What on earth is going on with the action posted by avash, titled "Stop India from Exporting Terrorism to Nepal!"?

The Nepalese king has assumed authoritarian control over the people, suspending the rights of free speech and political participation, using the military to shut down all lines of communication with the outside world, including newspapers, radio stations, and even bloggers. What possible evidence can the submitter produce to support the assertion that this is a "popular" move, supported by the public? The word of an obvious tyrant is insufficient. And why on earth has this been posted on YouthNoise? What kind of reactionary fascism is this? I only hope that this is an example of gross neligence, and not the actual politics of the YouthNoise administrators.

Please understand YOUTH NOISE is creating a space where youth can be free to fully participate with one another to address the real issues of sustainable existence on this planet. Here youth encourage one another to examine issues and discuss them. If an individual offers an opinion that is offensive, it is his or hers alone and the site is designed to allow debate that will shed light on opinion. The Administrators do not censor opinion nor do we ever introduce our personal ideology unless we explicitly name, in our legal names, our entries as personal.

We hope you enjoy an opportunity to shed light appropriately and with respect upon issues that other students may wish to learn more about. Freedom of expression is critical to our mission as well as to the evolution of a safe and sustainable existence on a small planet.

Ginger - YN CEO

Lol, sort of. But some of the best arguments come off tangents. Such is the beauty of YN.

quote:

Are you speaking of the same British people who gathered in London in numbers over a million to protest the Iraq war?

As much as I hate to point this out, that was the governments fault.

Euterpe, thank you for clarifying that for me, I apologise for all the faulty points that were there entailed.

Besides, I think we are rather off the point, or at least I appear to have dragged this thread off topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Brehon:
And also the Queen could dissolve parliament, particulaly if supported by the Lords.

You know what happens when the monarchy tries to go over the heads of the Parliament? See here.

quote:

She can also refuse to put down in law any law she thinks is morallly non-defendable.

The Queen has no policy powers.

quote:

And still, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland is a democratic monarchy.

You're a constitutional monarchy. A democratic monarchy is similar, but not the same thing.

Basically, the Queen has these powers: To summon, end without discussion, and dissolve Parliament (which you both are aware means to not get rid of, but to end the session, right?), to give bills her Royal Assent (which, if she didn't, she'd have hell to pay), and (upon the advice of her Ministers) give pardons.

The rest of her powers are merely floating. All of the foreign diplomats' actions are accredited to her. And under the Privy Council, her Royal Prerogative can be questioned or abolished by the Ministers. And if she has anything to say about the national issues, she has to tell the Ministers in private.

Basically, the entire government could work without the monarchy, but the country keeps it as a sign of heritage. Which is nice.

On an unrelated note, my mind always swims when it sees a person citing the British lack of religion in their laws as opposed to to our "Christian" nation. However, we are not the country where our head of the armed forces is also the head of the Church. See, we separate that shit.

quote:

Originally posted by Brehon:
People in Britian do not mind that much, provided their local interests are paid for.

Are you speaking of the same British people who gathered in London in numbers over a million to protest the Iraq war?

Perhaps you are referring to a different "Britian" that I am unaware of. Or maybe you don't know your country as well as you think you do.

Thanks, Jenos.

Brad and Angelina.

I still hate that word though.

quote:

Brangelina

What are you talking about?

quote:

Celebrity worship does not a government make.

Oh, but to a large extent it does. What do you think happens come voting day? How many people in England, and most of these not all that bright, weigh up the finacial and political judgements that a government or potential candidate will make? None. It is all on personal benefits, and if they are a celebrity, so much the better. Hence, George Galloway's entrance to the Big Brother house and so on.

There is no possible way that there would be rioting in the streets if the Queen disolved parliament. People in Britian do not mind that much, provided their local interests are paid for. Admittedly she would have to reform a new parliament, but she can do that easily, with different more promonarchy ministers.

quote:

Bearing in mind the reaction over the death of Princess Diana, the row in the Church over the wedding of Charles and Camilla, the monarchy still has a place in the heart of every British person.

Sure... like Posh Spice and Brangelina. Celebrity worship does not a government make.

quote:

And also the Queen could dissolve parliament, particulaly if supported by the Lords. She can also refuse to put down in law any law she thinks is morallly non-defendable.

Do you honestly think that Lizzy II could do either of those things, in this day and age? There'd be riots in the streets, if people listened to her at all. Come back to reality, we're waiting for you.

quote:

British republic, lack of free speech etc. If you are going to accuse others people of mistaking facts...

Well, you might want to start with getting the facts about this thread correct - I never called Britain a "republic". And under the true monarchy, when the King/Queen actually wielded power, you could be killed for looking at them sideways (George III was much feared for that reason). Not exactly a "free market of ideas", hmmm?

quote:

Come, come, let's not get bogged down in semantics. Can the Queen overrule Parliament? Could she order the army to invade the House of Commons tomorrow? She may be the titular head of state (as she is in Canada), but she wields no real power. To call that a "monarchy" is like painting an orange red and declaring it an apple.

Bearing in mind the reaction over the death of Princess Diana, the row in the Church over the wedding of Charles and Camilla, the monarchy still has a place in the heart of every British person. And also the Queen could dissolve parliament, particulaly if supported by the Lords. She can also refuse to put down in law any law she thinks is morallly non-defendable.

Also, as much as I hate to get bogged down in 'semantics' you have said a variety of erroneous things in your statements so far. British republic, lack of free speech etc. If you are going to accuse others people of mistaking facts...

And still, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland is a democratic monarchy.

quote:

You have a direct mind-link to the Pentagon now, do you? Quick, what'd William Casey have for breakfast?

Yes I do, He had a Bagel with cream cheese, some bacon and 2 pots of coffee it then took him 3 minutes to tie his shoes, Rummsfeld had 2 quarts of Coffee

any other people who breakfasts you want to know?

quote:

Originally posted by Brehon:
One, Britain is not a republic, but a monarchy. That is our official type of government. We are also a democracy. And the Queen is the head of the armed forces. And what will happen when Prince William or whatever takes over the throne?

Come, come, let's not get bogged down in semantics. Can the Queen overrule Parliament? Could she order the army to invade the House of Commons tomorrow? She may be the titular head of state (as she is in Canada), but she wields no real power. To call that a "monarchy" is like painting an orange red and declaring it an apple.

quote:

Originally posted by Brehon:

quote:

next the Current British Monarchy/Republic does have a free speech clause though the govt does reserve the right to put a D-notice on sensitive issues, Communism in the proper form actaully allows complete freedom of speech but seeing as all communist nations became dictatorships we'll never know how exactly free speech would have worked in that civilization



Please - you honestly think the current British government is a monarchy? Imagine the Queen declaring martial law.

One, Britain is not a republic, but a monarchy. That is our official type of government. We are also a democracy. And the Queen is the head of the armed forces. And what will happen when Prince William or whatever takes over the throne?

quote:

I don't recall a lot of free speech under British monarchies

Theres plenty of free speech under British Monarchy. No censorship, nothing. Free speech galore.

quote:

next the Current British Monarchy/Republic does have a free speech clause though the govt does reserve the right to put a D-notice on sensitive issues, Communism in the proper form actaully allows complete freedom of speech but seeing as all communist nations became dictatorships we'll never know how exactly free speech would have worked in that civilization



Please - you honestly think the current British government is a monarchy? Imagine the Queen declaring martial law.

One, Britain is not a republic, but a monarchy. That is our official type of government. We are also a democracy. And the Queen is the head of the armed forces. And what will happen when Prince William or whatever takes over the throne?

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
Because they new idiots like you would blow it out of proportion

And lying to cover it up always helps to keep a lid on things. See "Watergate, Investigation of".

You have a direct mind-link to the Pentagon now, do you? Quick, what'd William Casey have for breakfast?

quote:

next the Current British Monarchy/Republic does have a free speech clause though the govt does reserve the right to put a D-notice on sensitive issues, Communism in the proper form actaully allows complete freedom of speech but seeing as all communist nations became dictatorships we'll never know how exactly free speech would have worked in that civilization

Please - you honestly think the current British government is a monarchy? Imagine the Queen declaring martial law.

Free speech could theoretically occur under pure Communism, but then, oxygen could theoretically transmute into solid gold. Unless you can cite an example, let it go. You're making yourself look foolish with these outlandish statements.

Because they new idiots like you would blow it out of proportion

next the Current British Monarchy/Republic does have a free speech clause though the govt does reserve the right to put a D-notice on sensitive issues, Communism in the proper form actaully allows complete freedom of speech but seeing as all communist nations became dictatorships we'll never know how exactly free speech would have worked in that civilization

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
well let's see communism (pure that is) socalism, British Style Monarchy (to a point) I could go on but I don't really care and besides the point the US is not a Democracy, It's a Republic

I don't recall a lot of free speech under British monarchies or any communist regime, do you? And a republic is a form of democratic government, so kindly stop with the semantic flim-flam, yes?

quote:

If you read those qoutes they did use WP as a weapon but WP is not considered a chemical weapon thus theres no problem, WP has as stated in the article been used for about a century so it's not a big deal,

Many things have been used for about a century, or even longer - electrical torture, civilian starvation, etc. It's not a moral justification of any sort.

And if it's not a big deal, why did the Pentagon deny doing it in the first place?

well let's see communism (pure that is) socalism, British Style Monarchy (to a point) I could go on but I don't really care and besides the point the US is not a Democracy, It's a Republic

If you read those qoutes they did use WP as a weapon but WP is not considered a chemical weapon thus theres no problem, WP has as stated in the article been used for about a century so it's not a big deal, some of the chem weps Iraq was belived to have include Mustard Gas which is a very nasty agent and others in a similar vein those are real chem weapons

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
where do you read that this site is pro-democracy? this site supports only two things as a web site those are free speech and the discussion of issues freely

And what other form of government allows free speech?

quote:

So you don't believe that the papers have a vested intrest in selling a certain view point to the public? you then belive that anything once printed in a newsource like the Times or the Post is instantly true?
they too have lied to us, your argument on your own sword sir.

Actually, I believe the evidence - for example, the photos, video, and eyewitness accounts that forced the Pentagon to admit to using WP as a weapon. Diversify your sources, triangulate your data - and don't be a slave to ideology, especially one as arbitrary and morally bankrupt as nationalism.