Na Severu ... a Czech web full of SOTT

I'm seeing disco in the crystal ball now?, guess I need some better sleep tonight. Funny trump..
 
Guys, as you probably noticed, some important videos are disappearing from the BigTech websites very quickly. If you come across any interesting material, especially with CZ/SK subtitles but English original ones also, please download it and next time we chat I will give you pass to our new NaSeveru BitChute channel registered today where you will be able to upload anything you consider worthy of having for our site.
Keep up the good work! :sewing::ninja::v:
 
Today I scrolled through that website you had mentioned, desitka.org and I'm impressed, they are doing quite a job there too. Plenty of interesting alt-reading and videos with subs.

I kicked into gear today and have a bit of work for you @anka with PR. Česť.

www.sott.net

Defining emotions: The importance of addressing our feelings with clarity

The language we use to describe the the way we feel can shape our emotions and mental well-being. With an uncertain timeline for shelter-in-place and higher baseline anxiety levels across populations, it's become harder than ever to find a...
www.sott.net www.sott.net
 
Hey guys! @anka The second Corbett article is ready for PR. It took longer than I expected, partly because I'm still getting up to speed after taking that break, plus it's been quite hectic at work this week (despite working from home :)
 
I'm almost done with translation @anka and there's one thing I want you to focus on is, in this section I am not quite sure if I got it right.

The ethical-legal standards that are binding for the legislator according to this "object formula" were last described by the Federal Constitutional Court in February 2006 in its ruling on the Aviation Security Act14 : Based on the idea of the Basic Lawmaker that it is part of the nature of mankind to determine himself in freedom and to develop freely, and that the individual can demand to be recognised in principle as an equal member with inherent worth in the community15 , it rather generally excludes the obligation to respect and protect human dignity to make man a mere object of the state16 .

My take:

Eticko-právne normy, ktoré sú pre zákonodarcu záväzné podľa tohto „objektového vzorca“, naposledy opísal Spolkový ústavný súd vo februári 2006 vo svojom rozhodnutí o zákone o bezpečnosti letectva (14): na základe myšlienky Základného zákonodarcu, že je súčasťou povahy ľudstva si určiť, aby sa mohlo slobodne rozhodovať a slobodne sa vyvíjať, a že jednotlivec môže požadovať, aby bol v zásade uznaný za rovnocenného člena s vlastnou hodnotou v spoločnosti (15) a teda všeobecne vylučuje povinnosť rešpektovať a chrániť ľudskú dôstojnosť a urobiť z človeka obyčajný objekt štátu (16).

What confuses me is the fact that it seems to contradict the argument made in the article about dignity and respect as the most fundamental rights. What do you think?

www.sott.net

Ethics and Fundamental Values in Times of Corona

When it comes to the so-called Corona crisis, everyone seems to be talking about numbers. Isn't the virus not much worse than the flu? If so, why didn't we have a lockdown during the flu season? And even if Covid-19 is worse - aren't the lockdown...
www.sott.net www.sott.net
 
I suppose luc was translating that part of the text from German and I can see possibility of it being translated incorrectly. But I may be wrong, of course. This is the quote of the whole section from the article:

According to the understanding of the Federal Constitutional Court, human dignity gives rise to the right of every human being to be treated in all state proceedings always as a subject and never as a mere object.

The ethical-legal standards that are binding for the legislator according to this "object formula" were last described by the Federal Constitutional Court in February 2006 in its ruling on the Aviation Security Act14 : Based on the idea of the Basic Lawmaker that it is part of the nature of mankind to determine himself in freedom and to develop freely, and that the individual can demand to be recognised in principle as an equal member with inherent worth in the community15 , it rather generally excludes the obligation to respect and protect human dignity to make man a mere object of the state16 . Thus, any treatment of human beings by public authorities which fundamentally calls into question their quality as subjects, their status as legal subjects, is absolutely prohibited.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the word it relates to the Federal Constitutional court and that this court basically prohibited the constitutional rights (i.e. dignity of every person) of passengers and turned them into mere objects in order to save lives of others which allowed for shooting the plane down.

So IMHO your understanding is right - it does contradict what the article is about. And that is precisely what luc points out to. That the Federal constitutional court in its 2006 decision threw the basic constitutional rights of the passengers out of window. And it created this ugly precedent for future decisions where government can be saving lives just for the sake of lives but does not give a damn about the quality of life of those who will survive the measures taken.

@luc , can you please chime in and clarify that part? Dankeschön.
 
Mikkael said:
I'm almost done with translation @anka and there's one thing I want you to focus on is, in this section I am not quite sure if I got it right.

The ethical-legal standards that are binding for the legislator according to this "object formula" were last described by the Federal Constitutional Court in February 2006 in its ruling on the Aviation Security Act14 : Based on the idea of the Basic Lawmaker that it is part of the nature of mankind to determine himself in freedom and to develop freely, and that the individual can demand to be recognised in principle as an equal member with inherent worth in the community15 , it rather generally excludes the obligation to respect and protect human dignity to make man a mere object of the state16 .

My take:

Eticko-právne normy, ktoré sú pre zákonodarcu záväzné podľa tohto „objektového vzorca“, naposledy opísal Spolkový ústavný súd vo februári 2006 vo svojom rozhodnutí o zákone o bezpečnosti letectva (14): na základe myšlienky Základného zákonodarcu, že je súčasťou povahy ľudstva si určiť, aby sa mohlo slobodne rozhodovať a slobodne sa vyvíjať, a že jednotlivec môže požadovať, aby bol v zásade uznaný za rovnocenného člena s vlastnou hodnotou v spoločnosti (15) a teda všeobecne vylučuje povinnosť rešpektovať a chrániť ľudskú dôstojnosť a urobiť z človeka obyčajný objekt štátu (16).

What confuses me is the fact that it seems to contradict the argument made in the article about dignity and respect as the most fundamental rights. What do you think?

www.sott.net

Ethics and Fundamental Values in Times of Corona

When it comes to the so-called Corona crisis, everyone seems to be talking about numbers. Isn't the virus not much worse than the flu? If so, why didn't we have a lockdown during the flu season? And even if Covid-19 is worse - aren't the lockdown...
www.sott.net www.sott.net
Click to expand...

Good catch! I'm sorry, I just took the text from my previous forum post which I translated using Deepl. Legal German language with its super-long sentences seems to confuse Deepl at times :) Should have checked it.

Here's the German original and an improved translation of the passage in question:

Die nach dieser „Objektformel“ für den Gesetzgeber bindenden ethisch-rechtlichen Maßstäbe hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht zuletzt im Februar 2006 in seinem Urteil zum Luftsicherheitsgesetz14 beschrieben: Ausgehend von der Vorstellung des Grundgesetzgebers, dass es zum Wesen des Menschen gehört, in Freiheit sich selbst zu bestimmen und sich frei zu entfalten, und dass der Einzelne verlangen kann, in der Gemeinschaft grundsätzlich als gleichberechtigtes Glied mit Eigenwert anerkannt zu werden15, schließt es die Verpflichtung zur Achtung und zum Schutz der Menschenwürde vielmehr generell aus, den Menschen zum bloßen Objekt des Staates zu machen16. Schlechthin verboten ist damit jede Behandlung des Menschen durch die öffentliche Gewalt, die dessen Subjektqualität, seinen Status als Rechtssubjekt, grundsätzlich in Frage stellt17.

English:

Based on the idea of the Basic Lawmaker that it is part of the nature of human beings that they are free to determine themselves and develop freely and that the individual can demand to be recognised in the community as an equal member with inherent worth, the obligation to respect and protect human dignity rather generally excludes making the human being a mere object of the state.
Click to expand...
 
A ha, now when I have re-read the section, after what you've pointed, and with fresh eyes, it is becoming clear that it is ok. I got lost in translation! :-) or I'm again wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom