1. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    03 May '09 03:171 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I was also talking linguistically, and while you may be right, I am not convinced.
    Robbery is illegal. Generalissimo has made no case that this action by the Brazillian government was illegal or unconstitutional.

    On the contrary, the move appears to be legal and constitutional.

    Either it is a case of legally taking possession of land (as with eminent domain stuff in the USA, or a compulsory purchase order in the UK) or it is in fact robbery, in which case Brazil is lawless and it's government is acting criminally.

    There is no "legalized robbery". It is an oxymoron. Its use is also intentended to spin/poison the debate. There are real issues here, worthy of honest discussion not deliberate and emotional misuse of language.
  2. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    03 May '09 03:251 edit
    Here is genralissimo's OP which purported to be a cut and paste from the BBC web site:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8030223.stm

    Brazilian police and soldiers have begun an operation to remove non-indigenous residents from an Indian reservation in northern Brazil.

    The operation follows a landmark ruling by the country's Supreme Court that the Raposa Serra do Sol reservation should be solely for indigenous people.

    The non-indigenous rice farmers and farm workers say they are victims of "legalised robbery".

    The decision was hailed as a major victory for indigenous rights, and was also regarded as setting an important precedent for future court cases.

    However, the ruling was also a defeat for the non-indigenous rice producers and farm workers who lived and worked in the area, and who said their removal would undermine the economy of Roraima.

    As this sensitive operation was getting underway, the governor of Roraima, Jose de Anchieta Jr, was accused of racism by the state agency which looks after indigenous rights.

    The governor said the federal government had not provided sufficient resources for the local indigenous population to live in the reservation, which he said had unfortunately been turned into a "human zoo."



    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



    And now here is the actual article from the web site (I have highlighted the words and phrases and sentences that generalissimo took it upon himself to remove from the original article):

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8030223.stm

    Brazilian police and soldiers have begun an operation to remove non-indigenous residents from an Indian reservation in northern Brazil.

    The operation follows a landmark ruling by the country's Supreme Court that the Raposa Serra do Sol reservation should be solely for indigenous people.

    The non-indigenous rice farmers and farm workers say they are victims of "legalised robbery".

    But the authorities say they will be properly compensated.

    In March, Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that the area in the northern border state of Roraima should be maintained as a single continuous territory exclusively for use by the indigenous population.

    The decision was hailed as a major victory for indigenous rights, and was also regarded as setting an important precedent for future court cases.

    However, the ruling was also a defeat for the non-indigenous rice producers and farm workers who lived and worked in the area, and who said their removal would undermine the economy of Roraima.

    Around 300 police and soldiers are now reported to have begun an operation to remove any remaining rice producers and farm workers from the 1.7 million hectare reservation.

    There were said to be around 30 non-indigenous families in the reservation as the deadline approached, but the authorities say force will only be used if they meet with violent resistance.

    Some of the rice producers have been criticised for destroying farm buildings as they left the area.

    Late on Friday the authorities reported that there had been no violence as a result of the first day of the operation to remove non-indigenous residents from the area.

    While around 20 families of small rice producers were still in Raposa Serra do Sol, they were only there because of logistical problems, and would be given help to move their belongings, officials said.


    As this sensitive operation was getting underway, the governor of Roraima, Jose de Anchieta Jr, was accused of racism by the state agency which looks after indigenous rights.

    The governor said the federal government had not provided sufficient resources for the local indigenous population to live in the reservation, which he said had unfortunately been turned into a "human zoo."

    The authorities insist they will provide the necessary support.

    The reservation, which is in the far north of Brazil on the border with Venezuela and Guyana, is home to around 20,000 indigenous people.

    Officials say the operation to ensure the Supreme Court ruling has been obeyed could take some days to complete.


    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    I put it to you, generalissimo, that you deliberately editted the BBC article WITHOUT INDICATING THAT YOU HAD DOCTORED THE ORIGINAL TEXT. You succeeded in altering the tone and, more importantly, the balance of the article. This is reprehensible. Seeing as you very often start threads by cutting and pasting texts, I contend that there is now a very large question mark hovering over you and your integrity.
  3. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    or different places
    tinyurl.com/2tp8tyx8
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    03 May '09 03:281 edit
    I agree that "legalized robbery" is a rhetorical (is that the right word?) trick, possibly deceitful, used to manipulate opinion about the topic without any basis in logic or reason but sheerly on an emotional level, trying to avoid the reasoned approach.

    I'm just seeing one loophole that shows that the phrase could be used honestly in a hypothetical situation, i.e. legality is not an absolute concept, but relative to a particular legal system.
  4. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    03 May '09 03:38
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I agree that "legalized robbery" is a rhetorical (is that the right word?) [...] I'm just seeing one loophole that shows that the phrase could be used honestly in a hypothetical situation, i.e. legality is not an absolute concept, but relative to a particular legal system.
    Perhaps "hyperbolic"?

    I get your drift. I balk at 'libertarians' calling taxation "legalized theft".

    And I can see where the oxymoron could, in fact, work. Take Tommy Suharto, son of the Indonesian dictator, using troops to evict people from a riverside location so that he could build a hotel in 1993 in Ambon, Maluku Province. Local officials provided him with seemingly legal documentation to justify his action, and the troops involvement was authorized by Jakarta, no doubt after a not-rooted-in-law nod from Soeharto snr. Clearly illegal, and yet the victims had no recourse to law, as the utterly corrupt legal system dismissed them as having no case. Perhaps the oxymoron could apply here?

    But to apply it to the case in Brazil is nonsense.

    Generalissimo deliberately rinsed much of the explanation about the legality of the move in Brazil from the BBC article to try to spin the issue and deceive fellow RHP posters. I have pointed this out in the post above.
  5. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    03 May '09 15:04
    Originally posted by FMF
    Robbery is illegal. Generalissimo has made no case that this action by the Brazillian government was illegal or unconstitutional.

    On the contrary, the move appears to be legal and constitutional.

    Either it is a case of legally taking possession of land (as with eminent domain stuff in the USA, or a compulsory purchase order in the UK) or it is in fact robb ...[text shortened]... eal issues here, worthy of honest discussion not deliberate and emotional misuse of language.
    Generalissimo has made no case that this action by the Brazillian government was illegal or unconstitutional.

    It may not be illegal (or even addressed in brazilian law), but it isn't fair. Segregation was the norm in southern US states for a long time, that didn't make it fair, just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it fair.

    honest discussion not deliberate and emotional misuse of language.

    thats a surprise coming from you, who is known for meaningless gibberish.
  6. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    03 May '09 15:11
    Originally posted by FMF
    Here is genralissimo's OP which purported to be a cut and paste from the BBC web site:

    [i]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8030223.stm

    Brazilian police and soldiers have begun an operation to remove non-indigenous residents from an Indian reservation in northern Brazil.

    The operation follows a landmark ruling by the country's Supreme Court that ...[text shortened]... d that there is now a very large question mark hovering over you and your integrity.
    I put it to you, generalissimo, that you deliberately editted the BBC article WITHOUT INDICATING THAT YOU HAD DOCTORED THE ORIGINAL TEXT. You succeeded in altering the tone and, more importantly, the balance of the article. This is reprehensible. Seeing as you very often start threads by cutting and pasting texts, I contend that there is now a very large question mark hovering over you and your integrity.

    Ok, next time I use a source, I'll make sure I say that I only took some parts of the text, because its long.
    I didn't do that in order to only present one point of view, I took the parts I thought would be important.
    I included the link so that people could go see for themselves, I didn't just copy and paste the text and said that was it and there was nothing more nothing less.

    I contend that there is now a very large question mark hovering over you and your integrity.

    Not really, since I explained why I took only a few parts of the text.

    Plus, I find it curious hearing that from you, since there is a large question mark hovering over you and your integrity since the "open letter to FMF" thread.
  7. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    03 May '09 15:39
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    [b]Generalissimo has made no case that this action by the Brazillian government was illegal or unconstitutional.

    It may not be illegal (or even addressed in brazilian law), but it isn't fair. Segregation was the norm in southern US states for a long time, that didn't make it fair, just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it fair.

    ...[text shortened]... f language.

    thats a surprise coming from you, who is known for meaningless gibberish.[/b]
    What's "not fair" about a government seizing property for a governmental purpose with the prior owners getting compensation?
  8. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    03 May '09 15:44
    Here's some background our fascist loving friend probably doesn't want you to know:

    After years of campaigning led by the Indigenous Council of Roraima (CIR), Survival and many NGOs in Brazil and elsewhere, Raposa-Serra do Sol was signed into law by President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva on 15 April 2005.

    There was much jubilation at this milestone as the territory had been the object of a sustained and violent campaign by local ranchers and settlers to stop the Indians winning it back.

    In the last three decades over twenty Indians had been killed and hundreds injured during the Indians’ tireless struggle to reclaim their ancestral land.

    Whilst most ranchers and some rice farmers have now left the territory on receipt of compensation from the government, a small group of rice farmers refuse to leave despite various attempts by the police to remove them.

    Their illegal actions are supported by a group of powerful local politicians.

    Since April 2008, they have resorted to increasingly violent tactics, shooting and wounding at least 10 Indians, burning bridges to prevent Indians entering or leaving their land, and throwing a bomb into one community.


    EXTRAORDINARY FOOTAGE: Gunmen hired by Paulo César Quartiero, a local farmer and politician, attack a Makuxi Indian community, throwing homemade bombs and firing assault rifles. Ten Indians were wounded. Mr Quartiero was arrested, but released soon after. Video © CIR/Survival
    Warning: this video contains images of violence and injuries which some may find upsetting.
    The government of Roraima state lodged a petition in Brazil’s Supreme Court contesting the federal government’s official recognition of the Raposa-Serra do Sol and demanding that it be reduced in size.

    Nearly 20,000 Indians live there and rely on the land and rivers for their livelihood, yet the six farmers and local politicians claim that they are obstacles to the state’s development.

    On 10th December 2008 the majority of Supreme Court judges upheld the Indians’ rights to their land, saying it had been demarcated according to the constitution and that its size and borders should be maintained.

    http://www.survival-international.org/tribes/raposa
  9. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    03 May '09 15:46
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What's "not fair" about a government seizing property for a governmental purpose with the prior owners getting compensation?
    It isn't fair because the people removed didn't want to be removed, and because the "compensation" by the government is certain to be minimal compared to the loss of homes and farms.
  10. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    03 May '09 15:481 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What's "not fair" about a government seizing property for a governmental purpose with the prior owners getting compensation?
    ask Susette Kelo
  11. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    03 May '09 15:48
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    It may not be illegal (or even addressed in brazilian law), but it isn't fair. Segregation was the norm in southern US states for a long time, that didn't make it fair, just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it fair.
    Fair? Who's talking about "fair"? You called it "legalized robbery" and then DOCTORED the text you claimed to be quoting in order to make your misrepresentation seem true. Pure deceit. Scandalous.
  12. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    03 May '09 15:50
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    the "compensation" by the government is certain to be minimal compared to the loss of homes and farms.
    What is this assertion based on? You've already shown yourself to be a liar who DOCTORS quoted text. Why should we believe your assertions?
  13. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    03 May '09 15:52
    Generalissimo. Come on. Recognize that you have been caught out. Apologize. Just apologize an then maybe then we can move on. Stick to your guns on this reprehensible thing and you will be a pariah. From here on in. You need to confess. And apologize. Really.
  14. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    03 May '09 15:57
    Originally posted by FMF
    What is this assertion based on? You've already shown yourself to be a liar who DOCTORS quoted text. Why should we believe your assertions?
    They're based in past experiences with the government, which will go to great lenghts in order to minimise any compensation.

    You've already shown yourself to be a liar who DOCTORS quoted text.

    not true.

    Why should we believe your assertions?

    I ask you the same question.

    Why should I believe you after you were proven to be a liar? see "open letter to FMF"thread.
  15. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    03 May '09 15:59
    Originally posted by FMF
    Generalissimo. Come on. Recognize that you have been caught out. Apologize. Just apologize an then maybe then we can move on. Stick to your guns on this reprehensible thing and you will be a pariah. From here on in. You need to confess. And apologize. Really.
    I explained why I only took some parts of the text, and said that in the future I'll make sure I state that.

    I don't know what you're talking about, you're the only lier here, why don't you apologise for that?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree