On the one hand, I suppose that depends on who is defining "basic human rights." I'm pretty sure the Trump Convoys would claim that's what they were doing.
On the other hand, the question was on riots, not on rights. Not all riots are justified.
On the one hand, I suppose that depends on who is defining "basic human rights." I'm pretty sure the Trump Convoys would claim that's what they were doing.
On the other hand, the question was on riots, not on rights. Not all riots are justified.
I'm not saying I approve of what he's doing. Quite the contrary.
But it's what he's asking, and how he's asking, not that he's asking.
There is no legal basis for this fight. Do you pollen to start shooting tax collectors?
I have the worst lawyer.
Trying to control the way other countries are run is fucking wild, the notion of which should never even be remotely entertained.
In happier times, we call the process "diplomacy," and mostly limit it to things that affect us, directly or indirectly.
But pressuring other countries to, for example, clean up their corruption so we can reliably do business with them is common. (Also hilariously hypocritical) Pressuring other countries to enact civil rights laws is fairly common, too.
I have to admit, seeing pressure to remove civil rights is unusual, at least from countries not named UAE.
been downgraded to pool membership.
I think a more interesting question would be "how."
This is the same as any major conflict. People want to try to work thing out without violence. The times that does happen are unremarkable. The times it doesn't happen, we can judge later weather it was the right thing to do.
Is this "surrender to avoid being defeated," or am I misunderstanding the case?
Give us a few days.
The physics of this irritates me.
Yea, an "administrative error," like what landed that one gentleman in El Salvador, right?