The Myth of Sedition and its use as a Political Tool

[Anubis]

@Anubis My post was based purely on the fundamental duties of an Inidan Citizen as enshrined in the Constitution of India. As a bangladeshi you dont have any locus standi to say whether one should follow these fundamental duties or not.

Regarding my signature I am no left liberal I am a proud Right Wing Nationalist. I am not a hypocrite. I am consistent in my stand. For me Nationalism is much more important than Freedom of speech. The hypocrites are the left liberals who claim to profess freedom of speech and then try to shut you down if you say something which opposes their ideology.They consider "Bharat tere tukde honge inshallah" as FoE and saying "Vande Mataram" or "Bharat Mata ki Jai" as against their sensitivities. As a nationalist I consider the slogan "Bharat tere tukde honge inshallah" as anti national and against the fundamental duties of the citizen of India

@hellfire if you have studied the Indian political landscape for the last 70 years you will know very well who are the left liberals and minority appeasers and how is BJP different from them.

@Joe Shearer you dont know me so you cant give out certificates about which fundamental duties I follow and which I dont.

As for co opting the freedom struggle Congress has abandoned the values of patriotism and nationalism. They have sidelined people of the freedom movement like Sardar Patel and Madan Mohan Malviya. Congress has abandoned them but BJP will take their legacy forward

The very fact that you are discussing this in an international forum gives me every right to comment on the Indian Constitution,whether one should follow it or whether it should be changed. If we go by locus standi then Indians should stop commenting on any thread on this forum that does not concern India. The Indian Constitution if I go by your analysis of it is in contradiction of one of the basic human rights...right to freedom of expression.
Dont say falg is just a piece of cloth (like Arundhati Roy)
No mocking of freedom fighters
No mocking of the beliefs of minorities (AND MAJORITIES)Right now leftitists can denegrate hindus and get away with it.
No mocking our cultural heritage (see the point above)

All violate the freedom of opinion as stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which India voted for in the UN.

It is also arguable that the following

To defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so

is also against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it is in effect a form of involuntary servitude.

When you put civil liberties up for votes in a nationalist voter group you rarely end up with anything positive...but we have seen that you do end up Nazi Germany.

If what you say is true and the indian constitution does have such laws it has to be amended and brought in line with the UDHR.

And regarding your signature.....you didn't see the irony yet? You mock a liberal about freedom speech and yet you advocate for laws that ban it...that is the irony...I don't doubt that you are Nationalist(although of what brand I do not know...indian,hindu,bengali...if indian which historic border do you actually consider to be india(Akhand Bharat or border after 47 or Murya empire or whatever border the british had when they ruled)?....if hindu nationalist how do you define a hindu?)

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Anubis My post was based purely on the fundamental duties of an Inidan Citizen as enshrined in the Constitution of India. As a bangladeshi you dont have any locus standi to say whether one should follow these fundamental duties or not.

Regarding my signature I am no left liberal I am a proud Right Wing Nationalist. I am not a hypocrite. I am consistent in my stand. For me Nationalism is much more important than Freedom of speech. The hypocrites are the left liberals who claim to profess freedom of speech and then try to shut you down if you say something which opposes their ideology.They consider "Bharat tere tukde honge inshallah" as FoE and saying "Vande Mataram" or "Bharat Mata ki Jai" as against their sensitivities. As a nationalist I consider the slogan "Bharat tere tukde honge inshallah" as anti national and against the fundamental duties of the citizen of India

@hellfire if you have studied the Indian political landscape for the last 70 years you will know very well who are the left liberals and minority appeasers and how is BJP different from them.

@Joe Shearer you dont know me so you cant give out certificates about which fundamental duties I follow and which I dont.

As for co opting the freedom struggle Congress has abandoned the values of patriotism and nationalism. They have sidelined people of the freedom movement like Sardar Patel and Madan Mohan Malviya. Congress has abandoned them but BJP will take their legacy forward

Thank you for proving two of my points, one right after the other.

It is not merely your views that I object to, it is also your rank stupidity, and that smells to the high heavens. I mocked your not knowing that half of the 'duties' you quoted were not duties at all, and you blundered your way into replying that I did not know which you follow and which you don't. Your following or not following was never the question; it was a question of which are valid duties under the Constitution. And the point I was making was that you are so ignorant that after arguing that your nationalism was based on the Constitution and the Rule of Law, you went on to say that one plank of this nationalism would be the observance of certain duties - of which half or more are contrary to the Constitution! You are therefore by your own specification anti-national!!

How ironic!

I am so happy that I don't put bone-headed people on my ignore list, because they unwittingly supply me with so much amusement.

The second is that both Patel and Malaviya were nothing without the Congress. For you to betray them during the struggle, and then to pretend to take their legacy forward two generations after the struggle shows us all how stupid you are, if you think that we cannot see how you are covering up your nakedness and cowardly behaviour during the freedom struggle by acting zealously to protect the reputation of those exact same people whom you rejected when it was time for action and for sacrifice.

Do you think that we are so stupid that we cannot see that you - and Chhapanincheshwar - have no clothes?

 

[Nilgiri]

Dont say falg is just a piece of cloth (like Arundhati Roy)
No mocking of freedom fighters
No mocking of the beliefs of minorities (AND MAJORITIES)Right now leftitists can denegrate hindus and get away with it.
No mocking our cultural heritage (see the point above)

All violate the freedom of opinion as stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which India voted for in the UN.

Well thats a pretty wrong statement to make:

Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Whoops!

India as a society, through its constitution and law system... gets to decide what public order, public health, morals, rights and reputations mean. A critique on it by outsiders like you certainly holds no water.

Soumitra while I do not see eye to eye with him on certain things, is not wrong in saying a democratically elected govt can do what it feels represents the interests of the people that elected it....through the due process of law under an independent court system (also representatives of the people)....and not violate the UN charter while doing so.

There is a reason India is not looked upon as a 3rd rate banana republic basket case. Same cannot be said about many in its neighbourhood.

 

[Soumitra]

It is not merely your views that I object to, it is also your rank stupidity, and that smells to the high heavens. I mocked your not knowing that half of the 'duties' you quoted were not duties at all, and you blundered your way into replying that I did not know which you follow and which you don't. Your following or not following was never the question; it was a question of which are valid duties under the Constitution. And the point I was making was that you are so ignorant that after arguing that your nationalism was based on the Constitution and the Rule of Law, you went on to say that one plank of this nationalism would be the observance of certain duties - of which half or more are contrary to the Constitution! You are therefore by your own specification anti-national!!

HAVE YOU READ THE CONSTITUTION

Apologize and take back your remarks. I very well know what are the fundamental duties as per the constitution of India

1 [PART IVA FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES 51A.
It shall be the duty of every citizen of India— (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;
(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures; (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence; (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement; *
[(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.]

source http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf (original text of the Indian Constitution from law ministry website)

The very fact that you are discussing this in an international forum gives me every right to comment on the Indian Constitution,whether one should follow it or whether it should be changed. If we go by locus standi then Indians should stop commenting on any thread on this forum that does not concern India. The Indian Constitution if I go by your analysis of it is in contradiction of one of the basic human rights...right to freedom of expression.
Dont say falg is just a piece of cloth (like Arundhati Roy)
No mocking of freedom fighters
No mocking of the beliefs of minorities (AND MAJORITIES)Right now leftitists can denegrate hindus and get away with it.
No mocking our cultural heritage (see the point above)

All violate the freedom of opinion as stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which India voted for in the UN.

It is also arguable that the following

To defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so

is also against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it is in effect a form of involuntary servitude.

When you put civil liberties up for votes in a nationalist voter group you rarely end up with anything positive...but we have seen that you do end up Nazi Germany.

If what you say is true and the indian constitution does have such laws it has to be amended and brought in line with the UDHR.

@Nilgiri has already replied that UDHR comes with reasonable restrictions as per the individual country laws

And regarding your signature.....you didn't see the irony yet? You mock a liberal about freedom speech and yet you advocate for laws that ban it...that is the irony...I don't doubt that you are Nationalist(although of what brand I do not know...indian,hindu,bengali...if indian which historic border do you actually consider to be india(Akhand Bharat or border after 47 or Murya empire or whatever border the british had when they ruled)?....if hindu nationalist how do you define a hindu?)

I am an Indian Nationalist I am an Indian first and a Hindu later. And the national borders I believe are the borders after 1947

 

[Anubis]

Well thats a pretty wrong statement to make:

Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Whoops!

India as a society, through its constitution and law system... gets to decide what public order, public health, morals, rights and reputations mean. A critique on it by outsiders like you certainly holds no water.

Soumitra while I do not see eye to eye with him on certain things, is not wrong in saying a democratically elected govt can do what it feels represents the interests of the people that elected it....through the due process of law under an independent court system (also representatives of the system)....and not violate the UN charter while doing so.

There is a reason India is not looked upon as a 3rd rate banana republic basket case. Same cannot be said about many in its neighbourhood.

I specifically quoted his examples....I did not quote the Indian Constitution....I am not the government of India....but neither is Soumitra or you...here all of us are members of a forum...so him claiming I have no locus standi or you claiming whether my opinion holds any water does not matter unless you can come up with an argument...you are on a FOREIGN forum so expect foreign input in any thread posted here....your points on PDF holds as much water as mine when it comes to how your government is going interpret or implement your constitution. Don't tell me what I am or am not allowed to say.

Now coming to your point. The 3rd Paragraph has detailed explanations to it..look it up....the first part of the 3rd paragraph protects citizens from SLANDER and LIBEL or DEFAMATION.....none of his points fall under that category....claiming a flag is piece of cloth or mocking whoever you want or criticizing any form of ideology(be it religious or otherwise) is not Defamation...if it were the US legal system would have collapsed with millions of people filing these cases.
Now go and revisit Soumitra's original post...see how he said that people who said "they would break up India (if my translation is correct)" could be and should be charged...that kind of speech can be banned....that is why I was careful not to quote that specific point when I made my argument...because I know that kind of statement is not protected freedom of speech.
*Whoops* looks like I knew what I was talking about.

And you trying to bring Bangladesh in the argument is not going to help you....I represent TWO countries here...I pay taxes in both the countries...and both of them give me the respect they give their citizens...so if you think you can play the bigger card here remember I always have the American card up my sleeve....but since I know how not to turn a perfectly legitimate debate into a mud slinging context I will refrain from pointing out how the US is better than India or how the US constitution is a much superior document than any other constitution in the world.


Oh another note: You want to see what double standards is go and see any of them would like to prosecute people for mocking secularism...one of the ideals of your own country...based on the very constitution they like to boast about.

HAVE YOU READ THE CONSTITUTION

Apologize and take back your remarks. I very well know what are the fundamental duties as per the constitution of India

1 [PART IVA FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES 51A.
It shall be the duty of every citizen of India— (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;
(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures; (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence; (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement; *
[(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.]

source http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf (original text of the Indian Constitution from law ministry website)

@Nilgiri has already replied that UDHR comes with reasonable restrictions as per the individual country laws



I am an Indian Nationalist I am an Indian first and a Hindu later. And the national borders I believe are the borders after 1947

Thank you for clarifying your stand...UDHR still protects the points you made under Freedom of Expression...."individual country laws" are not as respected when it comes to human rights issues as you think..other wise all dictators(who almost always write their own constitutions as they wish) would get away with it and the HRC would do nothing but suck their thumbs.

 

[Nilgiri]

Now coming to your point. The 3rd Paragraph has detailed explanations to it..look it up....the first part of the 3rd paragraph protects citizens from SLANDER and LIBEL or DEFAMATION.....none of his points fall under that category....claiming a flag is piece of cloth or mocking whoever you want or criticizing any form of ideology(be it religious or otherwise) is not Defamation...if it were the US legal system would have collapsed with millions of people filing these cases.
Now go and revisit Soumitra's original post...see how he said that people who said "they would break up India (if my translation is correct)" could be and should be charged...that kind of speech can be banned....that is why I was careful not to quote that specific point when I made my argument...because I know that kind of statement is not protected freedom of speech.

The point is public order is a very lax loophole inserted into the UN charter....so bringing it up is pretty stupid if you ask me.

China for example can easily claim (and it has done so on multiple occasions) that the suppression of Tianenmen was for the "public order" and didn't violate human rights at all.

And for India we are talking here about something thats like a tiny fraction of a percentage of seriousness as that was.

I mean there is a whole flag code in India to begin with.

So yes a govt can easily charge people it feels are guilty of sedition under its interpretation and prosecute them under the due process of law....under the public order clause any time of day, any time of week, any time of year without violating the UN charter that it has signed one bit.

So yeah a big whoops like I said. You think anyone would have signed the UN charter if it enshrined free speech at the absolute level

 

[Joe Shearer]

HAVE YOU READ THE CONSTITUTION

Apologize and take back your remarks. I very well know what are the fundamental duties as per the constitution of India

1 [PART IVA FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES 51A.
It shall be the duty of every citizen of India— (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;
(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures; (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence; (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement; *
[(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.]

source http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf (original text of the Indian Constitution from law ministry website)

@Nilgiri has already replied that UDHR comes with reasonable restrictions as per the individual country laws



I am an Indian Nationalist I am an Indian first and a Hindu later. And the national borders I believe are the borders after 1947

Be reasonable, @Soumitra . You can't grow brains overnight. It takes years. You will see progress, I am sure, but you will have to wait.

Is two years too long?

The point is public order is a very lax loophole inserted into the UN charter....so bringing it up is pretty stupid if you ask me.

China for example can easily claim (and it has done so on multiple occasions) that the suppression of Tianenmen was for the "public order" and didn't violate human rights at all.

And for India we are talking here about something thats like a tiny fraction of a percentage of seriousness as that was.

I mean there is a whole flag code in India to begin with.

So yes a govt can easily charge people it feels are guilty of sedition under its interpretation and prosecute them under the due process of law....under the public order clause any time of day, any time of week, any time of year without violating the UN charter that it has signed one bit.

So yeah a big whoops like I said. You think anyone would have signed the UN charter if it enshrined free speech at the absolute level

I could tear Soumitra's original laboured piece into a 108 little pieces if I wanted, but frankly it is so stupidly written that i can't bear to do it. What Anubis is doing is very interesting. He has entirely skirted the detailed refutation of Soumitra's garbage, and has shifted to the international laws platform, arguing about what is ultimately judiciable in the largest arena of all. You may agree, you may disagree, but it's well worth reading.

 

[Anubis]

The point is public order is a very lax loophole inserted into the UN charter....so bringing it up is pretty stupid if you ask me.

China for example can easily claim (and it has done so on multiple occasions) that the suppression of Tianenmen was for the "public order" and didn't violate human rights at all.

And for India we are talking here about something thats like a tiny fraction of a percentage of seriousness as that was.

I mean there is a whole flag code in India to begin with.

So yes a govt can easily charge people it feels are guilty of sedition under its interpretation and prosecute them under the due process of law....under the public order clause any time of day, any time of week, any time of year.

So yeah a big whoops like I said. You think anyone would have signed the UN charter if it enshrined free speech at the absolute level

I know what countries like China or Russia(with their propaganda laws) do .....you repeated my point...China can claim that they were maintaining public order but the HCR still won't buy it...it is still against freedom of expression.
the UDHR does enshrine absolute freedom of speech...whether or not countries follow it to its meaning is another thing...if countries can sign the NPT and still pursue nuclear weapons breaking a article of of DHR is nothing....any person can be charged with anything with people in power any time....but the still will enjoy protection under the international community. The US has way more detailed(or as Trump would say "AWESOMEST") flag code than India.....and yet you can burn it infront of the White House.

 

[Nilgiri]

I could tear Soumitra's original laboured piece into a 108 little pieces if I wanted, but frankly it is so stupidly written that i can't bear to do it. What Anubis is doing is very interesting. He has entirely skirted the detailed refutation of Soumitra's garbage, and has shifted to the international laws platform, arguing about what is ultimately judiciable in the largest arena of all. You may agree, you may disagree, but it's well worth reading.

Like I said I don't see eye to eye with a lot of what he has said on this thread (and other threads)....but bringing up this UN charter nonsense is not going to be the correct avenue to tackling his points effectively.

I am more interested in reading this thread for the time being....there are some fair points being brought up by both sides...and I have churned over a lot of it myself before.

In the end its the constitution of India and its interpretation by the best legal minds in the Indian court system (one can say the supreme court would be the apex of this) that matter no matter which govt comes to power.

 

[Soumitra]

Be reasonable, @Soumitra . You can't grow brains overnight. It takes years. You will see progress, I am sure, but you will have to wait.

Is two years too long?

No mocking tone

Just answer the following questions

1. have you read the Constitution of India?
2. Do you know the Fundamental Duties in Part IV(A) Article 51-A
3. Did you see the link that I gave with the post?
4. Did you not say the following?

Your following or not following was never the question; it was a question of which are valid duties under the Constitution. And the point I was making was that you are so ignorant that after arguing that your nationalism was based on the Constitution and the Rule of Law, you went on to say that one plank of this nationalism would be the observance of certain duties - of which half or more are contrary to the Constitution!

You said that I did not know the duties in the constitution. I have shown you exactly which are the duties of an Indian Citizen under the Constitution of India

You have shown your ignorance of the Fundamental Duties not me. Apologize for your remarks

 

[Joe Shearer]

Like I said I don't see eye to eye with a lot of what he has said on this thread (and other threads)....but bringing up this UN charter nonsense is not going to be the correct avenue to tackling his points effectively.

I am more interested in reading this thread for the time being....there are some fair points being brought up by both sides...and I have churned over a lot of it myself before.

In the end its the constitution of India and its interpretation by the best legal minds in the Indian court system (one can say the supreme court would be the apex of this) that matter no matter which govt comes to power.

Going by your last paragraph (which I agree with entirely, btw), our own poor dear would be ruled out immediately, on grounds of ignorance.

No mocking tone

Just answer the following questions

1. have you read the Constitution of India?
2. Do you know the Fundamental Duties in Part IV(A) Article 51-A
3. Did you see the link that I gave with the post?
4. Did you not say the following?

You said that I did not know the duties in the constitution. I have shown you exactly which are the duties of an Indian Citizen under the Constitution of India

You have shown your ignorance of the Fundamental Duties not me. Apologize for your remarks

Please educate yourself first. The answers to your questions, btw, are Yes, Yes, No and Yes.

You should know that more half of those have been tried in court and discarded. That is why I suspect that you are together stupid and ignorant. Now get lost.

 

[Anubis]

Like I said I don't see eye to eye with a lot of what he has said on this thread (and other threads)....but bringing up this UN charter nonsense is not going to be the correct avenue to tackling his points effectively.

I am more interested in reading this thread for the time being....there are some fair points being brought up by both sides...and I have churned over a lot of it myself before.

In the end its the constitution of India and its interpretation by the best legal minds in the Indian court system (one can say the supreme court would be the apex of this) that matter no matter which govt comes to power.

I could make pages of moral arguments against the things pointed out(You could say,and you would be right, that I would have no standing to comment on the Indian constitution from a moral perspective being an outsider) .....but there is a reason why I brought the Human Rights Declaration(or Nonsesne as you pointed out)...it is a personal experiment...I will let you know once I'm done.

 

[Nilgiri]

I know what countries like China or Russia(with their propaganda laws) do .....you repeated my point...China can claim that they were maintaining public order but the HCR still won't buy it...it is still against freedom of expression.
the UDHR does enshrine absolute freedom of speech...whether or not countries follow it to its meaning is another thing...if countries can sign the NPT and still pursue nuclear weapons breaking a article of of DHR is nothing....any person can be charged with anything with people in power any time....but the still will enjoy protection under the international community. The US has way more detailed(or as Trump would say "AWESOMEST") flag code than India.....and yet you can burn it infront of the White House.

You aren't getting it still are you. Public order is written into the UN freedom of expression. The HCR (with limited effect) has always pursued the more direct dictat with China's clamp down at Tianenmen (i.e people's right to life).

So there is zero chance the HCR will even murmur a single thing about how India goes about pushing sedition cases through its legal framework....because of the public order cause.

Absolute freedom of speech is not enshrined anywhere in the UN. Are you really this thick to keep parroting on ...after the number of times it has been posted in front of your eyes already?

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

==========================

This is the final revision (1966) as far as I am aware and was signed en force in 1976.

I would have to look into the archive to find the provisions for exceptions/restrictions for the original 1948 declaration (it was done differently back then from what I remember)

 

[Soumitra]

Please educate yourself first. The answers to your questions, btw, are Yes, Yes, No and Yes.

You should know that more half of those have been tried in court and discarded. That is why I suspect that you are together stupid and ignorant. Now get lost.

Oh "Wise Master" and "Legal Brain"

Please tell me which are "more than half the duties" which have been tried in court and discarded?

Give me the links to these court cases and judgements which have rendered these duties ultra vires of the constitution?

If they have been discarded by the courts why are they still a part of the constitution?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Oh "Wise Master" and "Legal Brain"

Please tell me which are "more than half the duties" which have been tried in court and discarded?

Give me the links to these court cases and judgements which have rendered these duties ultra vires of the constitution?

If they have been discarded by the courts why are they still a part of the constitution?

LOL.

That's your homework.

I am reminded of the way some whiney little school kids follow around people from a senior class, trying to get their attention. They are such little pests.