On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
No, they represent a fraction of the ruling coalition, which has passed
hairier laws in the past, using the well-known quid pro quo arrangements
with other coalition members from other parties. In this country the
words 'don't worry only a few MKs voted for it' is a set of 'famous last
words' because often such laws pass anyway due to the 'arrangements'
between the coalition parties. Give me a stricter shabbat law and I'll
give you some money for the kibbutzim, or vice versa. You know how it
works.
And before it becomes law it will be discussed and passed or vetoed by more
and more members of knesset. The law of averages applies even in the quid
pro quo dealings of political parties. On the average the laws passed will
be reasonable and will represent the will of the majority even if that means
that those opposing a "stricter shabbat law" thought it was worth passing if
they could get "money for kibbutzim". That is also part of the game.
Since you are speaking of averages, as I demonstrated before: In any
government coalition formed by minority fractions, ALL initiatives
started by any one side are a minority initiative. It follows that no
initiative would pass the vote of the others if it has any conflict of
interest with them. But parties have exactly that to differentiate them,
conflicts of interest.
The reason *ANY* initiatives pass is the quid pro quo system in which
one hand washes the other, and both wash the face. Exterior discussion
is strongly opposed because the quid pro quo agreements are very
difficult to make and maintain. There is alot of quid pro quoing going
on behind closed doors. An external petition or other public involvment
has the potential to throw a wrench in the works after the fact and
cause *both* laws arranged in a quid pro quo not to pass. Strange as it
seems, this is the way it works. You may have noticed that referendums
and popular opinion polls are few and far between in Israeli politics.
Ever wondered why ? That's one reason I am discouraged by politics in
this country and do not take an interest.
Since the law is targeted at people under the age of eighteen, I assume the
commission will ask the question: Would I choose to show that to a 17 year
old? As parents we make these decisions all the time and again it comes
back to my original question- who actually wants their children to be
looking at pornography? If there aren't legal definitions already, they'll
be made- I'm sure that they won't as "bad" as you suggest. You are right to
assume that I would rather stricter rules but I'll be happy with any rules.
This is exactly like the laws that govern alcohool and tobacoo sales to
children. They are there, and everyone breaks them every day, you can
see kids under 18 smoking with a beer bottle in their hand everywhere.
Why ? How ? Who ? Forget it. Speeding laws ? Guess who is breaking them
(hint: teens). And you really think that a knesset law will implement a
working control on the most dynamic media in existence, a feat that has
eluded China and Iran ? Please. This is a technical forum, we all know
what an IP tunnel and a SSL prxy can do. I just gave an example in the
previous email.
happy purim,
Peter
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
