the government and what it is doing therefore by definition making it not oppression. You can not oppress people that want what you are doing to them.

[New haven america]

So why is China a member of the security council?

Because letting red china in was a political move by the americans to sow dissent in the communist block.

That doesn't actually answer my question though, because beforehand it was the ROC, which are just as "Yellow" as mainland China.

[Agarntrop]

So why is China a member of the security council?

Because letting red china in was a political move by the americans to sow dissent in the communist block.

No. China was allowed in as it controlled the mainland, whereas the previous representative only controlled a tiny island.

[Purpelia]

Because letting red china in was a political move by the americans to sow dissent in the communist block.

That doesn't actually answer my question though, because beforehand it was the ROC, which are just as "Yellow" as mainland China.

Letting the ROC in was just a way of sticking it to the red block. Before they realized they could turn them against each other instead.

[Far Easter Republic]

The UN says a lot of stupid things meant to cater to western morality in order to give western superpowers justification to beat up on, or as they like to say "help" other nations. The UN it self is basically just an organization founded by said powers + USSR to carve up the world and ensure they could keep on avoiding WW3 by making sure which brown and yellow people who gets to bomb.

Quite. A UN that was organized by the third world would excuse a lot more of this behavior.

And no intervention in Yugoslavia, which means NATO ups the ante, or Yugoslavia becomes into these 3 countries: Greater Serbia, Slovenia and Macedonia.
And Rwanda is off the hook.
And Israel gets less strongly worded letters.

[New Legland]

So why is China a member of the security council?

Because letting red china in was a political move by the americans to sow dissent in the communist block. And even before that China was a major pawn in great power politics in Asia that had the strange mix of being too big to conquer or ignore but also wanted by everyone.

People aren't starting revolutions because those affected by it lack numbers and would be brutally crushed. General support doesn't excuse oppression. All that support means is that the general populace is fine with disenfranchisement and barbaric punishment for what are often completely harmless "crimes."

On the contrary general support shows that people generally support the government and what it is doing therefore by definition making it not oppression. You can not oppress people that want what you are doing to them.

You do realize gay people and other "offenders" exist in Brunei, right? If they are unfairly limiting their people's rights, it is oppression. I don't care if the majority, they are still oppressing those targeted. Many atrocities were supported by the majority. That in no way makes them excusable. What you're trying to argue here is absolutely ridiculous.

[New haven america]

That doesn't actually answer my question though, because beforehand it was the ROC, which are just as "Yellow" as mainland China.

Letting the ROC in was just a way of sticking it to the red block. Before they realized they could turn them against each other instead.

Then why was the ROC allowed in before the Chinese Civil War?

If you want to come up with conspiracy theories, at least learn some basic history first, please.

[Purpelia]

The UN says a lot of stupid things meant to cater to western morality in order to give western superpowers justification to beat up on, or as they like to say "help" other nations. The UN it self is basically just an organization founded by said powers + USSR to carve up the world and ensure they could keep on avoiding WW3 by making sure which brown and yellow people who gets to bomb.

Quite. A UN that was organized by the third world would excuse a lot more of this behavior.

If it was up to me the UN would stick to humanitarian aid, UNESCO and serve as some sort of very minimal way of handling international treaties on stuff like fishing grounds and research claims to the south pole. And leave countries to handle their own internal politics as they see fit.

[Bear Stearns]

Quite. A UN that was organized by the third world would excuse a lot more of this behavior.

And no intervention in Yugoslavia, which means NATO ups the ante, or Yugoslavia becomes into these 3 countries: Greater Serbia, Slovenia and Macedonia.
And Rwanda is off the hook.
And Israel gets less strongly worded letters.

My personal opinion is that the UN should not exist, however.

[Purpelia]

Letting the ROC in was just a way of sticking it to the red block. Before they realized they could turn them against each other instead.

Then why was the ROC allowed in before the Chinese Civil War?

If you want to come up with conspiracy theories, at least learn some basic history first, please.

The UN was founded in 1945. The Chinese civil war started in 1927 and lasted throughout to 49. By 1945 the ROC was clearly loosing and red china had taken over with soviet aid and frankly control. And as soon as the two parted ways suddenly red china became the wests new friend.

[Bear Stearns]

Letting the ROC in was just a way of sticking it to the red block. Before they realized they could turn them against each other instead.

Then why was the ROC allowed in before the Chinese Civil War?

If you want to come up with conspiracy theories, at least learn some basic history first, please.

Because China was a victor of World War II and the world powers recognized the ROC as China's government.

[New haven america]

Then why was the ROC allowed in before the Chinese Civil War?

If you want to come up with conspiracy theories, at least learn some basic history first, please.

The UN was founded in 1945. The Chinese civil war started in 1927 and lasted throughout to 49. By 1945 the ROC was clearly loosing and red china had taken over with soviet aid and frankly control. Learn your history, will you.

SMH, you don't even know that there were multiple stages of the civil war but you still think you can lecture me

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the first stage happened between 1927 and 1937, but then was put on hold in order to fight off the Japanese, and then continued from 1945-1949. However, throughout most of that period, the legitimate China was considered the nationalist side, not the communist, and was continually seen as such up until the 1970's.

But sure, they were allowed into the security council just to stick it to the Russians... who also allowed them in. Of course, makes perfect sense.

[New haven america]

Then why was the ROC allowed in before the Chinese Civil War?

If you want to come up with conspiracy theories, at least learn some basic history first, please.

Because China was a victor of World War II and the world powers recognized the ROC as China's government.

Gee, really, I had no idea.

Please, share more of your seemingly endless wisdom.