so wat gives u the right to step in on another countries laws?
Perhaps, what I am trying to convey in my prior posts is do we need a 'right', as such, to step in?
the point is this, if u dont like indo laws, THEN DONT FUCKIN GO THERE, but wat gives u the fuckin right to boycot a country because of their laws and try and sway people into following your way of thinking.
Boycotting a destination
is "not fucking going there". Additionally, I am not so far on this side of the debate as to consider myself part of the group of people trying to convince others not to go. I have merely chosen not to myself.
u had a party one year, and one or 2 people rekon it sucked arse, but heaps of other had a good night. the next year when u throw a shindig, noone rocks up because those one or 2 people told everyone not to go cuz your last one (they thought) was shithouse. wat right has those one or 2 people got to tell ya mates not to go?
The point is, those two friends can tell your other mates not to go. They have the capacity to. Do they need the
right to? Your other mates have the choice as to whether to go or not, regardless of what these two tell them.
btw on the 'prisnors loose' article, i didnt read the article out of lazyness, but im guessing it has to do with poor living arringement for prisnors.....if so, SO THEY FUCKIN SHOULD.
You have not read the article. Basically, the points in it outline how people going into the gaols come out worse than when they went in. As with that other article I posted. From the last article I posted:
THERE are 27 others in my cell. I am number 28. Rapists, murderers - mainly robbers."
These are the words 16-year-old Gordon Vuong, of New South Wales, uses to describe his new life in the squalid Cambodian prison where he will spend the next 13 years.
Vuong was arrested with 2.1 kilograms of heroin taped to his chest at Phnom Penh airport on January 22 and was sentenced last month.
What does it achieve, sending a 16 year old child to a gaol where he will have his humanity crushed for 13 years, only to emerge when he is 29, and be totally incapable of functioning normally in society by that time? Nothing is gained - he's not a hardened criminal now, and I'd wager society is not a better, safer place for having him locked up. But when he comes out, he's going to be extremely jaded with society, and may well choose to take out his anger on that society.
"And I am not a great believer in the rehabilitative role of prisons – in fact I think they add to (re-offending).
"People are prisoners, generally speaking, because they are losers, in the popular sense, and they are not capable of working in a society as many other people are."
I mean, seriously, why is society better off for detaining Schapelle for 20 years? She still has value to add to the community and society, economically and spiritually speaking.
they arnt there for a fuckin holiday at the taxpayers expense
Should they be there at the taxpayer's expense at all? Would it not be better to have them
being taxpayers?