And the rest of the quotes and cites above that do, you have chosen to ignore.
That is called cherry picking.
Nope. In fact i can refute each and every one, but since you ignore a ruling by the World Court itself, then debating with you is pointless.
It was not a ruling by the world court. Cite the exact wording of the order and clarify whether it was tested in court.
Please do refute them if you can.
Post 35.
And no thanks. There’s no use debating with you.
Refusal to debate normally is seen as lack of substantive argument. If you had refutations you would post them. Perhaps you choose not to because you know you have no argument. You can refute that by posting them.
Over to you.
He wasn’t in jail in 1968 and therefore the state was not legally responsible for his health and well-being.
I’d also like to point out that there have been enormous changes in the US since 1968, enough so I’m not sure that era would qualify as "recent’. It, was, after all, a different century.
Pot. Kettle.
Your supposed refutation is:
"“On December 6, 2006, the UN War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague approved the use of force-feeding of Serbian politician Vojislav Šešelj. They decided it was not “torture, inhuman or degrading treatment if there is a medical necessity to do so…and if the manner in which the detainee is force-fed is not inhuman or degrading”.[11]”
Thereby it’s hardly the "whole of the rest of the Western World " or “rest of the civilised (sic) world” if the UN accepts it, and has declared it’s not torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Let us examine it more fully.
It was not a World Court decision
Not a court at all
But a tribunal.
And your quote is partial. You seem to have accidentally left out the provision that forced feeding is only legal if it is
1/ necessary to save life, AND
2/ the manner in which it is done is not inhumane or demeaning.
“While stating that any force-feeding deemed necessary for lifesaving purposes should not contradict “compelling internationally accepted standards of medical ethics or binding rules of international law”, the judges at the tribunal also noted that the body of law laid down by the European court of human rights did not view force-feeding as “torture, inhuman or degrading treatment if there is a medical necessity to do so … and if the manner in which the detainee is force-fed is not inhuman or degrading”.”
So in summary, it was NOT the World Court, but a war crimes tribunal, and it only ordered force feeding if it could be done in a way that was neither inhuman nor degrading.
It was never appealed or tested in an actual case before a court, it was merely a judges instructions.
It was open to appeal through the Dutch and European courts, but was not so progressed.
The person concerned stopped his hunger strike before an appeal could take place as the Tribunal decided to give in to his demands to defend himself rather than have a court appointed lawyer.
The Judge’s instruction was never tested and it is not part of case law.
Your cite seems to have completely fallen apart.
The example was given as a counter to a post that said that people in the community outside prison would necessarily be force fed if they were starving themselves to death.
César Chávez was outside prison and was within days of death when the employers capitulated rather than be responsible for his death. No force feeding was contemplated.
One thing I have a reputation for here is continuing an argument to its last.
Pjen wants to watch people starve to death. Others would rather feed them. The morality here is not difficult, and it’s clear who’s on the wrong side of it. You don’t let otherwise healthy people die, and the cop-out by medical authorities that refuse to feed people disgusts me.
Force feeding is not torture, as long as the least invasive method is used at every point, and the state has a duty of care (ethically speaking) to those in its custody, which includes ensuring they are fed.
The state allowing a prisoner to starve to death is exactly the same as a parent allowing a child to do so.
I do not want to watch people starve to death. I want to see people’s rights under the law respected.
It seems as if you are in a minority about whether people should be force fed. Many legal and moral authorities including the US Supreme Court, the UN, the ECHR, agree that force feeding competent free adults is illegal and immoral.
The state is not in loco parentis for prisoners, legally or morally.
I can accept that you sincerely believe what you say, but it is only your opinion. And that opinion is in opposition to that held by many legal and moral authorities.
What stops the striking prisoner from immediately intentionally vomiting after being force fed?
In Guantanamo they are medicating the detainees against their will with an anti emetic which has a warning that if administered for more than three months is likely to result in tardive dyskinesia- permanent involuntary facial and bodily tics and writhing. Also regurgitated food is gathered up and passed back through the tube. Also prisoners who resist are further tortured and beaten by guards to encourage them to comply.
No-one is talking about competent, free adults here - we’re discussing either prisoners or the mentally ill.
As I was a young child when all that went down I’m not 100% conversant with what occurred. Surely, though, you’ll be able to give me a link that will have a medical report that Mr. Chavez was “within days of death”?
The IRA hunger strikers generally took 45-60 days to die (I was old enough to remember when that was going on) and in fact they exploited this to have strikers expiring at rough intervals to keep the outrage going.
I have no doubt Mr. Chavez would have been very thin and weak by day 25, but assuming he was a healthy man he would not likely have been “within days of death” unless you define that as within 2-4 weeks of death.
Also, if Mr. Chavez HAD died then HE would have been responsible for HIS OWN death, not the nebulous “employers” (actually, grape growers). It wasn’t these “employers” forcing him to starve, nor did I think they cared about the individual Mr. Chavez. It was much more likely the concurrent boycott of grapes putting financial pressures on the growers that resulted in capitulation.
And if that means watching people starve to death, you’re completely OK with that?
Gotta say, if you think Pjen is too focussed on following the letter of the law, that’s pretty much proof she’s wrong.
Yes. In the same way people have the right to kill themselves if they so choose. The law is quite clear, people have control over their own body.
I certainly don’t believe in always following the letter of the law. I just happen to agree with the overwhelming legal opinion on this one.