Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Here's the thing: If I go against the rules when practising law, medicine or being a teacher, there's a good chance my license to practice this particular job will be revoked.
Is there even such a thing as a teaching license? I thought you can still teach at a private school if you're thrown out of a public one.
An entry in the Führungszeugnis will usually disbar you from teaching ever again.
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
That's not the problem of the court.
Yes, it is! Because the punishment has to be constitutional, FFS!
By that logic, even a temporary revocation of the driver's license would be unconstitutional.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
An entry in the Führungszeugnis will usually disbar you from teaching ever again.
But there's no such legal requirement. A private school is still allowed to employ you, so your point is .
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
By that logic, even a temporary revocation of the driver's license would be unconstitutional.
No, not necessarily. Same as putting someone in prison is not unconstitutional, because restricting constitutional rights as a punishment is possible in general.
But there has to be a chance of rehabilitation.
Come on, please stop playing dumb already. You live in Germany and you have a high school diploma, so you should already know all of this.
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
An entry in the Führungszeugnis will usually disbar you from teaching ever again.
But there's no such legal requirement. A private school is still allowed to employ you, so your point is .
Um, no. No private school will risk a revocation of their license. You even have to provide the Erweitertes Führungszeugnis.
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@LaoC said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
you are even freer to give legal counsel if you don't take the bar exam
Not in Germany.
ISTR something about it being illegal in Germany to give free legal advice due to some Nazi law that was designed to keep Jews out of legal professions but was just carried over to the Federal Republic? Maybe it has been superseded by now, dunno. You couldn't call yourself an Anwalt without the exam of course.
-
@LaoC said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
if you killed someone it's hardly unusually harsh to require you to live somewhere where you can take a fucking bus to work
Apart from the fact that buses round your part of the world have far more than ours do, there are many other modes of transport available. For example, you could hire a taxi, use a bicycle, ride a horse, or even just walk. And any right to work would not guarantee you a right to a particular job; switching to something that does not require as much travel is at least technically possible.
A person's right to travel does not override someone else's right to life or even their (somewhat less absolute) right to life without serious injury. Drivers who are demonstrably unsafe become ex-drivers, and it is a reasonable thing for a court to have the power to order it where it is a rational response, such as where the driver wasn't paying proper attention to their surroundings. Why? Because people have a tendency towards following a pattern of behaviour; if they're driving unsafely often enough to end up in court over it, they're not very likely to stop doing so if just asked nicely. The actual public interest is best served if they don't drive unsafely in the first place but we're not in that situation any more…
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Um, no. No private school will risk a revocation of their license.
Why the fuck are you still confusing legal requirements with the free actions of individual legal persons? You know those are different completely different in nature, yet you act like they're the same.
@LaoC said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
ISTR something about it being illegal in Germany to give free legal advice due to some Nazi law that was designed to keep Jews out of legal professions but was just carried over to the Federal Republic?
No idea where that law originates from, or how its existence is justified, but you're definitely not allowed to give legal advice unless you're a lawyer.
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Um, no. No private school will risk a revocation of their license.
Why the fuck are you still confusing legal requirements with the free actions of individual legal persons? You know those are different completely different in nature, yet you act like they're the same.
No. Due to the Odenwaldschule, a law has been passed in 2010 where you now have to provide the Erweitertes Führungszeugnis if you want to work in any capacity with children and youths.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Is there even such a thing as a teaching license? I thought you can still teach at a private school if you're thrown out of a public one.
An entry in the Führungszeugnis will usually disbar you from teaching ever again.
If you have something in there that will not age out, then yes. Is there anything apart from murder that doesn't?
Edit: seems like not even murder will stay on your record forever
-
@LaoC said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Is there even such a thing as a teaching license? I thought you can still teach at a private school if you're thrown out of a public one.
An entry in the Führungszeugnis will usually disbar you from teaching ever again.
If you have something in there that will not age out, then yes. Is there anything apart from murder that doesn't?
Certain crimes involving children. That includes the "mere" possession of pictures.
The teacher thing is a sidetrack, though. What about medicine?
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
No idea where that law originates from, or how its existence is justified
Ah. Apparently, the constitutionality of that law is actually disputed:
The previous law (before 2008) has been called constitutional in general by the highest court, but at least one verdict based on it has been overturned. The BVerfG acknowledged that the law violates the "Handlungsfreiheit" and has to be weighed against that basic right:
http://www.forumjustizgeschichte.de/Der-Beschluss.183.0.html
@Rhywden If that doesn't prove that "Handlungsfreiheit" is an important constitutional right, I don't know what does.
-
@asdf Yes, that may be a basic right. That still doesn't make "driving a car" a basic right.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
What about medicine?
If you practice invasive medicine, you're potentially violating constitutional rights of your patient (körperliche Unverletzlichkeit) all the time, so that's a very complicated matter. I'm pretty sure the requirement for a license is justified by exactly that fact.
In that particular case, I don't even want to speculate how our lawmakers solved that complicated legal/constitutional problem. You'd need to ask a specialized lawyer.
-
@asdf Nice cop-out with the "invasive" medicine. Non-invasive medicine also kind of requires a license.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Yes, that may be a basic right. That still doesn't make "driving a car" a basic right.
If you don't want to have a serious argument, you could have just said so instead of repeating the same straw man over and over again after I did extensive Google research to find valid legal arguments.
Fuck you too.
-
@asdf Listen, dude: You're waffling on about "basic rights" and show me some basic rights marginally related to what I'm asking for.
And when I ask you how "driving a car" is a basic right, then you curse at me. Nice discussion tactics.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Nice cop-out with the "invasive" medicine. Non-invasive medicine also kind of requires a license.
No, it doesn't; that's why "alternative medicine" is allowed to exist.
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Nice cop-out with the "invasive" medicine. Non-invasive medicine also kind of requires a license.
No, it doesn't; that's why "alternative medicine" is allowed to exist.
So, a psychiatrist doesn't need a license?
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
If you have something in there that will not age out, then yes. Is there anything apart from murder that doesn't?
Certain crimes involving children. That includes the "mere" possession of pictures.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
And when I ask you how "driving a car" is a basic right, then you curse at me. Nice discussion tactics.
I already told you which constitutional principles are potentially violated by revoking a license indefinitely without any chance of rehabilitation. If you would have read my posts upthread, you'd already know my answer.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
So, a psychiatrist doesn't need a license?
Only if they want to call themselves a psychiatrist. You can offer "Gesprächstherapie" without any license of any kind.
-
@LaoC said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
If you have something in there that will not age out, then yes. Is there anything apart from murder that doesn't?
Certain crimes involving children. That includes the "mere" possession of pictures.
The Erweitertes Führungszeugnis is a bit different.
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
So, a psychiatrist doesn't need a license?
Only if they want to call themselves a psychiatrist. You can offer "Gesprächstherapie" without any license of any kind.
And if I want to prescribe Diclofenac?
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
And if I want to prescribe Diclofenac?
Then you need a license. Because any medicine that requires a prescription is potentially harmful to the patient.
Don't you start to see how constitutional rights (in this case: of both the patient and the "doctor") are somehow involved in all our laws and weighed against each other?
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Then you need a license. Because any medicine that requires a prescription is potentially harmful to the patient.
Here's the thing: You just said that doctors need a license because what they're doing is potentially harmful and we need to be sure that they know what they're doing. If they act negligently enough we may then revoke their license, barring them from practicing medicine.
That's what you yourself argued.
Now, riddle me this, where is the big difference?
Here's the thing: You just said that
doctorscar drivers need a license because what they're doing is potentially harmful and we need to be sure that they know what they're doing. If they act negligently enough we may then revoke their license, barring them frompracticing medicinedriving cars.So, why is it that we're allowed to take the good doctor's license forever but somehow it's "unconstitutional" to do the same thing with a driver's license?
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
The Erweitertes Führungszeugnis is a bit different.
I see, you're right. 2009, so that didn't exist yet when it could have been relevant for me :)
However, that still doesn't mean you can't be a teacher, ever. Kinda slims down your chances ...
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
So, why is it that we're allowed to take the good doctor's license forever but somehow it's "unconstitutional" to do the same thing with a driver's license?
Because taking a doctor's license only bars that person from exercising a particular profession, while taking a driver's license potentially disallows the person to execute basic civil rights which are valued higher by the constitution.
Think of the case where someone lives in a village without a bus stop.
Also, note that I never said that this is definitely unconstitutional. I'm not an experienced judge and therefore cannot decide that. All I was trying to convince you of all along is that it is potentially unconstitutional and that any such law would probably become an interesting case for our Supreme Court.
I hope I got you to acknowledge the fact that this legal problem is not as easy as you think; and that driving - in principle - is certainly not a "privilege" granted by the state, as you originally claimed, but simply exercising a civil right.
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Because taking a doctor's license only bars that person from exercising a particular profession, while taking a driver's license potentially disallows the person to execute basic civil rights which are valued higher by the constitution.
Right, so it's a-ok to invalidate at least a decade of specialized training but it's not okay to inconvenience someone.
God forbid they'd have to use a bike!
Also: This just in - Aging is unconstitutional!
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Because taking a doctor's license only bars that person from exercising a particular profession, while taking a driver's license potentially disallows the person to execute basic civil rights which are valued higher by the constitution.
Think of the case where someone lives in a village without a bus stop.They could use a bicycle. They could hire a taxi. They could be driven by a family member. They could change job.
-
@dkf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
They could use a bicycle. They could hire a taxi. They could be driven by a family member. They could change job.
And the job of the Supreme Court would be to verify that this is reasonably doable. If it's not, that would mean his constitutional rights are severely violated.
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@dkf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
They could use a bicycle. They could hire a taxi. They could be driven by a family member. They could change job.
And the job of the Supreme Court would be to verify that this is reasonably doable. If it's not, that would mean his constitutional rights are severely violated.
And if it's not "reasonably doable" in case of the doctor who just had his license removed?
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
And if it's not "reasonably doable" in case of the doctor who just had his license removed?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
IANAL.Look, all I've been saying all along is that the constitutionality of such actions is not immediately obvious. Especially if there's no chance of rehabilitation. Can we finally agree on this? Then I'll stop arguing.
-
@asdf Well, it's not obvious, true. But as I have argued, there's precedence.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
But as I have argued, there's precedence.
Which is not exactly the same, though. IIRC, personal freedom generally has a higher value in the constitution than the right to exercise whatever profession you want. The latter is explicitly mentioned separately and is therefore not simply a part of the former.
BTW, I just found https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berufsfreiheit#Verfassungsrechtliche_Rechtfertigung which should answer some of the questions you raised above.
-
@asdf Maybe so. But you haven't made clear that personal freedom and the privilege to drive a car are actually related.
After all, just because you lost your license doesn't mean that you're chained to your house. You're still free to go wherever you want.
Just not with a car you yourself are driving.
Whether you lose your license for a year or indefinitely is immaterial - you still have to make arrangements.
Or do you now want to argue that losing the license even for a year is unconstitutional?
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Maybe so. But you haven't made clear that personal freedom and the privilege to drive a car are actually related.
I'm pretty sure I did, but whatever. It's also obvious: If you restrict an action, you're automatically restricting personal freedom as well.
You may disagree with my conclusions, but this fundamental principle should be obvious.
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Or do you now want to argue that losing the license even for a year is unconstitutional?
Was that really necessary now? Can you finally drop those straw men?
Temporarily restricting civil rights as a form of punishment - with chance of rehabilitation - is obviously constitutional, because that's the principle our whole criminal justice system is based on. I've never argued that this is not the case.
-
@asdf But what if it's not "reasonably doable"?
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
But what if it's not "reasonably doable"?
What are you even talking about now?
-
@asdf I'm merely using your own argument against a revocation because it wouldn't be "reasonably doable".
Also, I never agreed that "driving a car" is a right. Because you're not allowed to drive a car unless you have a license - so it's a restricted action from the get-go.
Again: It's restricted by default.
Or, to put it in programmer's terms: You're arguing using a blacklist - everything not on that list is allowed.
However, being allowed to drive is a whitelist. You're only allowed to drive if you're on that.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
I'm merely using your own argument against a revocation because it wouldn't be "reasonably doable".
I honestly don't know what exactly you're talking about. It sounds like you want to ridicule my argument by putting it out of context, so I'll just ignore that.
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Also, I never agreed that "driving a car" is a right. Because you're not allowed to drive a car unless you have a license - so it's a restricted action from the get-go.
Again: It's restricted by default.
Or, to put it in programmer's terms: You're arguing using a blacklist - everything not on that list is allowed.
However, being allowed to drive is a whitelist. You're only allowed to drive if you're on that.I just spend way too much time trying to convince you that from a constitutional POV, that's complete bollocks. You're allowed to do anything by default, unless it violates constitutional rights.
I honestly don't understand how you can still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that fact.
If a particular law wants to establish a whitelist for a constitutional right, there must be a good reason for that; in addition, it has to be very careful in doing so, see my various posts above about the restrictions that apply. Otherwise, the law doesn't operate within the boundaries of the constitution and is unconstitutional. The government cannot just disallow or restrict any action, including driving a car, whenever they feel like it.
-
@asdf No, you're misunderstanding what a "basic right" is.
A basic right must pass two hallmarks:
a) It must be available by default
b) You cannot sign it away.For example, the right to a fair trial meets the criteria: You do not have to ask for a fair trial. And if someone makes you sign a paper wherein it states that you waive your rights to a fair trial, you can later turn around and not be bound by this paper without repercussions.
Another example: Freedom of movement. You can move anywhere you want whenever you want. And even if you publicly state: "I'll imprison myself in this house!" you can later checkout any time you want and you can always leave (unlike Hotel California). Without legal repercussions.
The privilege to drive a car does not meet both criteria for a basic right:
It's not available by default - you have to obtain a driver's license.
You also can sign away your privilege - you can voluntarily hand over your driver's license. And if you're caught driving after that you will be punished by law. And you also can't turn around a month later and say: "On second thought, I'd like to have that license back now."As such, driving a car is not a basic right.
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
You're allowed to do anything by default, unless it violates constitutional rights.
Last time I looked, I'm not allowed to drive a car without a license.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
As such, driving a car is not a basic right.
Oh my God, you're still milking that straw man.
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Last time I looked, I'm not allowed to drive a car without a license.
By now I have to assume that you didn't even comprehend my arguments and/or don't understand the relationship between the Constitution and other laws.
-
@asdf Here's the problem with your notion: If "barring someone from driving a car" is a "constitutional problem", then everything else is as well.
Because you can make an argument for basically anything to be somehow magically related to a basic right.
That's not how it works.
And, please, "straw man"? YOU were the one to bring the constitution and basic rights into this. So, check your privilege.
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
It sounds like you want to ridicule my argument by putting it out of context
But your argument is ridiculous in context.
-
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Here's the problem with your notion: If "barring someone from driving a car" is a "constitutional problem", then everything else is as well.
Because you can make an argument for basically anything to be somehow magically related to a basic right.
That's not how it works.Actually, it is. That's exactly how it works. Most laws are unlikely to ever become a Supreme Court case, but every single law must conform with the Constitution. And most laws touch constitutional rights in some way.
-
@asdf said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
@Rhywden said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Here's the problem with your notion: If "barring someone from driving a car" is a "constitutional problem", then everything else is as well.
Because you can make an argument for basically anything to be somehow magically related to a basic right.
That's not how it works.Actually, it is. That's exactly how it works. Most laws are unlikely to ever become a Supreme Court case, but every single law must conform with the Constitution. And most laws touch constitutional rights in some way.
Yes. And as I've told you: There's precedent. So, quit fucking acting as if this were somehow magically impossible just because you believe this is so.
It is not. And also, quit fucking acting as if I wanted to bar people from driving on a drop of a hat. I gave very specific limits to that: Negligent behaviour which led to loss of life. In my eyes, if you killed someone through negligence you revoke your rights to be able to repeat this action.
Do you want those people on the street?
-
Generally speaking, a driver's license doesn't confer the right to operate a vehicle, but the right to do so on public roadways. Generally, without one, you're only allowed to drive on your own property. It's well established that we have a right to travel, but the department of transportation owns the roadways, and the use of them is a privilege they control, just like your property is owned by you so you control the use of it.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Canada's legendary politeness applies to killers as well:
Generally, without one, you're only allowed to drive on your own property.
Typically, you can drive on private property without a license as long as you have the owner's permission. On your own property, that's implicit. On someone else's, it's more explicit; on much private property (such as parking lots), it's only granted when you've got a license and insurance (and aren't specifically banned), effectively applying virtually the same rules as for a public space.
-
@dkf Yeah. But most people don't want unlicensed drivers driving on their property. Particularly ones who lost their license due to reckless endangerment. So I simplified.