France becomes first country to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in constitution

[Carl Emerson]

NZ is a secular country.

I was thinking that it doesn't seem to apply to Islam.

 

[Carl Emerson]

They were tricked by the Colonialists.
Really they should have insisted that England worship lo

I didn't think you advocated enforcing religious belief...

 

[stevil]

I was thinking that it doesn't seem to apply to Islam.

Islam is a religion. Unfortunately there are some countries leaders in the world that want to force specific religions on to the populous, this isn't specific to Islam.

 

[stevil]

I didn't think you advocated enforcing religious belief...

I don't. But if England were trying to say Io and Yhwh are the same thing, then they shouldn't have had a problem with worshipping and promoting worship of Io in England

 

[Carl Emerson]

I think this was fully understood long after the missionary period by an anthropologist as the worship of IO in high places was a secret practice known only by the Maori spiritual leaders.

 

[stevil]

I think this was fully understood long after the missionary period by an anthropologist as the worship of IO in high places was a secret practice known only by the Maori spiritual leaders.

England should have ditched Christianity and taken up belief in the Maori gods.

 

[Carl Emerson]

England should have ditched Christianity and taken up belief in the Maori gods.

Well - I have followed you with some level of mutual appreciation, but I find it is becoming harder when the levels of unrealism lower to such bizarre levels...

 

[Ophiolite]

Well - I have followed you with some level of mutual appreciation, but I find it is becoming harder when the levels of unrealism lower to such bizarre levels...

I agree that the sub-text is difficult to disentangle here, but might @stevil be saying, "If I have no belief in either the Christian God, or the Maori gods, what difference does it make which of these people choose to worship?"

 

[Carl Emerson]

I agree that the sub-text is difficult to disentangle here, but might @stevil be saying, "If I have no belief in either the Christian God, or the Maori gods, what difference does it make which of these people choose to worship?"

Actually there are good reasons, because the behaviour of a people group reflects the perceived character of the entities they worship.

Some Maori tribes were pacifist and were almost totally wiped out by other tribes.

We saw this on the world stage in October.

 

[stevil]

Well - I have followed you with some level of mutual appreciation, but I find it is becoming harder when the levels of unrealism lower to such bizarre levels...

You said that the Maori came to believe their high god Io was the same as the Christian god YHWH.
If they are one and the same, why should the Maori have to call God YHWH rather than Io?
If they are the same, why shouldn't the English, call God Io?

 

[Carl Emerson]

You said that the Maori came to believe their high god Io was the same as the Christian god YHWH.
If they are one and the same, why should the Maori have to call God YHWH rather than Io?
If they are the same, why shouldn't the English, call God Io?

First off, remember that most of those who converted did not have any knowledge of Io as it was a secret faith among the select few of their spiritual leaders.

Second the revelation the Gospel bought gave greater definition to their belief as Io was a God above all God's to them but they also needed knowledge and acceptance of His Son Jesus.

Io is a Maori word for the God above all Gods.

This God communed with Israel as a nation and then the body of believers through Christ and His Church.

For this reason the names assumed for our deity are from the scriptures He provided originally written in Hebrew and Greek not Maori - they didn't have a written language.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Anyway if you want to explore this further then start another thread in respect for the OP.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I am disappointed that my country wasn't the first country to do this.

Is it possible that westernized democracies (by in large) tend to shy away from putting protections for gender/sex-specific activities in their federal constitutions?

I think we can agree that abortion is something that's very gender/sex specific.

Even in the case of the US constitution (when certain groups were having certain rights extended to them), the language pertains to something that everyone can do, and is phrased in such a way that isn't just specifically granting one group a right that's impossible for another group to exercise.

For instance, our 19th amendment (which extended voting rights to women)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Admittedly, I'm not as well-versed with the constitutions of other western democracies , but if they, like the US constitution, heavily embed the concept of of equal protection, that may be why some other countries have opted to address certain matters through their revised federal codes as opposed to their constitutions. ...as you can't really "equally protect" a right that half of the population is biologically incapable of even exercising due to it not being applicable.

In the case of the US constitution, the phrasing (almost without exception) is protecting the things that can apply to all people, and then everything else tends to happen within other parts of the legal structure.

 

[stevil]

Is it possible that westernized democracies (by in large) tend to shy away from putting protections for gender/sex-specific activities in their federal constitutions?

We largely live in a patriarchy. Men dominate the top spots. If men were getting pregnant and could have babies, no doubt abortion rights would be enshrined long ago.

 

[stevil]

First off, remember that most of those who converted did not have any knowledge of Io as it was a secret faith among the select few of their spiritual leaders.

I can't remember something I've never learnt about.

Second the revelation the Gospel bought gave greater definition to their belief as Io was a God above all God's to them but they also needed knowledge and acceptance of His Son Jesus.

No doubt the pushing of the Christian gospels onto the Maori, interfered with their own culture and beliefs, trying to assimilate them into the European system. No doubt it was a goal to stop them being "primitives" and to get them being more "proper" (a.k.a. English)

Io is a Maori word for the God above all Gods.

OK

This God communed with Israel as a nation and then the body of believers through Christ and His Church.

No doubt, this god never did any such thing, until the British came along and insisted that this was the case.

For this reason the names assumed for our deity are from the scriptures He provided originally written in Hebrew and Greek not Maori - they didn't have a written language.

No doubt, the Maori assumed the British way of life and lost their own heritage and have spent over hundreds of years in generational trauma with the grudge of the Colonizers having destroyed the Maori culture.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We largely live in a patriarchy. Men dominate the top spots. If men were getting pregnant and could have babies, no doubt abortion rights would be enshrined long ago.

But that's a different subject from what I was speaking about (which is the premise of putting in a demographic-specific right/privilege/protection into a document that's supposed to largely be demographic-neutral/universally applicable protections)

I'm not sure if the French or NZ constitution is structured the same way as the US one... You had said you were hoping that your country would be the first to do it which is why I responded.

I was just merely pointing out that if your constitution has an "equal protection" themed approach like the US one does, that's perhaps why they decided to address it this way:

Abortion Legislation Act 2020 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vs, putting it into the constitution.

 

[stevil]

But that's a different subject from what I was speaking about (which is the premise of putting in a demographic-specific right/privilege/protection into a document that's supposed to largely be demographic-neutral/universally applicable protections)

I just looked up our constitution. It is old and dated, and I do think should change.

The Constitution of New Zealand

gg.govt.nz

The New Zealand constitution is to be found in formal legal documents, in decisions of the courts, and in practices (some of which are described as conventions). It reflects and establishes that New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy, that it has a parliamentary system of government, and that it is a democracy
This is all fine and dandy, nothing to object to.

What I don't like about it, is the following:
The Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement of New Zealand's constitutional arrangements. The Act first recognises that the King - the Sovereign in right of New Zealand - is the Head of State of New Zealand, and that the Governor-General appointed by him is his representative in New Zealand. Each can, in general, exercise all the powers of the other.

It's about time NZ grew up and cast aside the British royalty as being the Head of State of New Zealand. As far as I am concerned the Windsor's are nothing special, and are unqualified in matters of NZ. They are just media fan fare, nothing more.

Individuals, autonomy and majority rule​

A balance has to be struck between majority power and minority right, between the sovereignty of the people exercised through Parliament and the rule of the law, and between the right of elected governments to have their policies enacted into law and the protection of fundamental social and constitutional values.

... that their authority is limited by understandings of what is basic in our society, by convention, by the Treaty of Waitangi, by international obligations and by ideas of fairness and justice.

The above is fine and dandy but is incredibly vague.

I would like to see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights incorporated into the NZ Constitution.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Although, I don't think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights goes far enough at times.
e.g.

Article 2​

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

This should also explicitly include gender, gender orientation, sexual orientation
So perhaps NZ should be allowed to expand human rights in relation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but not reduce.

This is an interesting one, given USA's current nationalism movement and their desire to deny asylum seekers.

Article 14​

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

Article 16​

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

This one above should be expanded to explicitly include without any limitation due to gender, gender orientation or sexual orientation.

Article 18​

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

And this one above should mean that no religious beliefs or ideals should be forced onto others. e.g. the anti abortion folks should not force their religious based stance onto the general population.


This one below is high on my list of priorities

Article 25​

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I just looked up our constitution. It is old and dated, and I do think should change.

The Constitution of New Zealand

gg.govt.nz

The New Zealand constitution is to be found in formal legal documents, in decisions of the courts, and in practices (some of which are described as conventions). It reflects and establishes that New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy, that it has a parliamentary system of government, and that it is a democracy
This is all fine and dandy, nothing to object to.

What I don't like about it, is the following:
The Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement of New Zealand's constitutional arrangements. The Act first recognises that the King - the Sovereign in right of New Zealand - is the Head of State of New Zealand, and that the Governor-General appointed by him is his representative in New Zealand. Each can, in general, exercise all the powers of the other.

It's about time NZ grew up and cast aside the British royalty as being the Head of State of New Zealand. As far as I am concerned the Windsor's are nothing special, and are unqualified in matters of NZ. They are just media fan fare, nothing more.

Individuals, autonomy and majority rule​

A balance has to be struck between majority power and minority right, between the sovereignty of the people exercised through Parliament and the rule of the law, and between the right of elected governments to have their policies enacted into law and the protection of fundamental social and constitutional values.

... that their authority is limited by understandings of what is basic in our society, by convention, by the Treaty of Waitangi, by international obligations and by ideas of fairness and justice.

The above is fine and dandy but is incredibly vague.

I would like to see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights incorporated into the NZ Constitution.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Although, I don't think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights goes far enough at times.
e.g.

Article 2​

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

This should also explicitly include gender, gender orientation, sexual orientation
So perhaps NZ should be allowed to expand human rights in relation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but not reduce.

This is an interesting one, given USA's current nationalism movement and their desire to deny asylum seekers.

Article 14​

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

Article 16​

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

This one above should be expanded to explicitly include without any limitation due to gender, gender orientation or sexual orientation.

Article 18​

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

And this one above should mean that no religious beliefs or ideals should be forced onto others. e.g. the anti abortion folks should not force their religious based stance onto the general population.


This one below is high on my list of priorities

Article 25​

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

It seems like some portions of UN Declaration of rights is largely just a copy of the US Declaration of Independence & Constitution, just worded slightly differently.

However, some of the things in there simply aren't feasible if there's a confliction of values, or one's individual interpretation of something is different than that of the culture of the country they're residing in.

It seems like you're trying to push for some sort of document that fits your viewpoint to a T, and creates a bunch of carve outs for the philosophical positions you have, but specifically squashes your opponents' counter-positions. That's not how any of this works.

Given that you said the US has a nationalism problem, the 150 million progressive people in the US are living in a hostile territory, and need to seek refuge based on their own interpretation of what constitutes political persecution. As luck would have it, all 150M chose New Zealand as the place where they'd like to seek refuge. What's NZ's plan for being able to bring them in an incorporate them into society? (head's up, there's going to be a lot of arts and music majors, so hopefully your concert halls and art museums have a worker shortage that need 20 million people to fill the roles)


Snark aside, what you're describing as your ideal is nothing new or original, it's the same sort of leftist eutopia idea that's been prescribed and tried before 20+ times, and failed miserably.


There's a reason why almost every westernized democracy has their core document (like a constitution) be things that are universal, and any specific carve-outs that only apply to a specific subset of people be handled in revised codes or at the administrative district level to accommodate the local culture, it's because that's what works.


Under your proposed system. I stop working tomorrow. As long as you're going to guarantee me housing, food, healthcare, etc....

If we look at the UN declaration of rights you referenced...

Don't expect an extra ounce of effort on my part lol.
(and this has been proven to be the norm, when Germany sought to reunify after the collapse of the Soviet Union, indolence was a major problem in East Germany)


And, under that UN document, it means Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson get to have as many anti-vaccine guests as they want and influence as many people as they see fit

(lemme guess, you'd like to amend that part?)


What you're describing sounds less like a "universal statement of rights" and more like "universal statement of progressive mandates"

 

[JSRG]

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

And this one above should mean that no religious beliefs or ideals should be forced onto others. e.g. the anti abortion folks should not force their religious based stance onto the general population.

If being anti abortion is a "religious based stance", then why are there also atheists who oppose it?

Welcome - Secular Pro-Life

secularprolife.org

Sure, being anti-abortion is far more common among the religious than the non-religious. But one can't exactly say it's specifically a "religious based stance" when it clearly can be held by people who don't have a religion. As they say on the main page, "You don’t have to be religious to have a problem with killing humans."

 

[stevil]

If being anti abortion is a "religious based stance", then why are there also atheists who oppose it?

Many atheists used to be christian and are still trying to cast away various guilt beliefs.

But anyway, people can believe what they want. They just shouldn't force their beliefs onto everyone else. If you get an unwanted pregnancy you are free to chose not to abort.