From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Rich Gauszka wrote:
> They really have to be careful with the definition of "disturb public
> order". Is Phil calling Blair Bliar an insulting abuse of public order?
>
> 'The text also notes that "member states may choose to punish only
> conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public
> order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting."'
>

Yeah but in many ways that's worse.

What we in the west (inc in the US) are seeing is a steady growth in
"executive discretion" as we strive to bring our crim justice
systems into line with Russia & China.

wide discretion is a precursor to arbitary rule using the rule of law vs
the rule of law per se.

e.g. "my supporters will hold legal, peaceful rallies. Yours will hold
illegal rallies which will be attacked by riot police".

In each case the police (escorting the 1st breaking up the 2nd) will be
simply obeying the law but....it's the discretion at the top to say wotz
illegal vs legal wotz the fun part.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5