Re: Lietuvos naujienos
Posted: 2021-05-18 12:04
Atsiprašau, aš turbūt 90 % Augusto post'ų praleidžiu neskaitęs. Tad neužfiksavau jo pasiaukojimo šioje nelengvoje kovoje.
abejojame nuo 2004-ųjų
https://www.skeptikas.org/forum/
Atsiprašau, aš turbūt 90 % Augusto post'ų praleidžiu neskaitęs. Tad neužfiksavau jo pasiaukojimo šioje nelengvoje kovoje.
Vienos "komandos" gerbėjo Dovydo Skarolskio priekaištas facebook poste kažkokios kitos "komandos" gerbėjui Audriui Bačiuliui dėl to.Seianus wrote: ↑2021-05-18 09:17Ten nėra nieko apie totalitarizmą.fizikanas wrote: ↑2021-05-18 08:36"In Austria, Slovenia, Belgium and Lithuania to name a few, there is serious concern that governments have misused existing laws to restrict the liberty of citizens."
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/17/euro ... index.html
Cia kam nesimate totalitarizmo, kol CNN neparase.
Ir nuo kada mūsų "anti-elitistui" fizikanui rūpi ekspertų ar pan. nuomonė, o ne "tikrųjų tautos atstovų" nuomonė? Tik tada, kai pasitvirtina biasai?Country contributors
[...]
Lithuania
Eglė Dagilytė, Senior Lecturer in Law at Anglia Ruskin University, UK.
Aušra Padskočimaitė, PhD Candidate in Public International Law at IRES Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and Department of Law, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Tuo tarpu pilnesni kontekstai iš pirminio šaltinio:Democracy Reporting International (DRI) recently published a comprehensive study on how governments across the European Union had responded in the context of democracy and the rule of law. France was listed as a country of "significant concern" for the extent to which its government has subverted legal norms.
France is not the only EU nation that has backslid on democracy.
In Austria, Slovenia, Belgium and Lithuania to name a few, there is serious concern that governments have misused existing laws to restrict the liberty of citizens. In fact, DRI listed only Spain out of the 27 EU member states as a country of "no concern" when it came to parliamentary or legal oversight of Covid measures.
The most egregious example probably comes from Hungary, where the government passed legislation that allowed it to rule by decree with no judicial review.
https://democracy-reporting.org/wp-cont ... pdated.pdf
[...]
Five critical issues were raised consistently in the survey of the EU-27 responses during October 2020 and February 2021:
1. Many COVID-19 measures do not have a clear basis in law.
2. Rules are too vague or change too quickly to allow people and authorities to adjust.
3. There is insufficient oversight of government action.
4. The public was not consulted enough on the measures.
5. There is no clear exit strategy.
1.Is this legal? Many COVID-19 measures do not have a clear basis in law
[...]
1. Extended states of emergency and governance by decree that may be unconstitutional (e.g., Czech Republic, Hungary)
[...]
2. Governments exercising existing powers granted by national constitutions or ordinary legislation beyond their intended use (e.g., Austria, Slovenia)
[...]
3. Governments relying on ordinary legislation that was not designed for this use (e.g., Belgium), or that is outdated in relation to modern democratic standards and constitutional requirements (e.g., Cyprus)
[...]
In Lithuania, challenges before the courts against COVID-19 measures continue, arguing that the relevant law provides only for the “limitation” of, rather than an outright ban on certain types of commercial activity.
2.COVID-19 confusion: Rules are too vague or change too quickly to allow people and authorities to adjust
In an emergency there is heightened risk and uncertainty, and the public relies on government and state authorities for clear direction as to what they may or may not legally do. Particularly during a fast-changing situation like a pandemic, where responses might entail significant limitations of human rights, it is essential that information about the rules is as clear, timely and accessible as possible if the public is going to be able to follow them. Legal measures must not be vague or open to different interpretations by state actors. They must also be introduced with sufficient notice for the public to prepare accordingly.
This has not been the case in all instances in the EU. Expert authors from 10 countries (Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovenia) identified “significant concern” with regard to the certainty of measures, while those from 10 additional countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovakia) identified at least “some concern”. Experts from just seven states (Croatia, Denmark, Latvia, Malta, Romania, Spain and Sweden) identified no issues with the certainty of COVID-19 measures adopted by governments.
[...]
Recommendation
Rules and policies related to COVID-19 should be clear, with information about them provided in a timely and consistent manner and including an evidence-based rationale. Efforts should be made to ensure this information is accessible to both vulnerable populations and minority language groups. Where changes in policy need to be made, these should be announced sufficiently in advance through a variety of official and public channels, to give people time to prepare.
Taip pat Lietuva paminima ir teigiamame kontekste, lyginant su kitomis šalimis.3. Unsupervised: Insufficient oversight and review of government action
Parliamentary oversight and judicial review, as well as the work of independent monitoring bodies, fulfil an essential function in every democracy, guarding against the potential misuse or abuse of powers by the government, ensuring democratic legitimacy and protecting individual rights. Given how invasive on ordinary life action taken in response to the pandemic has been, this oversight and review is all the more vital. Unfortunately, oversight has continued to be weak across the EU during the second and third COVID-19 waves.
[...]
Only the Austrian, Czech, Estonian, and German parliaments were identified as bringing significant levels of scrutiny to COVID-19 measures that severely restrict human rights
[...]
In France, despite the creation of bodies to examine the government’s management of the pandemic, effective scrutiny was weak, reflecting the consequence of 2008 reforms, which gave the executive increased control over parliamentary business. In Ireland and Slovenia, where provisions for scrutiny by the legislatures do exist – for example, in the forms of debate, parliamentary questions or inquiries – these have not been used. In Italy, where the legislative process has been “sped up” for some decree-laws, which have often passed in days, or even hours, with little or no scrutiny, efforts to improve Parliament’s access to evidence from advisory bodies might improve the quality of scrutiny. Governing parties’ majorities have allowed them, in the case of Hungary, to have their parliaments effectively rubber-stamp the actions of the government or, in the case of Poland, to limit the scope of oversight and influence of the opposition. By contrast, the newly elected parliament in Lithuania has increased scrutiny of COVID-19 measures, and particularly those related to economic matters and the use of EU funds in fighting the pandemic.
Tiek pirminiame šaltinyje:More worryingly, the DRI report also states that only five EU member states -- the Czech Republic, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Portugal -- have adequate exit strategies for a return to normal.
5. No way out? A lack of clear exit strategies
A year after declarations of emergency in a succession of EU states in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, 12 EU Member States are still relying on official emergency powers and provisions in their pandemic response, while others remain in a de facto state of emergency. Notably, not all governments relied on official emergency powers at the outset of the pandemic; some states were constitutionally unable to declare states of emergency during a health crisis (e.g., Ireland), while others chose not to do so for political reasons, and thus avoided higher levels of scrutiny applied for the use of emergency powers (e.g., Poland). These states, instead, have relied on powers within ordinary legislation.
[...]
? Why is an exit strategy important
Seeing no way out of the emergency can erode the public’s patience with the limitations on their rights and their willingness to follow the rules. This can lead to a crisis of trust and undermine the road to recovery.
[...]
So far, EU countries have fared poorly in this essential aspect of navigating the emergency. Only in five EU Member States (the Czech Republic, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Portugal) experts identified their states as having put in place an exit strategy during the period under review.
As skaiciau ir pilnesni, tik nematau prasmes cia popypastinti viso teksto turinio. Kam idomu pasiskaitys patys. Ar be copypaste turi dar ka pridurti? Kad ir pvz savo asmenine nuomone siuo klausimu? Butu idomiau skaityti, nei antra karta ta pacia siena teksto
Tiesiog konkrečiu gyvenimišku pavyzdžiu pabandžiau vėl prailiustruoti mintį:
Norėčiau, kad daugiau žmonių būtų mano "centro" "komandoj".https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qAJgWCW ... ty-swindle
[...]
Getting emotional over politics as though it were a sports game - identifying with one color and screaming cheers for them, while heaping abuse on the other color's fans - is a very good thing for the Professional Players' Team; not so much for Team Voters.
Nu matai - pats atmeti pačią komandinio politikos sporto idėją. O paskui pats skundiesi, kad tavo komandoje nepakankamai žaidėjų.. Kurie atmestų komandinės politikos ideją... kartu su tavimi. Nematai čia prieštaravimo?
Mačiau kaip keletas seimo narių kvailai džiaugėsi, kad Partnerystės įstatymo projektas buvo atmestas. Kitaip sakant, kažkuria prasme džiaugėsi, kad nusivalė kojas į tam tikros dalies savo šalies piliečių teises.Seianus wrote: ↑2021-05-25 16:36Na ką, šeimos apsaugotos, partnerystės įstatymas pasiųstas tobulėti. Vaikų bumas soon?
Tai kad patys Vakarai suka ruskyno link. Tad nereikėtų labai džiaugtis tariama vakarietiška kryptimi.
Kokias dar teises, Svetime? Nėra tokios teisės, apie kurią čia rašai.Svetimas wrote: ↑2021-05-26 11:00Mačiau kaip keletas seimo narių kvailai džiaugėsi, kad Partnerystės įstatymo projektas buvo atmestas. Kitaip sakant, kažkuria prasme džiaugėsi, kad nusivalė kojas į tam tikros dalies savo šalies piliečių teises.Seianus wrote: ↑2021-05-25 16:36Na ką, šeimos apsaugotos, partnerystės įstatymas pasiųstas tobulėti. Vaikų bumas soon?
Turiu minty, judama bolševikinio ruskyno link:
Tu čia nepostringauk o skubėk darytis vaikus, turi kelių mėnesių langą, o rudenį šis šeimoms ir vaikams trukdantis įstatymas vėl bus svarstomas ir gal net priimtas, tai vėl prarasime galimybę.