|
|
Post by White Cossack on Sept 29, 2008 18:36:33 GMT -5
I think I did not make myself understood. What I had in mind did not sound the way I wanted in English.
I did not have ethnical or religious concept on my mind when I said "right humans". "Right" in the sense of someone who behaves like a proper human being, and rapists don't account for that.
I said that because those liberal morons are always calling for "human rights" for rapists and the like, but they don't deserve any, because they don't act like humans in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Sept 30, 2008 19:47:01 GMT -5
I said that because those liberal morons are always calling for "human rights" for rapists and the like, but they don't deserve any, because they don't act like humans in the first place. Saying criminals don`t deserve those rights is similar to saying people that can`t earn a living don`t deserve welfare checks. It is true, they don`t. But not because the fact that they can`t get a job disqualifies them. But because nobody at all has the right to welfare, because such a right does not exist in the first place. A criminal has a right to a fair trial and the victim has a right to justice. Beyond that there are no more rights. There can be no "right" to welfare, because the only way to implement welfare is to violate a more basic right, the right to hold your property. (Which is second only to the few rights of an organic nation (narod) as a whole.) Equally there can be no "right" to receive 40 years maximum sentance or anything of the sort because that would interfere with a true, basic right of the victim to receive justice. So the issue is not that we should be more selective in which group to grant rights. The issue is that we should be much more selective in what rights we recognise to exist at all. Some arbitrary luxury right can not come at the expense of a basic, natural right. And if the luxury right can only exist at the expense of a basic right, then it is no right at all, but infringment on real rights. Yes, Bono-libs invent many bogus "rights" like that, but they are not alone. Certain puritans for example are as likely culprits. They think they have the right to prevent people from smoking, from drinking, from taking drugs, from being faggs... All sorts of things. (And then Bono-libs counter it by making up the "right" to make people like faggs and yunkiees and it goes on...) |
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Sept 30, 2008 20:26:08 GMT -5
Although I do agree with you, we live - whether we like or not - in Democratic States of Law - how the pompous "intellectuals" call it anyway - and in them, the State assumes the position of voucher of some so called "fundamental" rights, including the "human dignity", which impedes the imposition of "inhumane" or "cruel" punishment for criminals.
Also, you are aware that in our modern states there is no such thing as natural rights, because it is only a right that which the State acknowledges as so.
Your reasoning, although I tend to agree with it, has no place in the juridical system, considering how our states are organised.
In the other hand, it can be argued, like I do - although that would still be rejected by most of the "thinking elite" - that those that can't behave like proper human beings, do not deserve to be shielded by those rights intended to protect the human being. In other words, it's a way to relativize some "fundamental rights" of a especial kind of criminal - rapists and people take part in slave trade, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Яромip on Oct 1, 2008 14:24:39 GMT -5
I don't believe there is a natural "right to life" or "liberty" (how do you even define those? Some would say life in a cell is no life at all). Even absent punishment by death, there would have to be infringement on Liberty (I hope nobody would argue that dangerous elements needs to be isolated from rest of society?)
Which brings up additional questions. Is life in prison really a lesser punishment than quick death?
Either way, such pathologically criminal element MUST be isolated from society. Those who commit heinous crimes (murder, rape, torture...etc) have to go. IMHO, depriving such criminals of "right to life" is preferable.
|
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Oct 1, 2008 16:55:47 GMT -5
Also, you are aware that in our modern states there is no such thing as natural rights, because it is only a right that which the State acknowledges as so. I`ve noticed this is a frequent motiff with Jaromir also, but I don`t like this sort of cynism/defeatism/pragmatism. Saying something like that is essentialy like saying the state is more powerful than God or reason. But it is not, because you are a man long before you are a citizen. If a person in an extermination camps says he has no rights, because the camp guards acknowledge none of his rights, then he is essentially saying the guards are breaking none of his rights (because he has none) in killining him and are therefore blameless and not doing anything wrong in killing him. But we know full well that the modern state is not blameless, which is in itself a confirmation that there is such a thing as natural rights that exist independently of any acknowledgment by the state. The "acknowledgment" is meaningless. A mugger that is threatening me with a pistol has a power over me and he can decide not to acknowledge my right to my twenty bucks, but that doesn`t trully mean I have no such right does it. There is power and there is right. Power stems from force and right stems from God. In the other hand, it can be argued, like I do - although that would still be rejected by most of the "thinking elite" - that those that can't behave like proper human beings, do not deserve to be shielded by those rights intended to protect the human being. In other words, it's a way to relativize some "fundamental rights" of a especial kind of criminal - rapists and people take part in slave trade, for example. Never fight on enemies terms. It seems pragmatic and shrewd to manouver like this and try to get your way across via a detour, but this are the points coming from the direction that the "thinking elite" like you call them have already anticipatedand and have a counter-tactic (a smear campaign as an insensitive fanatic) ready. Being pragmatic ultimatley only means you are fighting with only half of the weapons at your disposal. BTW, do you really want to grant the flawed modern state the power to execute people? How long until that gives the power groups the power to sentance you to death by torture for anti-fagg hate speech? |
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Oct 1, 2008 19:27:01 GMT -5
... Even absent punishment by death, there would have to be infringement on Liberty (I hope nobody would argue that dangerous elements needs to be isolated from rest of society?) ... IMHO, depriving such criminals of "right to life" is preferable. I don`t know why you think that is what I argue. I said dispensing justice is not a violation of any rights, just like self-defense is not. Justice stands to protect these rights not infringe on them. Sentencing a murderer to death is not an infringment on his right to life, it is an acknowledgment that the murdered had the right to live. It would be leaving the murderer to live that would send the message the murdered had no unalianable right to live. |
|
|
|
Post by Яромip on Oct 3, 2008 9:52:23 GMT -5
What are "natural rights"? Where do they come from? Who decides what is a "natural right" and what isn't? Who has the "right" to enforce natural rights? I think the concept is far too complicated, but if you can explain it I would be grateful.
The whole issue is becoming confusing and completely muddy. For example, some UN bleeding hearts want to make "right to nutrition" a basic human right. What does that mean?
Well to me, it would be more about violation of God's Law and committing a SIN.
Now, there is a huge difference between Divine and Secular laws. Divine laws by their very nature are a-logical as they arrive through Revelation. Divine law cannot be explained in a chain of logical constructs. Nonetheless, people more readily accept Divine Law over Secular Law.
That is an unchangeable feature of humans, one that won't change any time soon; hence any successful system would have to take it into account.
|
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Oct 3, 2008 14:41:54 GMT -5
What are "natural rights"? Where do they come from? The creator of all things? Who decides what is a "natural right" and what isn't? Who decides two plus two is four? Nobody `decides`, it just makes sense. Who has the "right" to enforce natural rights? Anybody. But rights are not enforced. Rights are defended. Only obligations can be enforced. I think the concept is far too complicated, but if you can explain it I would be grateful. That we are made in god`s image means nothing else but that we are granted reason, the capacity to know and figure out things. So just as we can figure out other natural laws, such as the laws of physics, mathematics and logic we can figure out the laws of ethics. The whole issue is becoming confusing and completely muddy. For example, some UN bleeding hearts want to make "right to nutrition" a basic human right. What does that mean? It means they are idiots, who haven`t switched on their brains. What they propose is not a right it is a privilege. Ie a "license" to break other people`s rights. There can be no induvidual`s right that obliges other induviduals to do something for him. All true rights are strictly of the `no right to bother me` type. Now, there is a huge difference between Divine and Secular laws. Divine laws by their very nature are a-logical as they arrive through Revelation. Divine law cannot be explained in a chain of logical constructs. Jews, Muslims and Dispensionalist Protestants belive in a god who is not binded by any ethical law, but is "above" them. So hypotheticaly if their sort of god raped a babe it would not constitute an immoral act, because the whole morality deal does not apply to god. Now that is a load of crap. I think Christian god is not only binded by ethics and goodness he is synonymous with it. Therefore he can no more commit evil than water can flow upstream. Equally so he could never "pass" a divine law that would be evil (unethical). Therefore God`s revelations are not a-logical. They are always in sync with the ethical laws he constructed and which he in his infinite wisdom knows far better than we do. Divine revelations are an aid from God to better help us understand his ethics mechanism. (Infact Christians hold humans are so flawed and feeble-minded we would have never stood a chance figuring anything out were it not for the Messiah explaining us a few finer points.) Note for example how ten commandments are not at all arbitrary and a-logical. It is very doubtful a number of people hadn`t figured out and practiced the `respect you parents` point on their own well before Moses got around to writting it down. Now, there is a huge difference between Divine and Secular laws. I disaggree. The problem is precisley that state law tries to fight and replace the religious laws, and in so doing becomes far too much like it. Christian teachings make very little distinction between "doing no evil" and "doing good". That is logical since its concern is salvation of every induvidual. It is also no problem at all because the church would never dare to think to enforce the "do good" parts with a threat of violence, because salvation requires acts of free will, so using force would be self-defeating. But secular law has only any buissiness defending the rights which means taking care of the "do no harm" (ie violate no ones rights) part. Like persecuting murderers, slavers and thieves. Because that is all that takes to have a functioning, peacefull society. Instead it assumes for itself the right to barge into the "do good" part of the equation for which it has absolutley no authority to do. Forgivness, charity for the hungry, charity for the unemployed... these are perhaps all very good things. But only when they are voluntary. But when they are legislated, ie enforced in form of no death sentance, "the right to nutrients" and welfare taxes they just represent a violation of our basic rights to do as we please with our mind and property as long as we don`t bother anyone. They become an obligation of the sort that forced labour on a nobles demesne was for a serf. |
|
|
|
Post by Яромip on Oct 6, 2008 14:36:16 GMT -5
What %% of population has to agree on something before it is considered "common sense" or "just makes sense"?
I think maybe some time in the past people did have for lack of better words, instinct to what is right and moral, but it does not exist in general population now.
And you shouldn't use mathematical metaphors with a mathematician ;D
Two and Four are mental abstractions that don't exist in nature. Addition is even a bigger abstraction. It only seems to "just make sense" because we learned it at young age.
When mathematicians tried to rigorously define arithmetic they needed 2 voluminous tomes (and 2 more for algebra).
And this is what I mean by a-logical. Arithmetic when conveyed by human experience is very simple and easy to learn/teach. Arithmetic defined in philosophical terms is insanely complex.
I see of no way to drive a solid Logical foundation under concepts of Morality, Honor, Decency.
Emmanuel Kant attempted to establish Secular Morality by his imperative: "Do that which you don't mind becoming general rule." That is, before doing something, ask yourself what would happen if everybody started doing it. It doesn't work. Logical foundation for Morality or Rights does not, and IMHO cannot work.
You would always have to fall back to "well it just makes sense" (which it doesn't to everybody!), or you have to thump the scripture. The latter option isn't perfect, but it is the best I can see. Everybody CAN learn a set of rules to live by.
Very very interesting. I will have to think a while about that part of your post.
What do you think about doing harm indirectly through inaction. Say, having extra bread which rots while somebody else starves?
|
|
joko
Mladshiy Leytenant
Posts: 205
|
Post by joko on Oct 6, 2008 17:54:22 GMT -5
I think I did not make myself understood. What I had in mind did not sound the way I wanted in English. I did not have ethnical or religious concept on my mind when I said "right humans". "Right" in the sense of someone who behaves like a proper human being, and rapists don't account for that. I said that because those liberal morons are always calling for "human rights" for rapists and the like, but they don't deserve any, because they don't act like humans in the first place. Absolutely correct. There is no "cure" for a rapist, child molester, etc. However, despite the fact that this article concerns Turks, Albanians, etc. and that seems to be the highlighted feature of the article, there are plenty of Slavic men involved in this despicable Sex trafficing. The first two men mentioned in the article were Slavs who sold her into slavery. This is something we also need to combat. |
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Oct 6, 2008 19:51:07 GMT -5
What %% of population has to agree on something before it is considered "common sense" or "just makes sense"? It`s not a poll. We can all agree the earth is triangular, but it won`t make it so. I think maybe some time in the past people did have for lack of better words, instinct to what is right and moral, but it does not exist in general population now. Even little kidds know they`ve been wronged if an older sibling ate their candy and will get upset. And it`s not about the candy, it`s about getting screwed. But nobody said ethics are easy. Other natural mechanics aren`t so why should these be? But I would say ethics are hard much more because of human nature than because of their complexity. Which is why most people get bogged down somewhere around the ten commandments level. -------- Would you care if your car got vandalised? Of course. Would you care just for the costs it is going to take you to fix it? No, you would be upset more than just because of a few hundred dollars. Would you be angry because the perpetrator commited a sin? Of course not. Thats for God to get pissed off about. You would be angry because of something else. Why would you feel this additional anger if you do not recognise any objective morality? If there are no objective rights then the vandal had every right to damage your car, so why do you feel like he had no right to do it? Two and Four are mental abstractions that don't exist in nature. Addition is even a bigger abstraction. It only seems to "just make sense" because we learned it at young age. Yeah, the point was supposed to be that the logic of it can be demonstrated with a mathematical proof. You can think of a simpler example if 2+2 is too complicated. I see of no way to drive a solid Logical foundation under concepts of Morality, Honor, Decency. Well they`re all culturaly biased terms and have to do as much with arbitrary tradition as with reason. (Unles you mean morality in the absolute sense.) You would always have to fall back to "well it just makes sense" (which it doesn't to everybody!), or you have to thump the scripture. The latter option isn't perfect, but it is the best I can see. Everybody CAN learn a set of rules to live by. Well that is some sort of utilitarian argument. But I don`t think it is superior even from a purely practical perspective. Whichever religious text you pick, it is either going to lead to production of extremley arbitrary rules, or it is going to allow many different interpretations. So you are either left with extremley arbitrary rules, which then alot of people are going to recognise for being arbitrary and will not want to subject themselves to. Or you are left with many competing sets of rules, with different bible thumpers quoting different passages and so on. With rights simply figured out at least we agree on metodology (deduction) and the starting point (clean sheet) and can discount conclusions that we figure did not follow the correct "metodology" because every rule must be illustrated by a step by step thought process behind it. Of course there is no guarantee it would get accepted, but then the Nietszhean animals don`t know that there is anything wrong with murder, but their philosophy is not a valid defense in courts just the same. Very very interesting. I will have to think a while about that part of your post. Maybe try en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rightsOf course as a nationalist there are additional points. Such as that narodi as organic collectives have "negative rights" of their own and that by identifying with your narod you accept an obligation to defend these rights. What do you think about doing harm indirectly through inaction. Say, having extra bread which rots while somebody else starves? That is a good example how ethics can get so quickly obscured and side tracked by human nature. You can not do harm by inaction. You`re just not doing good. But for not doing good only God can hold you accountable not men. If there is a man that doesn`t send extra bread to starving people that makes him a horrible person. But there is no law against being a horrible person. And thank god, because actualy we are all horrible people. There are hungry people right now and I`m sure just last week some of us let a quarter of a loaf go to waste. Surely we should have been sent to jail? But would the folks locking us up be doing a good thing or would they be unjust, hypocrites breaking our rights? Why make a difference between us and some guy who lets a whole cellar of bread rott? Because in his case it is more bread? But where do you put the line? 10 loafs, 100 loafs, one thousands? It`s an arbitrary line. It has no sense of it`s own. Of course we being only humans would have hanged by the lampost someone that let a cellar full of his bread rott while people went hungry. But at least we should admit to ourselves that makes us hypocrites and not hide behind any laws. Once you go there just aren`t any valid lines anymore. If somebody has the right to welfare why should it be 500 dollars? Maybe you are really entitled to 550 dollars? If there should be a law against someone that lets a cellarfull of his bread rott while people go hungry, why shouldn`t there be a law against anyone that does not do all the good that it is in his power to do? Why not put in jails anyone that isn`t in the Amazonian rain forrest building mud huts for the natives? Anybody that doesn`t give away all of his possesions to the less fortunate than him? Even if he is already dirt poor! (Thats a theoretical anwser, of course in reality if there were a guy with a cellar full of bread rotting while around him people are starving he is probably the son of a bitch who stole all their bread to make them to starve. And if he isn`t it is highly unlikely he would not find the goodness in him to give up the extra bread. Also in reality far more people have died of hunger because of actions of other people, than by inaction of people who had the means to prevent it.) Legislating decency doesn`t get you decency. It gets you a shouting match where everybody wants his own idea of decency be encoded into law. And everybody complaining there is no decency. Equaly legislating goodness doesn`t bring you goodness. It just gets you alot of people angling to oblige other people to do stuff for them, get something for nothing and score a free lunch. While everyone is complaining they aren`t getting enough for what they contribute. |
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Sept 12, 2009 15:23:08 GMT -5
Hungary in war of words with Slovaks.
By Nick Thorpe
BBC News, Budapest
Friday, 11 September 2009 10:14 UK
The prime ministers of Hungary and Slovakia, Gordon Bajnai and Robert Fico, have agreed on measures to defuse a row which is poisoning relations between the two countries.
The talks at a castle in the northern Hungarian town of Szecseny focused on the amended State Language Law which came into force in Slovakia on 1 September. It sets out to strengthen the use of Slovak in minority areas.
Speaking after Thursday's meeting, Mr Fico pledged that "no individual will be fined in Slovakia for using their own language".
Slovaks say the law is necessary to reinforce the speaking of Slovak. Hungarians say that should be done by better teaching, not by law and fines as the new regulations envisage.
Relations between the two countries have deteriorated to the extent that Hungarian President Laszlo Solyom was prevented from paying an unofficial visit to Slovakia on 21 August.
Both countries have now agreed on closer consultations to prevent any repetition of that incident, as well as on police co-operation to combat racism.
At least half a million Hungarians live in Slovakia - 10% of the population.
Daily dilemmas
"When Slovaks come into my shop, of course we speak to them in Slovak," said Eva Takacs, manager of a flower shop in Dunajska Streda, a town in southern Slovakia which is ninety per cent Hungarian.
"If we make mistakes, they are kind enough to correct us. That's common sense. I don't believe this law will achieve its objective - to destroy the good relations which exist between Slovaks and Hungarians."
From another predominantly Hungarian town, Galanta, a woman working in a hairdressers complained on a Hungarian language website that her Slovak boss had told her she was forbidden to speak in Hungarian to customers from 1 September.
Controversy still reigns over the exact meaning and interpretation of the amended law. The Slovak ambassador to Budapest, Peter Weiss, assured journalists that it only affects public, not private contacts.
But Article 1.5 says specifically that the law applies not only to state and municipal authorities, but also to "legal persons, self-employed natural persons and private individuals".
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has also been drawn into the dispute.
Both countries have now accepted that the OSCE will act as adviser and referee in the dispute.
Before Thursday's meeting the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities, Knut Vollebaek, issued a confidential "opinion" on the new Slovak law at Slovakia's request.
"The amendments to the State Language Law pursue a legitimate aim and are - overall - in line with international standards.
"Some elements, however, raise or - depending on the implementation - might raise issues of compatibility with international standards and with the constitutional principles of the Slovak Republic," reads a copy of the opinion, seen by the BBC.
It cites more than a dozen criticisms of the law, which were not taken into account by the Slovak parliament when it passed the law on 30 June.
Sources at the OSCE say they believe the Hungarian side are also exaggerating the harmful effects, and that the real test will be in the way the law is implemented.
The Slovak Ministry of Culture, which is responsible for overseeing the law, expects to actually start implementing it from January 2010.
Historical legacy
Until the 1920 Treaty of Trianon, Slovakia was part of greater Hungary, and is still known as the Felvidek or "Uplands" to this day.
The region played an important role in the survival of Hungarian culture, and Hungarian kings were crowned in Bratislava during the Turkish occupation of other parts of the country in the 16th and 17th centuries.
In 1993 Slovakia and the Czech Republic became separate countries. In 1999 both joined Nato, then in 2004 the European Union, alongside Hungary, Poland and several other former communist bloc states.
Prime Minister Fico has appealed for national unity for the "defence of Slovakia's national interests".
He accused Slovak journalists of breaking ranks to criticise the law and the way in which the Hungarian president was prevented from visiting the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Sept 17, 2009 4:45:45 GMT -5
New language law in Slovakia is source of tensions
Ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia feeling bullied by new law that curbs minority tongues
PABLO GORONDI
AP News
Sep 16, 2009 16:03 EST
In a borderless European Union that boasts 23 official languages, one member, Slovakia, has enacted a law that limits the use of the languages of some fellow EU members.
The extraordinary step has roots in animosities that go back to the days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and has Slovakia's large Hungarian minority afraid of being pursued by the language police.
Slovakia was once part of Hungary and is home to a population of 520,000 ethnic Hungarians who complain of discrimination by the Slovak government.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said the law does not apply to private individuals — only to officials and state institutions — but there are clear signs the legislation has started to affect everyday life.
"Some people are beginning to abuse this law," said Eva Szucs, a saleswoman at a shopping mall in Nove Zamky, a Slovak town with a large Hungarian population some 35 kilometers (21 miles) north of the border with Hungary.
Since the law came into force on Sept. 1, Szucs said she'd been involved in several incidents at her workplace. On one occasion, she was at the cash register and speaking in Hungarian to one of the buyers when someone in line warned her about her choice of language.
"She said 'In Slovakia, Slovakian,'" recalled Szucs, adding that she had never before faced such problems since she started working at the mall in 1971. "There are plenty of people who want to provoke and cause conflicts now."
The law, which took effect on Sept. 1, limits the use of Hungarian and Slovakia's other minority languages, in public and calls for fines of up to euro5,000 ($7,300) for anyone "misusing" language. The terms of the law are ambiguous, and officials have yet to spell out what constitutes an infraction.
Tensions between Slovakia and Hungary over the law have had serious diplomatic consequences, such as an unprecedented ban last month on a private visit to Slovakia by Hungarian President Laszlo Solyom.
Friction dates back to the days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, when Slovakia was absorbed into the sprawling state ruled by Hapsburgs from Vienna and Budapest.
Hungary lost around half of its population and two-thirds of its territory when the empire crumbled at the end of World War I, a painful issue for many Hungarian even nearly 90 years later.
Recently, relations between the countries took a hit when Jan Slota's ultra-nationalist Slovak National Party became part of Slovakia's government coalition in 2006.
Fico and Gordon Bajnai, his Hungarian counterpart, met last week in a town on the Hungarian side of the border and while they agreed to a series a measures meant to improve relations, political tensions were palpable.
While many Hungarians in Slovakia criticized the language law, most also blamed politicians for the squabbles.
"We have become a lightning rod for a political storm and it is difficult," said Denes Bolcskei, a 34-year-old bookstore owner in Komarno, a city with a majority Hungarian population on the shores of the Danube River, which separates the two countries.
Bolcskei said that because of the new language law, he will change some of the signs in his shop — where 60 percent of his inventory consists of Slovak and Czech books and the rest Hungarian — to always have Slovak listed first.
Kurt Vollebaek, the OSCE High Commissioner for Minorities, visited Hungary this week and also met with Slovak officials on Wednesday in Bratislava, the Slovak capital.
He told reporters after the Wednesday's meeting that it is "essential" that different provisions of the law are not misinterpreted and arbitrarily implemented.
"Striking the right balance between the rights of the minorities and the interest of the state is a difficult task and requires patience and understanding from all parties involved," Vollebaek said.
Vollebaek has said that while the basic aspects of the Slovak language law conform with international standards, some parts of the legislation, especially the intent to levy fines, could be problematic.
"The imposition of fines might easily create or exacerbate tensions and should in principle be avoided," Vollebaek said in his opinion on the language law issued in July.
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Sept 17, 2009 4:57:49 GMT -5
Vollebaek: Language Act Eligible for Proper Implementation
Bratislava, September 16 (TASR) - High Commissioner for National Minorities from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe Knut Vollebaek reiterated on Wednesday that the amendment to Slovakia's State Language Act does not contravene international standards, and neither endangers nor discriminates against anybody, TASR learnt on Wednesday.
It doesn't mean that the law is perfect, "but it's a law that can be worked with to ensure its proper implementation," said Vollebaek at a press conference in Bratislava.
According to the commissioner, who hails from Norway, application of the legislation and the elimination of any negative impact upon minorities can be secured via detailed and obligatory rules. At the same time, it's important to ensure that until these rules are drawn up the law won't be applied in an arbitrary manner.
With respect to the controversial response that the law has garnered, Vollebaek said that "some of the critical points were fair and constructive; while some of the criticism was misleading and exaggerated."
Slovak Culture Minister Marek Madaric gave assurances to Vollebaek that Slovakia embraces his recommendations regarding the Act. He specified that this implies in particular drawing up internal regulations concerning the codification of the state language as well as methodical instructions that will harmonise interpretation of the unclear or disconcerting provisions of the Act.
He added that in the process of drafting these instructions the ministry will fully cooperate with experts from the High Commissioner's Office.
Vollebaek cautioned that the creation of these methodical instructions must be transparent in a way that this process can include politicians, civic associations and minorities. The instructions concerned should chiefly cover, for instance, official communication, geographical names in textbooks, non-periodical publications and memorial plaques.
According to Vollebaek, the introduction of sanctions for violations of the law is not an especially good idea. However, he added that it's not illegal, and that Slovakia is fully entitled to introduce these measures.
Madaric added that penalties will be introduced only after the methodical instructions are approved.
As well, Vollebaek embraced an 11-point declaration approved by Slovak and Hungarian prime ministers Robert Fico and Gordon Bajnai on September 11. The premiers confirmed, among other things, their joint interest in lowering the tensions in mutual relations, committed themselves to respect minority rights and, in connection with the Slovak State Language Act, declared that both countries will accept Vollebaek's recommendations.
According to the high commissioner, commitment of the two countries to combat extremism, xenophobia and racial intolerance is particularly important.
Slovak Foreign Affairs Minister Miroslav Lajcak, upon whose invitation Vollebaek's visit to Slovakia took place, noted that a mixed Slovak-Hungarian commission will meet on September 25, with experts from the OSCE High Commissioner's Office to be invited as well.
Vollebaek pointed out that Slovakia and Hungary do not need a mediator as their communication channels are sufficient, but may find some advice or proposal useful every now and then.
tf/tm
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Jan 20, 2010 19:56:52 GMT -5
Foreign ministry: Slovakia is ready to take in 3 Guantanamo prisoners.
AP News
Jan 19, 2010 07:12 EST
The Slovak Foreign Ministry says the country has agreed to take in three inmates from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in an effort to help President Barack Obama to close it down.
The ministry says the move is a "gesture of solidarity" with Obama's foreign policy. It said in a statement Tuesday the three have not been accused or convicted of any crime and no evidence to press any charges against them is available.
No details about the three or their nationality were given.
Obama ordered the Guantanamo facility closed by January 2010, but has already acknowledged he will miss the deadline.
Other European nations including France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain have also agreed to accept detainees in recent months.
|
|
