[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:42 pm

Awesome stuff, PL. +1. If newspapers were that, they'd be rolling in money.

You know why dictatorships are shitty places to live? Because when that stuff happens in a dictatorship, it just snowballs and also fucks up anyone who tries to report it or make it better, until everyone's either in the hole or terrified of ending up there.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:24 pm

My mom used to want to move to Australia. If she ever brings it up again despite the Cracked.com articles I've showed her, I'm showing her this thread...

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:30 pm

man, and I thought the French were racists assholes.
I bow down before the superiority of the Australians.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:44 pm

EDIT: PL, that was awesome. Honestly, I don't know what to say to that whole Tampa debacle. There just aren't the words...

I know that this doesn't technically belong here, but, for the Den's legal experts:

Could someone explain the major various systems of law and basis for laws in governments that aren't explicitly authoritarian (functionally authoritarian is fine as long as they don't blatantly throw out the laws Oceania-style. So Iran would be fine, but North Korea is right out) and aren't based on English Common Law? And for bonus points, even give your opinion on how it stacks up to the rest of the world?

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:58 pm

There are 4 Major systems of Law in the world.
English Common law:
UK/Ireland/Australia/USA(-Louisiana)/New Zealand/Hong Kong/Canada/India
Basically all of the Former British Empire/Colonies.

You have Codex/Civil/Napoleonic Law.
This is basically Continental Europe, and their former colonies
Which is at it's base is statute driven. Judicial precedent doesn't matter. The letter of the law is what matters.

Combination Islamic/Tribal Law in most of the muslim countries.

Chinese Law (Whichhas some basis in Civil law, and yet strikingly different. It tries to blend traditional chinese law, with civil law and socialist law. It's a weird mess.)

Africa will fall under either Common, Civil, or Muslim law depending on which country it is. Far as I could tell there is not native African Law tradition that has survived.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:07 pm

I want ask more questions about those systems, but, I have an ECL bias so my questions will be tinted with that bias. I beg your pardon.

How does judicial activism and/or, say, strict scrutiny work if at all with Chinese/Combination/Civil law? Or rather, what does it take for a law to be blatantly unconstitutional in the abstract sense, how often does it happen, and what does the judiciary do about it?

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:25 pm

Chinese law is a mess, and law scholars argue whether the rule of law actually applies in China. Basically in China, laws are passed with a simple majority. The Constitution can be amended by a 2/3 majority of the Parliament. Which basically means the PRC can do what ever it wants when ever it wants. In 1994 they did basically add a section that states that Government and Party Officials are equally responsible under the law. Which means that, theoretically in China you COULD sue a government official for being a corrupt brat. Though in practice, that would probably be nigh impossible. Basically, don't hold your breath in having a Chinese law found unconstitutional.

Civil Law:
In France, which is the only civil law system I know fairly well. There is a judicial group whose job it is to analyze laws and determine if they are Constitutional or not. You don't need to do the whole Challenge/Go up the chain of judiciary branch until you get to the Supreme Court thing. You go directly to the Constitutional Council. Whose job it is to review laws. Now this is pretty new (since 1958) so I'm not sure if it exists in other civil law based countries.
Judicial Activism is complicated:
On one hand, Judges are not allowed to turn a case down if there is not clear cute applicable law or decree. They have to use their Judicial wisdom to figure it out. BUT they cannot Judicate new laws. So they cannot create precedent. In reality, it's kind of complicated. Because Judges use other Judge's rulings for guidance in similar cases. Especially cases with no clear cut law applying to the problem they are facing.
Basically, Precedent kind of exists, but it can never overrule actual laws or decrees. So, Judges cannot choose to twist a law. But, if the laws are ambiguous, then they can and do make rulings. Regular judges do not get to 'comment' on the law. They can only apply it.

I have no clue how Constitutional issues are handled in Countries that have the Islamic/Tribal versions of common law. It also gets complicated because there are Islamic Countries with Civil Law based Constitutions that roll in Islamic Law.

edit: I totally ignored Judicial Activism

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:37 pm

So in systems that use a hybrid of civil and common law (Canada, Louisiana) how do they determine how to interpret a law? I mean, it almost seems completely contradictory.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:37 pm

The idea of laws being struck down as unconstitutional is really a very American thing. Lots of other countries don't even have constitutions. In the UK, laws are literally just built one on top of another all the way down to the old Kingly decrees.

In a civil law scenario there will be times when the laws are ambiguous or even directly contradictory. For example: I am a foreigner who is married to a Czech woman and by statute there are a great many things that I am supposed to do in order to not get deported, many of which don't make sense and/or are mutually exclusive. For example: in most of the versions I am required to turn in proof that I have health insurance for class two foreigners with my application to become a class 2 foreigner, despite the fact that being a class 2 foreigner is a prerequisite for being able to buy that type of insurance. The amount of time I have to have been in the country may be 1 year, 2 years, or 5 years, and the time when they had my visa revoked because of them losing my fucking paperwork either does or does not count.

And when (not if) this happens, it falls to the court or legal authority reading the statutes to interpret them anew each and every time. If the person behind the desk is favorably inclined towards you, they will interpret the law in your favor, and if they are not they will not.

Actually cleaning up the law is the general province of the legislature, and you can imagine how good they are at this. Many systems also employ a constitutional court type system that by law has the ability to delete laws for being too vague, contradictory, or in opposition to higher laws. But that itself is a power granted to them by the legislature, who can in turn just take it away - as they essentially have done in Hungary.

Remember also that most countries don't really do the "checks and balances" thing in any great detail. In Czech Republic, the entire executive structure is under the Prime Minister, who in turn is the majority leader in parliament. The judiciary is the second and clearly not co-equal branch of government because the legislature writes and enforces all the laws.

-Username17

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm

Think of it this way:
Common law is about statutes and case law.
Civil Law is about general principles as rule of law. Usually Civil law gets broken down into multiple codes.
So the Code of Persons, Code of property, code of criminality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
This is a really good read.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:24 pm

...and all of that stuff was originally based off of Roman Law, which a byzantine (and Byzantine!) kludge of a thousand years of glosses, compilation, condensation, and extrapolation. I think the last country to use actual Roman Law was Pre-WWII Germany, but I'd honestly have to check that again. Principles of or survivals from Roman law are still evident in the English, Napoleonic, and Chinese systems, I think.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:33 pm

Napoleonic, and Germanic are the two primary 'grandchildren' to Roman law. They maintain the basics of Roman Law, but both of them have been re-written and modernized in the last 100 years. That's actually the big thing between Roman/Civil and English Common Law. A Judgement from 1400 A.D doesn't mean jack shit in Civil law, if the codes have been modified and the laws changed. A Judgement from 1400 AD is still a precedent in Common Law. (Unless there are further judgements modifying that.

With Civil law you do not end up with the American issues where different branches of the Federal District Courts are practicing DIFFERENT laws, with different precedents. Meaning that if you sue someone in Florida, and someone else sues them in Wyoming. They could get both equally valid, but opposite judgements, because of Precedents and differences in Appellate courts.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:36 am

In Switzerland, the supreme court can (and does), if the matter is brought up by someone affected, rule whether a law violates the constitution or not, but if said law is a federal law, it still has to be applied, it's more like a "hey, that's against the constitution" remark, in the hopes that parliament will fix it (the law, or the constitution).

Since both the federal laws and the constituion can and do get modified all the time and it doesn't take that much to modify the constitution if the citizens want it (you can force a vote to add or alter any article in the constitution if 100'000 citizens demand it) it basically means "new law beats old law".

The laws of the cantons (aka states) are handled differently, the supreme court has full power over them.

Precendents are used mostly to define what a law or an article in the constitution means ("All swiss are equal before the law" was rules to mean quite a lot before the latest full revision of the constitution codified the clarifications), but a judge is, in theory, not bound to such precedents, and can rule differently (to be overturned by the next higher court, of course, though no precedent is set in stone, the supreme court has been known to change their practise over time). In practise though precedents do mean a lot, after each revision of a code things shake up until the supreme court has defined the less than precise or confusing parts through individual rulings (and sometimes obiter dictums, remarks not totally relevant to the case at hand, but detailing the view of the supreme court).

One has to note though that swiss judges, including supreme court judges, are not elected for life, but for a term of 4 to 6 years. They generally get reelected, but it's not a guarantee, though usually not getting reelected is not a matter of politics, but related to scandals or gross misconduct.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:42 am

Ted the Flayer wrote:My mom used to want to move to Australia. If she ever brings it up again despite the Cracked.com articles I've showed her, I'm showing her this thread...

Try this one.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:27 am

http://news.yahoo.com/outrage-over-suic ... 33094.html

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:45 pm

B-b-butt Leress, they're only living their lives according to good Abrahamic principles!

Why do you hate Judaism/Christianity/Islam?

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:17 am

sabs wrote:With Civil law you do not end up with the American issues where different branches of the Federal District Courts are practicing DIFFERENT laws, with different precedents. Meaning that if you sue someone in Florida, and someone else sues them in Wyoming. They could get both equally valid, but opposite judgements, because of Precedents and differences in Appellate courts.

While this is true, a split in the Circuits is the most common type of case that the Supreme Court takes.

The two biggest differences between the common law and civil law systems that I've seen are 1) The role of the judge and 2) the appellate process.

In common law systems, the (trial) judge is basically a referee whose job it is to make sure that both sides play fair and generally see that the rules are followed, then make a decision on the facts and law as presented to him at the end. Common law lawyers to the investigating and presenting, the judge only ever sees what's brought before him.

In the civil law system, the (at every level, from what I gather) judge is more of an investigator who interviews witnesses and attempt to figure out what happened, then acts appropriately. Counsel is most there to point out things the judge might have missed that favor their clients.

As far as the appellate systems go, in common law systems, especially the US one, the bottom level are the trial courts, which reach a decision that can then be appealed to a higher court (In criminal trials, the phrase innocent until prove guilty is important here. This is where you stop being presumed innocent in the common law system). Courts of appeal will then look to see if the trial was ran correctly and the law applied correctly. They will rarely "retry" the case themselves (It's not unheard of. It's called de novo review when they do). If they think everything was fine, they uphold the ruling and move on. If not they say so and remand (send back) the case to the trial court for rehearing with the new rules in place. After the appellate court rules, it either goes back to trial, is over, or a petition of certiorari to the Supreme Court (in the US, the House of Lords Lords Legalis in the UK) which the court can accept or not (denial of an appeal isn't usually an option on the previous level. The highest level courts generally get to choose their cases though). Whatever they say, goes, and afterwards to goes back to trial with their rules being THE rules everyone in the country must now play by.

In civil law systems, as I understand it, the process is a lot simpler: Each higher level is just a retrying of the case by a more experienced/competent judge. And in criminal trials, that means your guilt is not presumed if you are convicted at the trial level.

I assume some of that didn't make much sense, please tell me what parts and I'll try to clarify.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:03 pm

After it turned out that the last two men who had been sentenced to death, were found innocent (post-humously) France removed the death penalty. They also have a very rigorous appellate process for crimes. Unlike in the US where innocence isn't actually grounds for a retrial, in France at least, it is possible to get a retrial if you have evidence you were innocent.

The system is still pretty biased. Being politically/socially connected makes a huge difference. Being rich isn't enough, you have to be the right kind of rich. But that's always been true in France. (I suspect it's also true in other European countries)

Jury trials are amazingly rare.
One can only have a jury trial if the penalty you are facing is at least 10 years in jail (for a Natural person) or a fine of 75,000 Euro (for a Legal Person). The only court that tries by jury is the cour d'assises. 3 professional judges sits together with 9 or 12 jurors. A two third majority (8 or 10 votes) is needed for a conviction.

On a different subject, it seems Sarkozy, not wanting to be out done by the Aussies, is running on a "There are too many immigrants" campaign, because the Socialist Candidate is /kicking his ass/.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:14 pm

Yeah, I saw that. Like, instead of speaking on codewords or blowing dog whistles like most reactionaries, he said straight up "France has too many immigrants." I said over on the Greece Unemployment thread months back that I got douche chills from that guy, well, now I have a concrete reason for my dislike. Awesome.

That said, I've also heard that Hollande was actually losing that sweet polling lead. Confirm, deny?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:33 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Yeah, I saw that. Like, instead of speaking on codewords or blowing dog whistles like most reactionaries, he said straight up "France has too many immigrants." I said over on the Greece Unemployment thread months back that I got douche chills from that guy, well, now I have a concrete reason for my dislike. Awesome.

That said, I've also heard that Hollande was actually losing that sweet polling lead. Confirm, deny?

I can sort of confirm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_po ... tion,_2012

Hollande is not currently doing as well as he had been last month. But the election is a month away and he commands a 10 point lead. He's still doing better than he was in January.

-Username17

Gnosticism Is A Hoot · Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:53 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:The idea of laws being struck down as unconstitutional is really a very American thing. Lots of other countries don't even have constitutions. In the UK, laws are literally just built one on top of another all the way down to the old Kingly decrees.

I think that a few of the provisions of the Magna Carta are still in force; 'No punishing people without a legal process' is the big one, and the rest are about 'preserving the traditional liberties of the City of London'.

rampaging-poet · Post by **rampaging-poet** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:33 am

I don't have a source for this, but I heard that provisions in the Magna Carta or some similarly old legal document regarding civilians arresting and trying corrupt judges were still in force.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:54 am

There are exactly three clauses from the Magna Carta still in force.

Which is a damn shame, because I like that this important historical document set wordcount aside to talk about fishing weirs.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:09 pm

So anyway.

Breaking Australian news.

Labor rules by means of a minority government allied with the Greens. The Greens make them do stuff for that. Which is nice, since otherwise they would never do stuff.

So the Greens and the ghostly specter of K.Rudd cause Labor to push through a mining tax (see Rudd pushed this idea, so to put his banshee spirit to rest the party must me-too him to avoid his fearful revenant or something).

This angers Tony Abbot. As do all things that, well, happen. Mining industry front men declare that "Today Australia's rival mining nations like Canada and Chile will be celebrating". Which goes over poorly. Possibly because Canada and Chile and the guys WILL be celebrating... a successful precedent for all the mining taxes THEY want to put through.

So then they float a "I feel like China suddenly won't want Iron Ore anymore, maybe I should stop digging it out of the ground and selling it to them for my fortune, wink, wink!". No one even notices.

And then BAM! Genius idea from super rich coal industry moron! For years he and his ilk have pushed an anti-science anti-climate change agenda where they can just say crazy shit and it works! His PR guys get lots of money to do that and tell him how much it works. And it works. When he pays professionals to do it.

So because like most prominent business men in Australia he is a moronic cowboy with no concept nor respect for reality he just runs out and accuses the Greens party of Treason and then goes on to explain a plot where by they receive money from the CIA to push a rather lame but still purely beneficial little mining tax (I guess the specter of K.Rudd is on the KGB or Chinese pay roll for this one, in his poorly thought out false accusation, I dunno).

Anyway. Personally I hear this and go. "What? Did the greens provide some research data for the CIAs fairly open world fact book thingy or something and he is trumping it up?".

Well. This is Australia, so NO, he was in fact totally making shit up. Who is this mad man? Only Tony Abbots biggest financial backer.

The responses have been great. The Greens are considering legal action, but also basically flat out calling this guy stupid. Tony Abbot just said how this guy is "a character", which while rather offensive, is in an odd way impressive since that is arguably the least offensive thing Tony Abbot has ever said to a reporter about anything. I suspect about half the Australian media all went "Aaaaaaw WTF?" when he didn't seriously escalate the crazy on this one.

But the Labor party, surprisingly has come out fighting pretty hard too. with our new Foreign Minister, Bob Carr. Who in no way coincidentally resembles Bob Brown, leader of the Greens in name, voice and looks, and who totally coincidentally opened his maiden speech in federal Parliament (as very old man for a maiden speech) talking about how we should all take Climate Change seriously. Which he did, all through this CIA mining tax crazy.

While I'm here Bob Carr, and him being foreign minister, is actually really interesting on three fronts.

1) I'm serious about this look alike thing. I actually really do suspect Federal Labor who have been trying to push their record of "achievements" by co-opting all the things the Greens arm wrestled them into doing are seriously making a grab for confusion between them and the Greens anyway they can.

2) He is probably the next contender for bullshit non-democratic prime ministerial coupes. Also he is a total corrupt fucking bastard. I suspect some of Kevin Rudd's less savoury backers, or possibly even some of Gillards more cowardly backers who dragged him out of whatever corrupt rotating door private consultancy he was in and back into federal politics purely as a set up for a vague potential, or even already planned, coupe.

3) Bob Carr was NSW state premier. He wasn't liberal but he was an asshole and a corrupt paw of the privatization cleptocrats around here. One night in the middle of the night he was overthrown in an undemocratic coupe and he and basically most of his staff all resigned for totally undisclosed reasons. It LOOKED a lot like someone, somewhere had some pretty insane dirt on all those guys. Which means WTF happened to that dirt? Hell, what hell was that dirt damnit?

PS The CIA accusation guy? Plans not to pay EITHER the mining tax OR the carbon tax. How? Whatever, he's like got lawyers or something, he basically just intends to challenge it until he can buy a government or something. But he ALSO says fuck you he totally doesn't care anyway no tax will effect HIS life one way or another! Which is hilarious because A) He is desperate to stop these taxes, as evidenced by his massive outlay in political campaigning and bullshit, his endless media appearance bullshit, and his insanely incompetent CIA accusations. And also because, for those of you noticing, yeah this is another 1% asshole in public campaigning to stop paying a tax to the 99% that he himself boasts won't effect his 1%er life style one tiny bit.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:08 am

Meanwhile, a law against "homosexual propaganda to children" in St. Petersburg will take effect two days from now. All of Russia intends to follow suit, backed by a supposedly 75% 140% popular approval.

And if you are wondering whether "homosexual propaganda" includes being around your own children if you happen to be gay... why yes, yes it does.