Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
What is this?
Less
More
Memberships
Liberty Politics Discussion
1.2k members • Free
7 contributions to Liberty Politics Discussion
2d •
Italy's New Femicide Law: Discrimination Against Men?
Italy recently introduced femicide (murder of women) as a distinct crime. Most news outlets say that the law makes murdering a woman punishable by life in prison if the victim's female gender was the murderer's motive. The crime of femicide will be punished more harshly than murder in general. Most news outlets say what happens when the victim is a woman. But I haven't seen an article that specifically adresses whether the law protects men and trans people as well. For example, murdering a man due to hatred of men, or murdering a trans person due to hatred of trans people, etc. People online talk about the law assuming it only protects women, so I assume that's what the law says. But I haven't found a definite source that confirms this. If it is true, then the law is exremely illiberal and discriminatory. Violence against woman is exremely serious, but on legal level, we should all have equal protection. If femicide is recognized as a distinct crime, then so should androcide (murder of men) and transicide (murder of trans people). Does anyone know more than me about this law? Source: https://apnews.com/article/italy-femicide-law-crime-gender-violence-women-99e4be4aaba9f6b940d834ed6c7cb4d0
1 like • 3d
The question itself is racist as it relies on a false and conspiratorial premise. There is no "Muslim invasion" to Europe. There is mass migration of civilians to Europe. The only ongoing invasion to Europe happening right now is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Using the word invasion to refer to mass migration is problematic because it implies illegality and that the migrants are armed combatants. Illegal immigration to Europe obviosuly exists, but here the word invasion is used for legal migrants as well. And the vast vast majority of migrants, whether legal or illegal, are civilians, not armed combatants. (some have ties or are sympathetic to terror groups, and they should obviously be deported) I reject the premise of the question because it conflates invasion with mass migration. Just say mass migration instead of invasion.
23d •
Opposing Wealth and Power Is Treated as Virtue
There is a growing tendency to treat opposition to wealth and power as a moral credential. The powerful are assumed to be corrupt regardless of evidence, while anyone who challenges them is hailed as virtuous before they even make an argument.
1 like • 23d
Exactly! Many people think like this. We often hear "group X can make jokes about group Y because group Y is more powerful and wealthy, so joking about them is 'punching up' while group Y making jokes about group X is bigoted because they are 'unching down.'"
1 like • Oct 26
Thank you for sharing!
Oct 24 •
How can we argue in favor of Israel using international law?
Armin believes that the West Bank should be treated as part of Israel. The problem is, that position is deeply unpopular in the international community. To my understanding, IHL doesn't allow a country to declare sovereignty it acquired during a defensive war. Are there any other principles that can be used to support Armin's view? For example, I discovered the principle of uti possidetis juris. This principle says that a successor state should retain the internal borders from the previous state. The argument is: Since the Palestinian declaration of independence happened in 1988, which is after when Israel acquired the West Bank in 1967, Israel can, as a successor to the British Mandate, declare sovereignty over the West Bank. This is one argument I found. Do you know any other ways to argue in favor of Israel using international law?
1-7 of 7
