Felons' interests count heavier than that of their victims

[Skybird]

I have a new reason why to spit on the european institutions. Why must a sovereign nation like Germany care for some freakheaded judge's mad decision that the interests of still dangerous murderers and rapist have to wiegh heavier then the legimtiate interst of soceity to be protected from them? why do we even elect national politicians who form governments that on their behalf influence the personnel for the German Constitutional High Court, if that Court can be overruled by foreigners from other countries even on decisions that effect only Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...695737,00.html

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that German laws on preventive detention of dangerous criminals is a violation of their human rights. Now Germany will be forced to release almost 200 felons, including convicted rapists and multiple murderers. The first repeat offender has already been released.

If people still are assessed to be dangerous, keep them locked. That simple. Which means arrest the EU's representatives and the EU court's judges asap.

[DarkFish]

the EU starts to look more and more like the United States of Europe

cooperation between the European countries is good, but the EU just keeps getting more and more power.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

the EU starts to look more and more like the United States of Europe

cooperation between the European countries is good, but the EU just keeps getting more and more power.

Indeed, but that is a conflict that is very old. The ojne camps wanted to stay with a union of economically cooperating sovereign nations, while the other camp always wanted to abandon national sovereignity and repalace it with something like a European superstate. The latter camp won in momentum in the past 20 years, let's say: since the end of the cold war and German reunification - and with the disastrous results we have today.

It is an articial, unnatural enforcement of a pseudo-unity and uniformity that people simply do not want to have in europe. As a Dutch guest commentator in a German paper yesterday or the day before wrote: why should I sympathise with the idea of a union and a constitution that no person in europe can read in orfignal labguage, becasue it is not set down in one binding version, in one binding origianl langauge, but two dozens that all show variances in details? Why amd I expected to feel soldiartiy with people in Spain when they mismanage their economy, while I live in Northern Europe? why is there even the idea that such "soldiarity" could be expected to show up between total strangers with totally different living styles, national and social surrounding, who never met?

Europe means not only a canon of more or lsess shared values and hostirc traditons. It also means polenty od differences that also are historically founded, and may make a lot of sense on the regional level.

But some starry-eyed bureaucrats dream of a superstate instead. Et voilá, there we are.

Greece, btw, continues to order weapoins and military items like crazy, I just read. They have the money from the Greek bailout now, and 750 billion more are waiting to be consumed by some southern countries, so why starting to save money? They did not pay for fourt subamrines they had ordered, now haver ordered additonal two subs, plus more tanks - and the Eurofighter, that one they want as well, of course.

so much for consolidating their finances. and the Germans? Rumour says that the Germans even have pressed the Greek to order more weapons, and to pay for the already ordered ones.

It's all so sick and rotten an economy.

Wowh. I'm hijacking my own thread.

[tomfon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Greece, btw, continues to order weapoins and military items like crazy, I just read. They have the money from the Greek bailout now, and 750 billion more are waiting to be consumed by some southern countries, so why starting to save money? They did not pay for fourt subamrines they had ordered, now haver ordered additonal two subs, plus more tanks - and the Eurofighter, that one they want as well, of course.

so much for consolidating their finances. and the Germans? Rumour says that the Germans even have pressed the Greek to order more weapons, and to pay for the already ordered ones.

Actually, Germany and France agreed to sell Greece their weapons in exchange for the bailout project. They said that they would give money only if Greece didn't cancel the order for buying the faulty(!) German diesel submarines and also frigates, helicopters and more from France. It is not a rumour but it is all about money. Finally, the europeans agreed to lend Greece money with 5% interest when they only pay 1.5% for interests. So that you could say, without being (very) unjust that Germany and France are lending Greece money to buy their weapons. Of course, Greece (and i'm reffering to the politicians) is not innocent too.

[Skybird]

The submarine thing I recall different. They had ordered 4 Type-214 and ordered for the modernisation of 3 old ones they already have. They never payed the modernisaton program, and the bill for the 4 new boats also is open, so the boats got withheld by Germany, while now German government was pushed by the defence lobby to use the bailout money for paying out Greek debts to German contractors first. The Greek then cancelled the modernisation of the old boats, and said they insist on the 4 German new boats being delivered, and now they want additionally 2 new 214s: six new boats they now want.

The financing should be done by germany almost alone, this they have copied from the Israelis demanding German systems for free, too (Israelis usually pay less than 20% of the prices in the treaties, the rest is payed by the German taxpayer: German taxpayers that way directly pay for Israeli defence. I wonder why they have not started to tax us directly).

The ridiculous argument is that when German defence industries produce them weapons for free (means: most of the money is financed by German extra fonds to boost the mutual friendship) and get payed by Germany, this German money investement would save German jobs. In other words: Germany should produce for free, should expect no payment, while German taxpayers pay for working for free.

Think of it. It really comes down to this simple principle. Politicians play ball with this in order to win elections by not loosing jobs.

Hilarious, absurd, rotten economy!

[Catfish]

Hello,
maybe we don't have the EU for so long, anymore
Greetings,
Catfish

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The ridiculous argument is that when German defence industries produce them weapons for free (means: most of the money is financed by German extra fonds to boost the mutual friendship) and get payed by Germany, this German money investement would save German jobs. In other words: Germany should produce for free, should expect no payment, while German taxpayers pay for working for free.

Think of it. It really comes down to this simple principle. Politicians play ball with this in order to win elections by not loosing jobs.

Hilarious, absurd, rotten economy!

That is funny.. That's what they do here in Canada too. Otherwise companies move to china.. So tax payers are paying high taxes to keep these companies here.. lol What a vicious circle.

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

the EU starts to look more and more like the United States of Europe

More like the European Union of Socialist Republics. In the states we can still vote the miscreants out.

[Skybird]

Respenus in so far is correct that in case of this court a bit more differentiated view may be adequate. However there are some reasons that explain my anger:

the court is associated with the European human rights convention that sees some very serious and disturbing ideological implications being turned into active policies that make me extremely critical and hostile to this convention. I do not see it as being predominantly positive and/or reasonable, and I reject it, therefore. I also claim it is abused for pushing forward a certain, often criticised political agenda in europe.

I have just checked the website of the court (in German), that, amongst other things, lists a selection of past cases and the according rulings by the court. I did not check it systemtically, just enough to get a quick overview. I cannot say that I agree with the vast majority of sentences/ruling.

I also have a principal problem with the european courts in general, though more with the European high court than with the Human Rights Court. That is that the judges serving there, by the mere system of selecting them (through national goivenrment's leaders decision, royal payments and only short serving times) get lured with a strong incentive to find theior ruling in accordance with offically wanted europolotical ambitions, agendas, projects, desires. Though even more with the High Court than the Human Rights Court ou will find only rare examples were the court dared to seriously challenge offical Eu polciies and positions. Doing so runs the risk for the judges that they will not be reconfirmed in office by political leaders, making them loosing their royal incomes. This system in itself has very serious legitimation problems, and that results in questionable independence of the court(s).

Rehgarding the sicherheitsverwahrung in Germany, the rules for it have been tightened several times in past years. Certain sexual deviations as well as violent crminals simply are beyoind the reach of therapy and resocialisation. In thse worst cases, the interests of soceity overrule their interest to be freed after some time. In Germany, life sentence means maximum 24 years, usually they get released after 15 years. It is inhumane and a crime against potential future victims to set free certain people when meanwhile experts assessed the candidate and come to the conclusion that the likelihood for them committing rape again is extremely high.

what will the ruling by the ocurt now chnage bin Germany? Around 200 highly dangerous criminals who all got sentenced to Sicherheitsverwahrung becausue their social prognosis says the probability they rape again or comit seriosu crimes again ist extremely high, will be let loose on the German public. Possbily, where they get identified, massive 24/7 police operations will be needed to protect and safeguard them around the clock, which is both very expensive and personell-intensive. and a good share of these guys will commit ne crimes. Explain that to their victims, Respenus, why you wanted these felons being given the opportunity to rape and to hurt them. the liekly reslt in chnaged legal basis in Germany will be that courts will order Sicherheitsverwahrung more often in advance, because they are not allowed to order it after some years have passed and the offender has been re-examined by experts.

Sexual deviations that make deviant people even obsessive crminals (rapists), often have their root in young age, and many of them are not available for being changed or neutralised by psychotherapy. established structures in your sexual behavior structure are extremely difficult or impossible to be changed once they have formed up. If that makes the individual in question a danger and threat to tohers, you either must use chemical chains (drugs) to supress certain drives with brute force), which has its own set of sideeffects and must be enforced under cointrolled, supervised conditions (which again has been brandmarked as a crime against humanity by critics of this chemical intervention), or you have to lock the indiovidual away for as long as it stays the way it is - and that is probably for the rest of it's life, at least until very high age. In sexual deviations, resocialising goals often are no option at all. Pedophilia for example cannot be cured, nor can you cure a psychopathic or sociopathic mind structure. Often, the deviaion is hardwired into the brain's neurons, or the brain's/body's chemistry. Therefore, protection of others must be the priority. the interest of the many very clearly overrule the interest of the one, in this case.

BTW, in past months I remeber that we have heard news on repeated cases of sex offenders having been released from prison - and immediately starting to rape again. The discussion of this possibility thus is not just a thing of abstract theory. It is a scenario showing a very high probability - evem more so since long time prisoners have orientation problems when they get relased into a world that has changed very much, and the risk of falling back into old criminal habits in general is very high with our current prison system.

In general i thionk we pay too much atgention for crminals, terrorists, perpetrators, and not enough attention for past and future victims. Even in the media you see it: we alwayxs discuss the crimoinal's fate and history, turning them into heroes and anti-.heroes constantly, we even form movie starring RAF terrorists as if they were modern Robin Hoods.

But how many TV discussioins, how many evening movie you see focussing on the victims? The ratio between both is badly out of sync, and we should be ashamed about this.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

More like the European Union of Socialist Republics. In the states we can still vote the miscreants out.

I don't have a problem with socialists, I'm a socialist myself
I DO have a problem with the EU overruling local governments, we should decide for ourselves what we want.
If I vote for party X, it's because I agree with party X's points. The Dutch election system is rather well organised (no electors and stuff), so the eventual government will always be a reasonably good representation of the Dutch people. Now if our government passes a law, we don't need the EU telling us we can't.
By doing so, the EU will eventually merge into a super-state, with the people having not much control over the government anymore (as in the US, where there are only 2 major parties)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

I don't have a problem with socialists, I'm a socialist myself
I DO have a problem with the EU overruling local governments, we should decide for ourselves what we want.
If I vote for party X, it's because I agree with party X's points. The Dutch election system is rather well organised (no electors and stuff), so the eventual government will always be a reasonably good representation of the Dutch people. Now if our government passes a law, we don't need the EU telling us we can't.

It'S even worse. Proposals made by the EU commission are legally binding, they are mandatory, which means national parliaments have no right to not agree to them and to not waving them through. It even goes one step further. A government that sees itself unable to bring something through the parliament because the opposition there is too strong, can take it and bring it to the commission and aks it to do somethign about it. The commission (mind you: it does not get elected and legitimised by european people) then turns it into a commission proposals, et voilá - the parliamentary opposition immediately has become powerless and must wave through a proposals that before it opposed when it still was governmental policy.

Mind you also that the lisbin dicate rules that the commission can also evade lockups by an opposing EU parliemant by declaring a state of emergency, and then ruling via emergancy decress with a union-wide validity. several states have bitterly opposed and prevented any attempt to define what such an emergancy could be, when, how and by what such an emergancy automatism could be triggered, what the exit conditions should look like, and that there even must be an exit condition! nothing speaks aginst the commission decalring a state of emergency, and letting it run without time limit, ruling by decrees and without needing to fear any legal opposition by the EU parliament.

Why are you even voting anymore...?

By doing so, the EU will eventually merge into a super-state, with the people having not much control over the government anymore (as in the US, where there are only 2 major parties)

That is the intention. Not freedom or democracy, but control. the way the EU constitution and the dictate of Lisbon was handled and enforced, tells the story of a de facto coup d'ètat.

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Mind you also that the lisbin dicate rules that the commission can also evade lockups by an opposing EU parliemant by declaring a state of emergency, and then ruling via emergancy decress with a union-wide validity. several states have bitterly opposed and prevented any attempt to define what such an emergancy could be, when, how and by what such an emergancy automatism could be triggered, what the exit conditions should look like, and that there even must be an exit condition! nothing speaks aginst the commission decalring a state of emergency, and letting it run without time limit, ruling by decrees and without needing to fear any legal opposition by the EU parliament.

Please Sky, do search and quote for me the fabled parts of the Treaty on the EU and the Treaty on the functioning of the EU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, which speak of such prerogatives. I must say, I've had a professor for EU law with the same view as you have and even he "failed" to mention such a clause. Admittedly, I do not know the whole of the treaty by heart, so I could not remember it, but it does come of as strikingly odd, that the UK, Ireland, Poland or the Czech Republic would allow such a thing to enter and then ratify it.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why are you even voting anymore...?

well luckily the dutch Socialist Party is against the EU as well

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

I don't have a problem with socialists, I'm a socialist myself

My sincere condolences to you!

I DO have a problem with the EU overruling local governments, we should decide for ourselves what we want.

But isn't that the essence of socialism? The individual or group subordinating itself for the greater good? What you're saying here doesn't sound very socialistic.

If I vote for party X, it's because I agree with party X's points. The Dutch election system is rather well organised (no electors and stuff), so the eventual government will always be a reasonably good representation of the Dutch people. Now if our government passes a law, we don't need the EU telling us we can't.
By doing so, the EU will eventually merge into a super-state, with the people having not much control over the government anymore (as in the US, where there are only 2 major parties)

I don't believe that having more parties automatically increases the peoples control over government, but we have different political systems anyways so what may work for you may not work for us.

Originally Posted by August

I don't believe that having more parties automatically increases the peoples control over government, but we have different political systems anyways so what may work for you may not work for us.

It does, IF there is Proportional Representation.