I found this poem by Benjamin Zephaniah on his website:

The Death of Joy Gardner
(from 'Propa Propaganda')

"They put a leather belt around her
13 feet of tape and bound her
Handcuffs to secure her
And only God knows what else,
She's illegal, so deport her
Said the Empire that brought her
She died,
Nobody killed her
And she never killed herself.
It is our job to make her
Return to Jamaica
Said the Alien Deporters
Who deports people like me,
It was said she had a warning
That the officers were calling
On that deadly July morning
As her young son watched TV."

...and these are the fine words of Mr Zephaniah as displayed currently on the UK Metric Association website.

P.S. Hip hop, reggae and gangsta rap music all use Imperial measurements

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Oral Poet explains why going fully metric symbolises a progressive idea of ourselves

Benjamin Zephaniah

When I was at school I was told that we in this green and pleasant land were stepping out of the ‘imperial’ past and stepping into the future. In this future we would be equals with our neighbours and we would speak the same mathematical language. Now look at me, confused. That’s why I’m in tune with the work of the UK Metric Association. Plodding along with two systems is holding us all back; I know a bit of both but have mastered none.

The past has been good and bad, but I am obsessed with the future, and I believe that our political and educational institutions should lead the way. Going fully metric makes sense to me too, not only is it easier but it also symbolises that we the British people have a forward looking and progressive idea of ourselves. Looking backwards just for the sake of it will only hold us back.

Dr Benjamin Zephaniah is an oral poet, musician, author, playwright and broadcaster. Benjamin is active in numerous charitable activities promoting justice, culture, animal protection and education

_____
ENDS

Why live in a country you hate?

I've always found that perplexing.

I'm not a big fan of Zephaniah myself. Altho', all my favourite poets are dead.

No!!

Pam Ayres has *DIED*??

OMG no!

I can't believe Zephaniah thinks we should go fully metric..

Its the first time I've ever agreed with him on anything

Hitler wanted a federal europe.

(Ducks for cover)

The poem "The death of Joy Gardner" also has this at the beginning of a later verse:

"Let it go down in history
The word is that officially
She died democratically
In 13 feet of tape, ..."

The poem pays tribute to Joy Gardner who died tragically after being bound and gagged with "13 feet of surgical tape" and other heavy restraints which resulted in brain damage.

Dr Zephaniah merely captures the phrase "13 feet of tape" as used in a book about the incident and possibly elsewhere.

This is hardly grounds for rubbishing his proclaimed support for metrication.

Accepting the mans sincerity, even if you disagree with his views on other issues, it does at least show that support for metrication in the UK is not incompatible with the following outlook on life:

"I try to write poems that are fun but they should also have a serious message. I am very concerned about racism, animal rights, pollution and I have always believed that boys and girls should be treated equally. I hate wars and I think it is not right that adults should tell children not to deal with disputes by fighting and then those same adults go and fight in wars. I think armies should be banned."

He was born and brought up in Britain but admits to a strong musical influence from Jamaica. You don't have to be an imperialist to like such music.

None of this means he hates this country merely certain aspects of it and would rather try and change it than run away from it.

<<I think armies should be banned>>

Nuff said

Jamaican artists may use imperial measurements in their vernacular, as many former colonies do, but this has nothing to do with the use of metric in the countries concerned.

The Jamaicans, like our Irish cousins (any many other former colonies), have taken the brave step of converting their road signage to metric measurements.

Why is it that the smaller nations of the world always put us (a G8 country for goodness sake!)to shame when it comes to adopting progressive measures?

Most of the pro-Imperial contributors to this forum are concerned about one issue, which despite what they say, is NOT whether imperial measures are the best to use.

They are concerned about what they perceive as the demise of British traditions and the threat from Brussels to our freedom and 'way of life'. To me, this and the metric debate are two different things entirely and should not be confused.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but that is not exactly accurate.

<<The Jamaicans, like our Irish cousins (any many other former colonies), have taken the brave step of converting their road signage to metric measurements. >>

I wasn't aware that Jamaica had done this - is that really true? (I've not been there).

I bet they still "talk" miles though

A colleague of mine went to visit his parents in Jamaica recently, and confirms that they have started the changeover. When they complete it, of course, is another matter entirely.

<<<They are concerned about what they perceive as the demise of British traditions and the threat from Brussels to our freedom and 'way of life'. To me, this and the metric debate are two different things entirely and should not be confused. >>>

Unfortunately the shambolic way in which metrication has been dealt with in this country HAS confused the issue and most people do associate it with Europe, the EU, loss of freedom etc

<<<I bet they still "talk" miles though>>>

And why not? The aim of metrication is not to instantly stop people 'talking' imperial - it is to allow new generations to 'talk' the system they learn & the system of the future. It will take a couple of generations for people in Ireland, Jamaica and wherever else to stop talking 'miles' but who cares? Let it happen naturally.

==ahem==

FOUR DECADES AND COUNTING....

Four decades and counting for which country?

If Britain had gone metric 40 years ago, we would now more or less 'speak' only metric, as they do in Australia, NZ etc

But Britian didn't go metric 40 years ago

The decimalisation of coinage was started in 1849 with the issue of the "godless" florin. It was completed in 1971 (122 years later).

Euric reminded us that stones get used in NZ.

And besides, no-one told us to "keep using stones and pounds" 4 decades ago.

Doesn't that make you think?

<<I think armies should be banned>>

The fact that battle is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously; but it does not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. If we do, sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.

When a country doesn’t have an army, it’s easier for certain international organizations (you know who you are) to send armed bureaucrats into private homes to enforce _________*. (*pick a pet agenda – metrication, for example)

* * *
AndyA said: “Most of the pro-Imperial contributors to this forum are concerned about…what they perceive as the demise of British traditions and the threat from Brussels to our freedom and 'way of life'. To me, this and the metric debate are two different things entirely and should not be confused.”

Andy said: “[T]he… way…metrication has been dealt with [here] HAS confused the issue and most people do associate it with Europe, the EU, loss of freedom etc”


Response: You both are confused. You are proceeding from an incorrect assumption regarding the purpose of the BWMA (my apologies, please correct me if I am out of line) and this web board. On 15 September 2001, the BWMA stated that “[i]t is not the metric system we oppose, only the intolerance that accompanies it.” Intolerance would not be a problem if it could not lead to intolerant legislation – why form an association to defend against people who could not have a legal effect on you? The primary concern of the BWMA, others, and myself is compulsory metrication. In that sphere, we couldn’t care less about the relative merits of the two systems since, upon closer examination, the relative merits are highly subjective. Because of the legal/political reality, the metric debate is inexorably linked to the potential demise of our freedom.

Now, we do spend a lot of time debating the relative pros and cons of each system. The reason we do this is threefold: 1.) metricators offer the pros of metric as a premise in support of the conclusion that compulsory metrication ought to be the law; 2.) it is educational – people learn all sorts of things about both systems from these debates; and 3.) it’s just plain fun. But the point is that metricators use the merits of metric to support compulsory metrication; that is why you see so many threads dealing with that topic (all you have to do to win an argument is to disprove one of the premises upon which your opponent’s conclusion relies).

As fun and useful debates on the merits are, however, the real issue is the legal/political one. The question is as follows: Is it moral for a free society to compel people to use the metric system? To answer this question, we must examine whether compulsory metrication infringes on freedom. Since our way of life is free, anything that might restrict our freedom is a threat to our way of life. Significance doesn’t matter – one cheeseburger won’t raise your cholesterol; a lot will. Solution: limit your cheeseburger intake. So, does compulsory metrication = loss of freedom? Let’s examine it:

Premise 1: Loss of Freedom (in the political sense) = government power applied to keep you from doing what you otherwise could do.
Premise 2: Compulsory metrication = government force applied to forbid the use of anything but the metric system.
Premise 3: government force applied to forbid anything = Loss of Freedom

Therefore, Compulsory Metrication = Loss of Freedom

You were saying something about the validity of associating the metric debate with loss of freedom?

If you want a good example of why we don’t like metric, go here: Forum – Trading Standards Alert; Thread – RAIDS; URL – http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=101370&messageid=1084449292&lp=1094473472



* * *
Steve said: “[B]esides, no-one told us to "keep using stones and pounds" 4 decades ago.”

Response: Exactly.

You are implying that compulsory metrication means the government controls what people use in their private lives. Everyone is free to use whatever system they choose. Metrication affects the units traders are allowed to advertise/sell in and the units used on road signs etc, not what people use in conversation.

The current situation with road signs in imperial is that road users are forced to use imperial.

There is no more compulsion now than there was when only imperial was used.

Andy, you are incredibly naive for a 25 year old. If I cannot buy anything in Imperial, then how do I have the freedom to use it in my private life? My use of Imperial is, even in conversation, extremely restricted, as I can't say, I don't know, "I caught a five pound perch" because my scales are calibrated in metric [that is not true, by the way, folks- fishing is almost totally Imperial]

Furthermore, if you go long enough with no real mention of Imperial in the public arena, people get converted, as it were, to metric- somethign that they would not have wished for in the first place, and therefore also an infringment on their freedoms (if they used both systems and willingly converted to metric, then that is okay, but effective brainwashing is not)

LOL I'm naiive?! I think you need to get in touch with reality. You have some incredibly bizarre views for a 19 year old.

For a start I am not aware of any proposed legislation regarding privately owned scales (obviously there might come a time when imperial scales are no longer manufactured, but hey, life goes on) You as an individual can use imperial for as long as you want. But why inflict a confusion of old-fashioned measurements on new generations, just because a few selfish individuals are too stubborn to adapt?

You fail to appreciate that it is exactly the same thing keeping road signs exclusively in imperial. I am forced to use imperial when as you can imagine I would like to be able to use metric.

Do some research on the infringements of freedom suffered by people all over the world, and then ask yourslef again whether your freedom is really affected by having to buy things by the kilo instead of by the pound.

You need to get in touch with reality, chap. I have a feeling tho that we won't agree on this and will go around in circles. I will respond to the last part of your post: yes, our rights are being infringed upon, relatively, a small amount. But that is the point, relatively. Maybe we should just leave homosexuals with less rights than heterosexuals because in some other countries homosexual behaviour is punishable by death, hey? You see, it doesn't quite work that way now does it.

Niles - that's probably the best essay I've ever read on this board. I cannot add nor alter what you have put - I totally agree.

And, no, I'm not ar*e-licking!

<<But why inflict a confusion of old-fashioned measurements on new generations, just because a few selfish individuals are too stubborn to adapt?>>

Please ask one of the new generation whether they feel "inflicted upon"

<<You fail to appreciate that it is exactly the same thing keeping road signs exclusively in imperial. I am forced to use imperial when as you can imagine I would like to be able to use metric.>>

1) Who is forcing you to drive? However, you *must* eat.
2) They have always been imperial - I'm not sure why you think "not changing them to metric" is somehow forcing the use of imperial!! Your argument is totally topsy-turvy!! Am I being forced to speak English?

Andy said: “You are implying that compulsory metrication means the government controls what people use in their private lives.”

Response: At the basic level, business is private. Imagine that I own a bookbinding business. Most books in need of binding possess dimensions expressible in exact inch values. Most book antiquarians in America describe their books in inches. When they call me up to ask about the price to replace a leather cover, they ask in inches. I respond giving them the price per inch. Given what I know, when I print out a price list, it’s going to be in inches because that’s what my customers ask for.

The choice to use inches is a private one. I could choose to use centimeters, but my customers would complain and it would multiply my work – but that would also be a private choice. The service I choose to provide to my customers is a private choice. I can choose whether or not to respond to market forces. If I am a ‘true believer’ metricator, I won’t respond to market forces – it will hurt my business, but that is my choice.

The situation with compulsory metrication is that metric activists are trying to take away my choice in what I can provide my customers – a public action taken to curb private choice. The only time the public has any business telling me what I have to choose is when I make a choice that either intentionally harms another, or shows a depraved indifference to human life; choosing to use metric or customary/imperial does neither.

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
--Ayn Rand

Niles wrote

<<
Most books in need of binding possess dimensions expressible in exact inch values. Most book antiquarians in America describe their books in inches.
>>

Of course, every postgraduate thesis in Europe needs binding and they all use A4 paper which is certainly not described in an exact number of inches.

Martin said: “Of course, every postgraduate thesis in Europe needs binding and they all use A4 paper which is certainly not described in an exact number of inches”

Response: Just curious – why do you think that is relevant to my example?

Maybe I should have specified that, in my example, something like 90% of my business comes from book antiquarians.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
--Ayn Rand

metre:
Ayn Rand's inane "philosophy" translated into today's jargon, GREED IS BEAUTIFUL. That explains everything! Maybe that's why American society is plagued by so many social ills.
You dare to talk of freedom while denying basic human rights to detainees in Guantanamo and to naturalised Arabs on the mainland? Where is the presumption of innocence? Get real man.

<<<You dare to talk of freedom while denying basic human rights to detainees in Guantanamo and to naturalised Arabs on the mainland? Where is the presumption of innocence? Get real man>>>

We might be onto a good one here. Someone prod him a bit more!! Say "Israel" or something...

You know those legal rights denied those in Guantanamo bay are actually English rights that many European nations do not have or do not have a long history of having, as it were. Just thought I should mention that in the context of the whole Anglo-America Versus Europe thing.

By the way, we support Israel because, despite its problems, it is the only regime in the Middle East that reflects the values of a liberal constitutional democracy. Eric ought to support Israel because they are metric.

People really shouldn’t speak on topics with which they are obviously unfamiliar – but it sure is fun when they do. Our government does not follow Ayn Rand’s philosophy. In fact, let me sum up the apparent philosophy of our government – ah, yes – ‘greed is beautiful’. You see, leftists only accuse you of greed for wanting to keep your own money. Ayn Rand taught the product of your labor is yours; quite the opposite of ‘greed’. (Eric meant ‘covetousness’ which is not quite the same thing). Leftists not only think that the desire to forcibly acquire someone else’s money is not covetousness, they think it is moral – THAT is why American society is plagued with so many ills (well, that and criminally defective teaching methods in the schools). In the early 1980s, there was an investigation done into the decline of our educational system – the conclusion was that if another country had done to our system what we have allowed leftist policy to do to it, it would be considered an act of war.

Eric said: “You dare to talk of freedom while denying basic human rights to detainees in Guantanamo and to naturalised Arabs on the mainland? Where is the presumption of innocence? Get real man.”

Response: Whose basic human rights am *I* denying? As to the detainees in Guantanamo? It’s what the feds do. A good friend of mine is spending two years in a federal penitentiary for something that he didn’t do – those twits at the FBI admit that his story was true, but they went ahead with their prosecution, anyway (I suspect to avoid the embarrassment of having spent a lot of money on their investigation and not getting a conviction). Where *is* the presumption of innocence? At least in regard to the detainees in Guantanamo, they presumably don’t know if all of these people are enemy combatants or not. That being said, it is my belief that any innocent people held in Guantanamo should be released and compensated for their time by our government. I’m not going to say any more on this topic because my facts are limited – I can only speak in hypotheticals. However, I would like to point out something. Leftists are only opposed to restrictions on liberty so long as those restrictions do not further their own goals. For example, I doubt you would find Eric coming to the defense of a store owner who was locked up for refusing remove his Imperial scales (actually for refusing to pay the associated fine – I doubt locking him up would be the first option). At least in the case of the Guantanamo detainees, they think that those people might be seeking to harm others. You see, unlike you, Eric, I believe that the only circumstance in which it is okay 100% of the time for the government to restrict the freedom of a person is when that person seeks to harm another. Unfortunately, similarly to your government, my government and myself are in disagreement on this topic.

(he won't understand)

<<
There is no more compulsion now than there was when only imperial was used.
>>

The difference is that now, with metric compulsion, the system that most people prefer and are familiar with is banned, and a system that most people do not want is required. Back when imperial was used, the majority of people knew it and used it voluntarily. If the government wants to standardise, they should choose the system that a majority of people prefer to begin with.

Regarding Eric’s ‘Expertise’ on Philosophy and America... September 10 2004, 2:40 PM


By the way, we support Israel because, despite its problems, it is the only regime in the Middle East that reflects the values of a liberal constitutional democracy. Eric ought to support Israel because they are metric.

metre:
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and metric comes nowhere into it.

People really shouldn’t speak on topics with which they are obviously unfamiliar – but it sure is fun when they do. Our government does not follow Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

metre:
Who said so? Many, but luckily not all Yanks do.

Niles:In fact, let me sum up the apparent philosophy of our government – ah, yes – ‘greed is beautiful’. You see, leftists only accuse you of greed for wanting to keep your own money. Ayn Rand taught the product of your labor is yours; quite the opposite of ‘greed’. (Eric meant ‘covetousness’ which is not quite the same thing). Leftists not only think that the desire to forcibly acquire someone else’s money is not covetousness, they think it is moral – THAT is why American society is plagued with so many ills (well, that and criminally defective teaching methods in the schools). In the early 1980s, there was an investigation done into the decline of our educational system – the conclusion was that if another country had done to our system what we have allowed leftist policy to do to it, it would be considered an act of war.

metre:
If you consider what you wrote reality, I do feel sorry for you. Actually you behave like a bull to a "red" piece of cloth. Only in your case all pieces of cloth are red.

Eric said: “You dare to talk of freedom while denying basic human rights to detainees in Guantanamo and to naturalised Arabs on the mainland? Where is the presumption of innocence? Get real man.”

Response: Whose basic human rights am *I* denying? As to the detainees in Guantanamo? It’s what the feds do. A good friend of mine is spending two years in a federal penitentiary for something that he didn’t do – those twits at the FBI admit that his story was true, but they went ahead with their prosecution, anyway (I suspect to avoid the embarrassment of having spent a lot of money on their investigation and not getting a conviction).

metre:
Never mind what the feds do, if you acquiesce, you are ipso facto guilty.
Your friend had the the right to an open and fair court.
I am not in conspiracy theories and to prove your point I need a lot more than your say so.

Niles:Where *is* the presumption of innocence? At least in regard to the detainees in Guantanamo, they presumably donÂ’t know if all of these people are enemy combatants or not.

metre:
They should have, as everybody else, the right to a fair trail. Delayed justice is denied justice.

Niles: That being said, it is my belief that any innocent people held in Guantanamo should be released and compensated for their time by our government. I’m not going to say any more on this topic because my facts are limited – I can only speak in hypotheticals. However, I would like to point out something. Leftists are only opposed to restrictions on liberty so long as those restrictions do not further their own goals. For example, I doubt you would find Eric coming to the defense of a store owner who was locked up for refusing remove his Imperial scales (actually for refusing to pay the associated fine – I doubt locking him up would be the first option).

metre:
Laws should apply universally. If the grocer infringes the law, he pays the fine. If you incarcerate people you bring them to a speedy trial.

Niles:At least in the case of the Guantanamo detainees, they think that those people might be seeking to harm others.

metre:
That is precisely what happened in Germany and Russia. Guilt by presumption and the death penalty!

Niles:You see, unlike you, Eric, I believe that the only circumstance in which it is okay 100% of the time for the government to restrict the freedom of a person is when that person seeks to harm another. Unfortunately, similarly to your government, my government and myself are in disagreement on this topic.

metre:
That passage sounds very self-righteous to me?
So why do you incarcerate fraudsters of any kind? Enron and World.com comes to mind? Not all that long ago people went to jail for not paying traffic fines in most countries, including yours I presume.
An observation. America's freedoms do come at a price that most ordinary citizens cannot afford.

Re: Benjamin Zephaniah - A poet whose poems speak louder than the nonsense he spouts to UKMA September 11 2004, 9:43 AM


<<
There is no more compulsion now than there was when only imperial was used.
>>

Bud:
The difference is that now, with metric compulsion, the system that most people prefer and are familiar with is banned, and a system that most people do not want is required.

metre:
Nothing new.
That observation applies in general to umpteen laws on the statute books of any country.

<<You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and metric comes nowhere into it.>>

Lovely self anlysis there, eric.

eric said: “You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and metric comes nowhere into it.”

Response: That’s right, metric does not come into my opinion on this matter – but I’m not talking about me.

eric said: “Who said so? Many, but luckily not all Yanks do [follow Rand’s philosophy].”

Response: And here it is – proof that eric knows next to nothing about Americans (or Objectivism for that matter).

eric said: “If you consider what you wrote reality, I do feel sorry for you. Actually you behave like a bull to a "red" piece of cloth. Only in your case all pieces of cloth are red.”

Response: Ad hominem attacks do not a valid defense make.

eric said: “Never mind what the feds do, if you acquiesce, you are ipso facto guilty. Your friend had the the right to an open and fair court. I am not in conspiracy theories and to prove your point I need a lot more than your say so.”

Response: Due to the nature of the case, he did not. This does not reflect any conspiracy, rather an institutional malady. I will not discuss my friend’s case in more detail, but I can direct you to Randall Fitzgerald’s ‘Mugged by the State’ which characterizes a widespread disregard for individual rights by federal bureaucracies (several of the examples are analogous to his case). You have a very devious rhetorical technique (if you are doing it on purpose); on principle, I do not sanction any government restriction on personal liberty – I have to examine each instance of such restriction morally to assess whether I approve. And unlike legal positivists, I do not think that an action is okay just because a law sanctions it.

eric said: “They should have, as everybody else, the right to a fair trail. Delayed justice is denied justice.”

Response: Morally, you are correct. [Hmm... weird.] Legally, you are not correct unless the particular prisoners you speak of were not picked up in a combat zone.

eric said: “Laws should apply universally. If the grocer infringes the law, he pays the fine. If you incarcerate people you bring them to a speedy trial.”

Response: I didn’t suggest that laws shouldn’t apply universally – what I argue is that the laws should conform to certain moral principles in order to be valid in the first place. You, being a legal positivist, probably would be confused by this notion.

eric said: “That is precisely what happened in Germany and Russia. Guilt by presumption and the death penalty!”

Response: The Germans and Russians were legal positivists. That malady is infecting our country as well – many of our Federal narcotics laws allow the DEA to seize assets on the suspicion that they might be used in trafficking drugs.

It appears that eric knowledge of the USA is about the same as euric's (carlyle's) knowledge about the UK !

Hence them being joined at the hip like some freaky double headed nonsense-monster from planet metrax (except one head keeps asking the other head for the metric info needed to 'win' arguments).

Re: Benjamin Zephaniah - A poet whose poems speak louder than the nonsense he spouts to UKMA September 14 2004, 6:09 AM

Niles:
eric said: “You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and metric comes nowhere into it.”

Response: That’s right, metric does not come into my opinion on this matter – but I’m not talking about me.

metre:
Are you by chance trying to say something with that sentence?

eric said: “Who said so? Many, but luckily not all Yanks do [follow Rand’s philosophy].”

Response: And here it is – proof that eric knows next to nothing about Americans (or Objectivism for that matter).

metre:
Sounds to me like my (Niles) subjectivity is absolute objectiveness. Keep on dreaming. Nobody's mind on this globe is easier read than that of America's majority, and what outsiders read is really frightening.


eric said: “If you consider what you wrote reality, I do feel sorry for you. Actually you behave like a bull to a "red" piece of cloth. Only in your case all pieces of cloth are red.”

Response: Ad hominem attacks do not a valid defense make.

metre:
Sorry, this is how you come across to me.


eric said: “Never mind what the feds do, if you acquiesce, you are ipso facto guilty. Your friend had the the right to an open and fair court. I am not in conspiracy theories and to prove your point I need a lot more than your say so.”

Response: Due to the nature of the case, he did not. This does not reflect any conspiracy, rather an institutional malady. I will not discuss my friend’s case in more detail, but I can direct you to Randall Fitzgerald’s ‘Mugged by the State’ which characterizes a widespread disregard for individual rights by federal bureaucracies (several of the examples are analogous to his case). You have a very devious rhetorical technique (if you are doing it on purpose); on principle, I do not sanction any government restriction on personal liberty – I have to examine each instance of such restriction morally to assess whether I approve. And unlike legal positivists, I do not think that an action is okay just because a law sanctions it.

metre:
I am sorry if my rehorical technique annoys you.
"Mugged by the State". I would be the last to say that does not happen. What I object to is that you and your compatriots never tire to assert that your country is above the rest when it comes freedoms, democracy and justice.
The point I made and that you and all other Yanks on this board conviniently overlook is my observation that America's freedoms do come at a price that most ordinary US citizens cannot afford. That is the major difference between America and most European countries. One could apply that to health care and many other social conditions prevailing in your country as well.

eric said: “They should have, as everybody else, the right to a fair trail. Delayed justice is denied justice.”

Response: Morally, you are correct. [Hmm... weird.] Legally, you are not correct unless the particular prisoners you speak of were not picked up in a combat zone.

metre:
Sorry, the term "enmy combatants" is used by the Bush administration to avoid inernational human rights obligations under the Geneva convention governing the treatment of "prisoners of war". There is nothing legal about it, as your courts have commendably demonstrated.

eric said: “Laws should apply universally. If the grocer infringes the law, he pays the fine. If you incarcerate people you bring them to a speedy trial.”

Response: I didn’t suggest that laws shouldn’t apply universally – what I argue is that the laws should conform to certain moral principles in order to be valid in the first place. You, being a legal positivist, probably would be confused by this notion.

metre:
No need to get personal.
I talked about the English weights and measures law in existence now. How it came about is a philosophical and probably more so, a political question. Where we differ is my contention that the common good should prevail over individual rights.
I.e.school children should not be subjected to wasting precious time and resources on learning 2 measurements to please uninformed and selfish individuals even if they are in the majority. Properly introduced, Americans like everybody else will accept metric measurements democratically. Had Bill Clinton put his weight behind metrication, America I venture to say, would be almost metric by now.

eric said: “That is precisely what happened in Germany and Russia. Guilt by presumption and the death penalty!”

Response: The were legal positivists. That malady is infecting our country as well – many of our Federal narcotics laws allow the DEA to seize assets on the suspicion that they might be used in trafficking drugs.

metre:
Nothing to do with legal positivism. Dictatorships fashion their legal requirements to achieve their aims.
In that case (Guantanamo)I must brand your administration legally opportunistic. Whatever can be used to achieve its aims.

I am not sure your confiscation law works that way. Yes, on conviction the proceeds can be confiscated, but without it, I doubt it.

CTRL + C
CTRL + V

CTRL + C
CTRL + V

CTRL + C
CTRL + V

CTRL + C
CTRL + V

CTRL + C
CTRL + V

CTRL + C
CTRL + V

CTRL + C
CTRL + V

CTRL + C
CTRL + V

CTRL + C
CTRL + V

Hey! Looks like I win the argument!

So then didn't the Canadians stop metricating in a democratic manner? After all if enough of the population was against government policy they could just vote them out of office. Is it not so?

Yes... and no. Whilst most people do not want metric, it is not suc ha burning issue with most people that they would vote the Government out. I mean, even the really mega-important stuff doesn't usually move the populace to those levels. It is only when a certain breaking point is reached. Anyway, metrication has been going on for years and so is no new thing and is not making a massive impact in the minds of the people as some sudden thing (altho' I know many people are hacked off by it).

>>eric said: "Are you by chance trying to say something with that sentence?"<<

Response: Apparently you wouldn’t know…

>> eric said: "Sounds to me like my (Niles) subjectivity is absolute objectiveness. Keep on dreaming. Nobody's mind on this globe is easier read than that of America's majority, and what outsiders read is really frightening."<<

Response: Argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum. Invalid operation.

>>eric said: "Sorry, this is how you come across to me."<<

Response: Fascinating how you refuse to defend your position with valid arguments. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you would do well in politics. Don't worry about me… try living in your own head for a while… maybe you'll discover just how poorly furnished you are.

>>eric said: "What I object to is that you and your compatriots never tire to assert that your country is above the rest when it comes freedoms, democracy and justice."<<

Excuse me? It's like talking to a wall. I see why your own 'allies' ignore your posts. Let me ask you – what have I been complaining about in this thread? Though, I can see why you think like that if you truly think that the majority of my country follows Rand's philosophy.

Healthcare, you say?

Ah, yes… and how is that state run health care working out for you? The Japanese are sunning out of money for theirs. Canadians come to the United States when they need surgery because of the long waits in their little socialist paradise... how 'bout the UK?

>> eric said: "America's freedoms do come at a price that most ordinary US citizens cannot afford."<<

Response: Whether or not most people know it, the American Revolution is an ongoing process that did not end with the signing of the Treaty of Paris; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. To those Americans who would trade security for liberty, I would like to pass on this message: "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

>> eric said: "Sorry, the term "enmy combatants" is used by the Bush administration to avoid inernational human rights obligations under the Geneva convention governing the treatment of "prisoners of war". There is nothing legal about it, as your courts have commendably demonstrated."<<

Response: The jurisdiction of our civil courts in this matter is dubious. In order for this matter to come under the Article III jurisdiction of the courts, it must be determined that the president is acting outside the scope of his executive authority. To my knowledge, this has not been determined yet. If it had, you would see more definite statements on the matter at the highest levels.

Quiz: Anyone notice something wrong with how he thinks the Geneva Convention works? You don’t need to be a lawyer to catch it.

>>eric said: [referring to the rise of Nazi Germany]:"Nothing to do with legal positivism. Dictatorships fashion their legal requirements to achieve their aims."<<

Response: You might want to do some reading regarding the history of legal philosophy in Germany and familiarize yourself with how the Nazi regime was able to come about before you make exclusive statements.

>>eric said: "I am not sure your confiscation law works that way. Yes, on conviction the proceeds can be confiscated, but without it, I doubt it."<<

Response: You really should stop making pronouncements on things outside your sphere of knowledge. The Civil Asset Forfeiture law passed by Congress in 1984 allows federal agencies to grab property and assets without normal due process on the mere suspicion that a crime may have been committed.

Re: Benjamin Zephaniah - A poet whose poems speak louder than the nonsense he spouts to UKMA September 16 2004, 3:25 AM

Niles:
>>eric said: "Are you by chance trying to say something with that sentence?"<<
Response: Apparently you wouldn’t know…

metre:
Make that definite, I do not know.

>> eric said: "Sounds to me like my (Niles) subjectivity is absolute objectiveness. Keep on dreaming. Nobody's mind on this globe is easier read than that of America's majority, and what outsiders read is really frightening."<<
Response: Argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populus. Invalid operation.

metre:
Believe what ever you like.

>>eric said: "Sorry, this is how you come across to me."<<

Response: Fascinating how you refuse to defend your position with valid arguments. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you would do well in politics. Don't worry about me… try living in your own head for a while… maybe you'll discover just how poorly furnished you are.

metre:
Sounds like you are losing your cool. Maybe that is why you find it so difficult to come to grips with me?

>>eric said: "What I object to is that you and your compatriots never tire to assert that your country is above the rest when it comes freedoms, democracy and justice."<<

Excuse me? It's like talking to a wall. I see why your own 'allies' ignore your posts. Let me ask you – what have I been complaining about in this thread? Though, I can see why you think like that if you truly think that the majority of my country follows Rand's philosophy.

metre:
You, and your compatriots, would do well to listen to yourselves some time, maybe then you wouldn't sprout such utter nonsense. As one of your bright lights recently said in relation to most Americans watching Murdochs mindnumbing Fox channel; that fare is only swallowed by totally unsophisticated people and could not be shown anywhere else in the world.He was talking about political content. I agree wholeheartedly with that guy, reading your and other Yanks posts.

Niles:
Healthcare, you say?
Ah, yes… and how is that state run health care working out for you? The Japanese are sunning out of money for theirs. Canadians come to the United States when they need surgery because of the long waits in their little socialist paradise... how 'bout the UK?
metre:
You seem to watch Murdoch's Fox channel too much judging by your ignorance. Have you ever been outside Yankeeland? You come across stuck, like with your measurements, in yesteryear. Still fighting reds under the beds?

>> eric said: "America's freedoms do come at a price that most ordinary US citizens cannot afford."<<

Response: Whether or not most people know it, the American Revolution is an ongoing process that did not end with the signing of the Treaty of Paris; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. To those Americans who would trade security for liberty, I would like to pass on this message: "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

metre:
What pompous and longwinded codswallop this indoctrinated mind regurgitates, yuck. And you do not even understand what I meant. Never mind, give my regards to Bush and Murdoch.

>> eric said: "Sorry, the term "enemy combatants" is used by the Bush administration to avoid inernational human rights obligations under the Geneva convention governing the treatment of "prisoners of war". There is nothing legal about it, as your courts have commendably demonstrated."<<

Response: The jurisdiction of our civil courts in this matter is dubious. In order for this matter to come under the Article III jurisdiction of the courts, it must be determined that the president is acting outside the scope of his executive authority. To my knowledge, this has not been determined yet. If it had, you would see more definite statements on the matter at the highest levels.

metre:
Pardon me, the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with your president, but its breach does, not only with him but every American. The convention does not recognise the term enemy combatant nor the conditions they are held in.
After all that codswallop about freedom individual rights it strikes me that your type is the first to acquiesce when governments infringe on them.

>>eric said: [referring to the rise of Nazi Germany]:"Nothing to do with legal positivism. Dictatorships fashion their legal requirements to achieve their aims."<<

Quiz: Anyone notice something wrong with how he thinks the Geneva Convention works? You donÂ’t need to be a lawyer to catch it.

metre:
Too childish to respond.

Response: You might want to do some reading regarding the history of legal philosophy in Germany and familiarize yourself with how the Nazi regime was able to come about before you make exclusive statements.

metre:
God you are sanctimonious git oozing ignorance. Tell me something, anything.

>>eric said: "I am not sure your confiscation law works that way. Yes, on conviction the proceeds can be confiscated, but without it, I doubt it."<<

Response: You really should stop making pronouncements on things outside your sphere of knowledge. The Civil Asset Forfeiture law passed by Congress in 1984 allows federal agencies to grab property and assets without normal due process on the mere suspicion that a crime may have been committed.

metre:
Let's take the first sentence, in that case you shouldn't say anything, just read and try to understand.
I am not impressed with your explanation. To convince me show me the statutes.

Wow, heated conversation going on here. I just thought I'd throw this in.
A search warrant issued by a judge is required for federal agencies as well as local police forces to grab property and assets. (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV) This does not apply when a delay may result in loss of evidence, for example a breathlyzer test for someone who is suspected of driving drunk.

ROTFL!!! His latest target is Rupert Murdoch!!! That was the main target of his attack in that rubbish up there!!!

And what's with your computer, eric? You got a standard issue North Korean one? You can't even copy and paste properly! (perhaps its the rage!)

The priceless bit???

Trying to make out that Niles was somehow losing his cool whilst delivering this little gem:

"God you are sanctimonious git oozing ignorance"

Someone else *must* have seen the irony in that!

MORE MORE!!!!

Ditto what Steve said !! :)

Hey, eric, why don't you check out this forum: http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/

You love it. You know you do.

Rupert Murdoch comments aside, Eric seems to have mistaken me for Dan Rather.

Bud, you are describing a civil judicial forfeiture. What I am talking about is a nonjudicial civil forfeiture. When you get into non-judicial actions, you get into agency action and that means administrative law. Fun for all. Sigh. But that's unimportant. In 2000, Civil Asset Forfeiture Act was amended by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (or CAFRA). This act curbed a lot of the abuses of the 1984 law. To establish a civil forfeiture action against the thing or property, prior to the passage of CAFRA, the government had only to establish probable cause that property should be seized and forfeited (the cases I described – I stopped following this issue closely in 1999 – all occurred under the old act). Also under the old law, an owner’s property could be seized and subjected to civil asset forfeiture proceedings without any opportunity to establish a hardship. CAFRA addresses this inadequacy with 18 U.S.C § 983(f) which provides for the release of a claimants possessory property provided the property is not contraband, cash, evidence likely to be used in a crime, etc. Despite this new opportunity to get some of your stuff back prior to a formal appeal, you try challenging the seizure when the government has seized your life savings because you have a business client who happens to be a Columbian drug-lord arrested for money laundering.

Anyway, the law (Public Law 106-185, 106th Congress) can be found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ185.106

At least this new law allows for you to get your stuff back – eventually. I challenge you, though – if you really think the government needs a warrant to seize property, go to the airport with a briefcase containing $50,000 in cash and buy a one-way ticket to Florida in cash – see what happens.

Well, under the constitution a warrant is needed.
The government has, apparently gotten around this requirement by giving itself the authority to "issue" warrants, or sometimes by claiming that the seizure is not "unreasonable".

Re: Benjamin Zephaniah - A poet whose poems speak louder than the nonsense he spouts to UKMA September 16 2004, 9:02 AM

Bud:
A search warrant issued by a judge is required for federal agencies as well as local police forces to grab property and assets. (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV) This does not apply when a delay may result in loss of evidence, for example a breathlyzer test for someone who is suspected of driving drunk.

Well, under the constitution a warrant is needed.
The government has, apparently gotten around this requirement by giving itself the authority to "issue" warrants, or sometimes by claiming that the seizure is not "unreasonable".

metre:
Thanks for that information, but it makes no one wiser.
All, I can make out is that your laws are as convoluted as your measurements. And you people seem quite happy that anybody can be dispossessd without due process by the State. That's what I call well guarded "civil liberties".

Niles:
CAFRA addresses this inadequacy with 18 U.S.C § 983(f) which provides for the release of a claimants possessory property provided the property is not contraband, cash, evidence likely to be used in a crime, etc. Despite this new opportunity to get some of your stu