20·
2 months agoHonestly… Im against the death penalty, but if you decide to go that way as a country just be honest with yourself and allow death by firing squad.
Humanius
- 0 Posts
- 17 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 24th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
In the Dutch parliamentary system we do have a two-house structure (i.e. we have a Parliament and a Senate), while also having proportional representation.
-
There is a national election every four years that determines the make-up of the national parliament. The result directly proportionally determines the seat division (150 seats total).
-
There is also a provincial election every four years. This directly proportionally determines the seat division of the respective provincial houses.
But it also indirectly determines the make-up of the Senate. The provincial houses hold their own election and vote for the seat division of the Senate (75 seats total for 12 provinces).
It is traditionally seen that Parliament proposes, argues and passes legislation, while the Senate checks the passed legislation for constitutionality before giving it their sign of approval.
Another view is that Parliament is the direct representation of the people, while the Senate is the national representation of the provincial houses.I think it is worth keeping in mind that an electoral system doesn’t have to be exactly like the theoretically pure version. You can mix and match elements to something that would suit your situation best (for instance in terms of achievability)
-
Americans… maybe… at least those stupid enough to vote for this guy again.
I feel bad for the Americans who knew what Trump stood for and voted Harris to at least prevent that.The rest of the world doesn’t deserve this though… And Trump will still affect them and their lives in many ways.
The Houthis are funded by Iran, get their weapons provided by Iran, and Iran provides them with targeting information.
You’d really have to warp the definition of proxy in order not to consider them a proxy to Iran (even if they are a bit of an unpredictable factor)
The headline is a bit misleading. Trump agreed to the ABC debate if Harris agrees to the Fox debate.
This is just a ploy for him to either get Harris to show up on Fox, or if she doesn’t debate him on Fox, spin it in such a way that Harris is somehow not wanting to debate him (Even though she never agreed to a Fox debate)
More like they have an ancient sewage system.
Basically, if the sewer system gets overwhelmed, for instance if there is a large amount of rainfall in a short time, then the sewage overflows directly into the Seine.
They have built infrastructure leading up to the Olympics to capture this overflow in storage tanks, but you cannot build infinitely large storage tanks so at some point it will still overflow.And 2024 has been a very wet year thusfar, so…
Okay… So he went to Russia in 2003. Considering that the consensus in 2003 was that Russia was still on its way to becoming a democracy I am not that offended by it personally.
“Putin’s hometown” being St. Petersburg, which is the 2nd biggest city in Russia.What is more worrying is all the things that happened since 2003.
Please please please don’t vote the orange man into office… good God.
https://www.thecable.ng/historical-review-nigerias-national-minimum-wage/
It looks like this would be a monthly figure. Based on this source minimum wage currently sits at 30.000 Naira ($22,45) /month.
From what I understand it is higher than what it was set at in the 80s, but the value of the Naira did drop quite a bit over time (when compared to the US dollar)According to this website the 1981 wage would have been equivalent to $204, while the 2024 wage is equivalent to $24
The ICJ has not said that Israel is definitively committing genocide
The [ICJ] ordered Israel to refrain from any acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention and to ensure its troops commit no genocidal acts in Gaza.
“At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention,” the judges said.The ICJ has said that there is a possibility that some of the allegations that South-Africa has brought forward might fall under the definition genocide.
That is not a definitive statement. That is saying that further investigation is justified.I have also not seen the Israeli government openly calling for genocide or the extermination of the Palestinian people. However, I have seen plenty of instances of the Israeli government calling for the elimination of Hamas.
It could be that “Hamas” is a veiled placeholder for “Palestinians”, but it could also very well be that they are specifically talking about the terrorist group.My problem is not the suggestion that it might be genocide. I’m not even entirely convinced that it isn’t. My problem is people claiming that it is definitely, factually, genocide, while referencing statements by courts that have never been made.
Prime-minister Rutte was literally with Netanyahu today calling for a cease-fire and for Israel tone down the attacks.
The Netherlands may be an ally of Israel, but they are hardly saying “Israel can do no wrong”
You claim that Israel is “factually” committing genocide, but there are legitimate reasons why people are hesitant to outright call what is going on in Gaza a genocide.
On Wikipedia the definition of genocide is as follows:
In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.
Key part in this definition that people generally get hung up on in the case of the Gaza, is the “intent to destroy”.
Very few people are arguing that Israel is not extremely heavy-handed with their actions in Gaza, to the point that they have likely committed war crimes against the civilians of Gaza. However it is insanely difficult to prove that there is an “intent to destroy” in full, or in part, the Palestinian people in Gaza as a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
There are plausible explanations as to why the current operation might not meet that definition.
Maybe it is a genocide… Maybe the Israeli army is merely very heavy-handedly eradicating a terrorist group, with a high civilian death toll as a side-effect… The latter is almost definitely a war crime, but it is not necessarily a genocide. We simply do not have the full picture yet.
I think editorializing actual statements made by the court to make them sound like they support the case for genocide, only serves to muddy the discussion. And I take pretty big issue with that.
Edit: Small disclaimer… I’m talking in this case about what is currently going on in Gaza.
What is going on in the West-Bank with the settlers is a different matter.That situation I consider to be ethnic displacement, at the very least, committed by the settlers with the full support of the Israeli government.
This is a judgement by the Dutch high court, not the government.
The Dutch government is still studying the verdict, but is seemingly looking to reverse the decision.
The court did not use the term genocide (or at least that is not how it is being reported on here in the Netherlands)
“Israël houdt bij haar aanvallen onvoldoende rekening met de gevolgen voor de burgerbevolking”, schrijven de rechters. “Het hof oordeelt dat er een duidelijk risico bestaat dat met de F-35-gevechtsvliegtuigen van Israël ernstige schendingen van het humanitaire oorlogsrecht worden gepleegd in de Gazastrook.”
Translated:
“Israel, in its attacks, does not take enough consideration of the consequences for the civilian population,” write the judges. “The court judges that there exists a clear risk that, using the F35 fighter jets, severe violations of the humanitarian rules of war are being committed in the Gaza Strip.”
“Violating the humanitarian rules of war” doesn’t mean the same as “genocide is being committed”
In my honest opinion, implying that the court has said anything along those lines is being dishonest.
Edit: The following paragraph is also worth noting:
“Dat op dit moment niet een definitief juridisch oordeel kan worden gegeven over de vraag of Israël het humanitair oorlogsrecht op ernstige wijze schendt, dat klopt op zichzelf”, ging de rechter verder. “Dat oordeel geeft het hof ook niet. Maar daar gaat het in deze zaak niet om. Het gaat er in deze zaak alleen om of er een duidelijk risico is dat de naar Israël uitgevoerde F-35-onderdelen gebruikt worden bij het begaan van ernstige schendingen van het humanitair oorlogsrecht. Het hof oordeelt dat onmiskenbaar is dat dat een duidelijk risico is.”
Translated:
“That at this moment there cannot be a definitive legal judgement on the question of whether Israel has violated the humanitarian rules of war in a serious manner, is correct on its face,” continues the judge. “The court doesn’t make that judgement. But that is also not what this case is about. This case it is only about whether there exists a clear risk that the F-35 parts which get exported to Israel get used in the committing of serious violations of the humanitarian rules of war. The court decides that it is unmistakable that that is a clear risk.”
The court case did not look at whether Israel is definitely committing violations of the humanitarian rules of war, but rather whether there is a reasonable assumption of risk that the F35 planes get used in such violations.
And judging by the extent of the attacks on Gaza by Israel, it’s probably fair to say that there is such a risk.Edit 2: Some tweaks to the translations.
Yeah, I was hesitating between using “transgenders” or “transgender people” there.
In the end I chose “transgenders” because it fit better with “homosexuals” a paragraph prior. I didn’t really mean anything more by it.I’ll be sure to edit the comment though :)
P.S. I also used the word “transgenderism” a few paragraphs prior, which I know is sometimes used as a dog whistle too.
In that case I specifically chose to use that word because of the context of that sentence being an example of hate.
It makes more sense if you look at this as them needing a scapegoat.
Most people don’t (or until very recently didn’t) really understand what being transgender actually is all about.
This makes it really easy to fearmonger the general population, by painting their “lifestyle” as everything that is wrong with society.And if you want to solve this issue… well clearly you have to vote for them, because the other guys don’t see the inherent dangers of transgenderism, now do they?
This is not anything inherent to being transgender. The scapegoat before this were homosexuals.
However society has progressed to the point where most people understand what homosexuality is, and accept (or at the very least tolerate) homosexuals existing as a part of society. It turns out they weren’t pedophilic devil worshipers after all…That will happen with transgender people too. People will learn, acceptance will grow.
And when it does, these cretins move on to the next minority group.Bonus round: Replace “transgender” with “Jew” in the things I mentioned above, and see what that reminds you of.
You’re posting to the wrong community.
May I suggest !asklemmy@lemmy.world