Obey Supreme Court on sex or we’ll sue again, feminists warn SNP

As for constitutions- my view is they should do no more than set out how how laws are made, who administers them and who interprets them. They should be value-neutral, otherwise society gets caught by what a lot of dead people thought. The US currently has that problem quite acutely while countries based on the British model do not

The key - in fact defining - characteristic of any constitution is that it must sit above any single pillar of government, if you accept the 3-leg model of executive, legislature and judiciary. And as we know in the UK there are enough people who think a constitution is a morning walk that can be a difficult prospect to grapple with. A populist regime will always just point to it and judges and claim they have no sway over the "democratically elected" government.

Exactly what is happening in the US right now. Where it's clear that the concept of "teaching" the constitution in school hasn't really paid off. The vast majority of US citizens seem to think the consitution is a morning walk a British person takes.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, until parliament chooses to legislate, SCOTUKs decision stands. Forever.

The right to life?

That's not something utilitarianism handles well because the greatest happiness principle (in its purest form) says it's right to sacrifice a life for the greater good.

As for constitutions- my view is they should do no more than set out how how laws are made, who administers them and who interprets them. They should be value-neutral, otherwise society gets caught by what a lot of dead people thought. The US currently has that problem quite acutely while countries based on the British model do not.

It is telling - and many commentators have highlighted - that the US is the only country in the world that has made "happiness" a mission statement. (Although hasn't Bhutan something similar).

Eagle eyed MNetters will know that Britain eschews any notion of there being a purpose to life. Not because of any egalitarian recognition that we each have our own happiness. But solely because the notion that the population exists for anything other than the happiness of the righteous doesn't exist in England.

It's hard to argue against utilitarianism

'... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'

It sounds like Olde USAian for 'living your best life', There's quite a few people in the USA who are excising their 'unalienable rights', especially in Seattle and Los Angeles.

There was an activist who liked to talk a lot about the number of pms they received agreeing with them as a supposed means of adding weight to their arguments. Naturally all from MNetters who went to a different school, you wouldn't know them.

We all need a hobby, I suppose. Hanging out with a bunch of middle aged mums and trying to flex about the number of 'likes' your posts got is relatively harmless.

A group have boasted about doing this before. Not really sure what the point is but it takes all sorts.

I think this is one thing the US got right about the constitution (maybe the only thing they did ?)

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness*

swapped for "Men"*
**But even then it really meant "white men". So not quite as universal as it seemed.

It would be an interesting exercise to invite posters on this thread to suggest what they consider an "inalienable" right.

Are there multiple people using lime's account - must be if the Lime of this thread, lets call them Lime1 wasn't aware that Lime2 had created the wall of garbled nonsense thread until it was pointed out to Lime1 on this thread... Doesn't that count as a version of socking?

ETA to change OP to Lime as I forgot Lime wasn't the OP

This forum is not twitter. You need to improve your communication style if you expect people to engage with this tedious provocation.

In the UK that's been achieved since 1690 (however imperfectly) by the supremacy of Parliament and the rule of law. Human rights is more recent, and while that's certainly secured rights that individuals in society need to have, I worry that it's being stretched so far beyond its bounds. On the one hand we have those who say that a person's desire to identify as Suzie one moment and Eddie the next is a matter for human rights. On the other hand we have Conservatives who see it as discredited and want to junk it entirely. I would prefer that human rights continue to be part of society without being called in aid of trivialities.

(Reply to @SerendipityJane )

Human rights originated from the aftermath of WW2, to protect against genocide, famine, destitution, the right to an independent life and so forth.

Well that's one view.

The broader and much longer running (millennia in fact) is that if a society is not going to descend into a tyranny (a word with very classical resonance) then there needs to be some sort of overarching framework that stops even the Monarch or the Senate from just making shit up.

Call it a constitution, call it a holy text - whatever you like. The fundamental principle is to limit the power of the state against the individual.

And it's from that concept that the notion of universal rights derives.

This is why anyone who pretends to think you can somehow divvy up rights as some sort of "who's in and who's out" board game is revealing themselves to be either too stupid to be allowed to vote, or too mendacious to be allowed to vote.

Divide and conquer is ever true.

When we had the fig leaf of being a religious country, then the concept of limiting the power of the state was outsourced to the Church. Because vast swathe of the population were well versed enough in the concept to work within it.

When you discard the big-cheese deity overview of life, then you really need to remember that those limits on the state no longer have any claim to being superior.

And overtime, left unchecked, the whole edifice will be slowly but inexorably removed.

I think this needs to be said again and again. It's really the main point.

Human rights originated from the aftermath of WW2, to protect against genocide, famine, destitution, the right to an independent life and so forth.

It was never meant to affirm a person's right to be a man on Wednesday and a woman on Thursday or whatever is in the influencer zeitgeist. Such things are just not very important and shouldn't take up society's time or attention.

I think that @LimeFinch had already shown us exactly who is under a Dunning-Kruger effect on their thread today.

Perhaps they might read the links they post to check whether the links show what they believe they do…

I'm wondering what @LimeFinch thinks this screen shot proves? that people are tedious on twitter maybe?

I suspect you might need a new t-shirt 😉

This should not be necessary. It boils my blood that it's necessary. But it is.

These women are nothing short of magnificent.

The daily record really need to stop giving big Isla any air time. FFS. The state of him.

Also that MP is.a.man.

I'm also sick of it all. No more lies.

Possibly after the SC judgment they've realised it makes absolutely no difference either way.

I thought it had been widely agreed that "Isla Bryson" was "at it". He's still "at it" then, or it's been decided he's TruTrans(TM) after all?

They changed the entitlements in their basic subscription package a few months ago without telling subscribers. It still generates a sharetoken for the subscriber. However, the sharetoken is dead link. This may explain some dead links.

Good, bravo those women.

Can we do Westminster too?

Do women have right in fact or just on paper and in theory, because men are scared of other men pouting and stamping?

Women are suffering because of a fear of saying no to men. Who want to abuse women.

And that MP is a man. I'm not playing games any more, I am absolutely over this in every conceivable way. He is not some VIP of the human race.