Ptravel

"Magda" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:02:28 +1100, in rec.travel.europe, Deep Freud Moors
    > <deepfloydmars@yIaWONThBITEoYA!o.co.uk> arranged some electrons, so they
looked like this:
    > ... Yeah, except that to allow immigration at levels whereby those poorer
    > ... countries can stabilise there own populations would cause enormous
    > ... tensions in whatever western countries they ended up in. I believe
    > ... India's population alone increases by about 20 million (2%) each
year.
    > ... Try adding that to the west, and see how well they are accepted!
    > ...
    > ... Perhaps making condoms less accessible, and promoting abstinence
    > ... through wholesome family values might work. If not, maybe we can
build
    > ... a wall...
    > Or kill the baby girls, as India and China have been doing these past -
what, 25 years ?
    > :-((

Infanticide is illegal in China, and the law is enforced. Exposing of female
babies was practiced only in the poorest, most rural Chinese communities in
the western part of the country. By your inclusion of India, I'll assume
you're refering, not to exposure and other forms of infanticide, but to
abortion-for-sex-selection. Neither the Chinese, nor I, for that matter,
consider a fetus a baby or abortion killing. However, the only Chinese
inclined towards sex selection would be poor western peasants, who would not
have easy access to sonograms -- there are no sonogram clinics in China as
there are in India. China, particularly in the developed south central and
south east, does not population gender disparities, as does India (I read
that, in some places in India, the gender demographic has been shifted to as
much as 60/40, males to females).

Magda

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:58:27 -0800, in rec.travel.europe, "PTRAVEL" <[email protected]>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

... Infanticide is illegal in China, and the law is enforced. Exposing of female
... babies was practiced only in the poorest, most rural Chinese communities in
... the western part of the country. By your inclusion of India, I'll assume
... you're refering, not to exposure and other forms of infanticide, but to
... abortion-for-sex-selection. Neither the Chinese, nor I, for that matter,
... consider a fetus a baby or abortion killing. However, the only Chinese
... inclined towards sex selection would be poor western peasants, who would not
... have easy access to sonograms -- there are no sonogram clinics in China as
... there are in India. China, particularly in the developed south central and
... south east, does not population gender disparities, as does India (I read
... that, in some places in India, the gender demographic has been shifted to as
... much as 60/40, males to females).

Infanticide is illegal almost everywhere - but the chinese orphanages full of neglected,
left-to-die baby girls are real. And in India the custom was (is ?) slipping into the
newborn girl's mouth some grains of raw rice - she suffocates and dies silently.

Some 15 years ago I read that there was a shortage of about 25 million women in India
already... I wonder what the number is now.

Magda

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:15:53 +0000, in rec.travel.europe, Reid <[email protected]>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

... Following up to Jeremy Henderson
...
... >> I didn't say that. But it would surely be better if we had less people to
... >> educate.
... >
... >I assume you mean "fewer" people? :-)
... >
... >Or maybe you mean "lesser" people?
... >
... >Or is this a cunning illustration of your thesis that poor grammar leads to
... >confusion?
...
... This is stage 2 of spelling flame, Magma, if you refer back to
... the FAQ I posted.

Magma yourself.

Ptravel

"Magda" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:58:27 -0800, in rec.travel.europe, "PTRAVEL"
<[email protected]>
    > arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
    > ... Infanticide is illegal in China, and the law is enforced. Exposing of
female
    > ... babies was practiced only in the poorest, most rural Chinese
communities in
    > ... the western part of the country. By your inclusion of India, I'll
assume
    > ... you're refering, not to exposure and other forms of infanticide, but
to
    > ... abortion-for-sex-selection. Neither the Chinese, nor I, for that
matter,
    > ... consider a fetus a baby or abortion killing. However, the only
Chinese
    > ... inclined towards sex selection would be poor western peasants, who
would not
    > ... have easy access to sonograms -- there are no sonogram clinics in
China as
    > ... there are in India. China, particularly in the developed south
central and
    > ... south east, does not population gender disparities, as does India (I
read
    > ... that, in some places in India, the gender demographic has been
shifted to as
    > ... much as 60/40, males to females).
    > Infanticide is illegal almost everywhere - but the chinese orphanages full
of neglected,
    > left-to-die baby girls are real.

China's orphanages are full of baby girls given up for adoption by their
western peasant parents. I won't say exposure never happens anymore in
China, but it is not the problem you say it is. That is precisely why the
orphanages exist in the first place -- as an alternative to exposure.

    >And in India the custom was (is ?) slipping into the
    > newborn girl's mouth some grains of raw rice - she suffocates and dies
silently.

I don't know much about the practices in India. India and China have very,
very little in common.

    > Some 15 years ago I read that there was a shortage of about 25 million
women in India
    > already... I wonder what the number is now.

As I said, from what I've read, the disparity in India may be as high as
60/40. The same is not true for China.

Deep Freud Moors

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:00:18 +0000, Reid <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >>The fact is that immigration is a totally political thing, and we vote
    >>for our pollies, thus we do have a say. We are lucky in that regard,
    >>but even still, I think our democracies need an overhaul.
    >That only works when the election is fought on a single issue and
    >then only for that issue. If I, say, want to leave the EU, ban
    >fox hunting and increase expenditure on policing and education by
    >higher taxes, how do I express this by a single vote? In any
    >case, as I live in a safe seat my vote makes no difference
    >anyway.

There was a concept that floated around Oz about 10 years ago called
"voter veto", where any bill that was to be passed through parliament
could be vetoed if a certain number of people voiced their objection
to it. This would go a long way in addressing your issue.

Traditionally, it has been a cost issue, because elections etc. are
expensive, and so that was a factor in deciding how often they were
held. Given the accesibility of the internet in democratic countries
nowadays, I think there is definitely room to employ something like
this, even if it's not from a personal computer, but secure,
semi-permanent polling stations, or somesuch. Money well spent in my
view. In fact, I would consider that a bloody good tradeoff for having
a unique id assigned to every citizen in a country even.

Unfortunately, ideas like this only get implemented after bloody
revolutions and the like.
---
DFM

Reid

Following up to Deep Freud Moors

    > I would consider that a bloody good tradeoff for having
    >a unique id assigned to every citizen in a country even.

Yes, something for everyone.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking & photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Tim Challenger

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:32:48 +1100, Deep Freud Moors wrote:

    > a unique id assigned to every citizen in a country

NI number, perhaps?
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

Me

Deep Freud Moors <deepfloydmars@yIaWONThBITEoYA!o.co.uk> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:00:18 +0000, Reid <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >>The fact is that immigration is a totally political thing, and we vote
    > >>for our pollies, thus we do have a say. We are lucky in that regard,
    > >>but even still, I think our democracies need an overhaul.
    > >
    > >That only works when the election is fought on a single issue and
    > >then only for that issue. If I, say, want to leave the EU, ban
    > >fox hunting and increase expenditure on policing and education by
    > >higher taxes, how do I express this by a single vote? In any
    > >case, as I live in a safe seat my vote makes no difference
    > >anyway.
    >
    > There was a concept that floated around Oz about 10 years ago called
    > "voter veto", where any bill that was to be passed through parliament
    > could be vetoed if a certain number of people voiced their objection
    > to it. This would go a long way in addressing your issue.
[snip]

I had sorta a similar idea. Any law which could be shown in
court to be violated by 30% of the population, would become
void. Probably reek havoc with many speed limits on highways.
Absolutely destroy many drug laws as well. Intellectual property
laws might take a hit too.