Yep. But to give my relatives in the Great White North some credit, they want to bring it back only for the most heinous of crimes. I can see that point. I mean even Israel will execute a Nazi war criminal. OP- can you say with certainty that a majority of Scandinavians wouldnt like to see **Anders Behring Breivik **dead? I mean if anyone deserves the DP, he does.
I do want to point out that the most rest of the US looks down upon Texas and its death factories with scorn.
More or less how California does it now (CA has a very large population of 38 million or 4 Swedens, yet we have only executed 13 men in the last 50 years and they all richly deserved it).
Russia. Belarus. You can argue Russia as part of Asia, but Belarus is part of Europe.
And quite a few abolished it as recently as this year, after extreme pressure by the EU, which had outlawed it. I count seven to 12 European nations which didn’t fully abolish the DP until after 2000.
But Congress has no authority to ban the DP in the various states, like the EU did. Thus, unless SCOTUS does so, it will remain until each state bans it. As it is, in the case of the most heinous crimes, I can understand why it’s called for.
As for Universal health care, the USA has enacted it.
But look at this map- not every European nation is green, some are pink or even grey.
Abortion is legal in most of Europe, but it is also more restricted. And it is usually not regarded as a right as it is here.
And as for Catholic countries, it is legal, but the most restricted:
Abortion is legal in nearly every European country although there is a wide variation in the restrictions under which it is permitted.[8] Although nearly every European country makes abortion available on demand during the first trimester, when it comes to later-term abortions, there are very few with laws as liberal as those of the United States.[9] Restrictions on abortion are most stringent in countries that are more strongly observant of the Catholic faith.[8]
It’s amazing that you can look at that map and not see it as an indication of how backward the Unites States is. We also have a candidate running on a platform to repeal universal health care and he is being taken seriously. In Europe (except for Belarus, the Alabama of Europe) a politician would be laughed at.
True. Evangelicals are more against it than Catholics. But I think part of the issue is the way the debate got settled in the US. In Europe, they passed laws. In the US, the court ruled abortion was a right. And further, that we couldn’t even enact European-style restrictions on abortion. I think that might have hardened some minds.
Yeah, I’m sure that’s it. Left to their own devices the short bus states would have eventually come around, just like they did with slavery and Jim Crow.
Does it even matter if they come around? Unless we’re acknowledging that abortion is indeed a right, in which case Europe is backwards. They do not acknowledge it as a right, but rather a privilege, a boon granted to women by a benevolent state. It can be taken away as soon as public opinion turns, or if public opinion even matters, as soon as the opinion of the elite turns.
I’m still wondering how Europe went through these changes. again, I heard of no social movements demanding change. To the outsider, it looks like the elites changed, and thus the people went along.
Also, I wonder what the growing islamic population in Europe thinks about the death penalty, gay rights, and women’s rights? Are there constitutional protections robust enough to protect gays and women should public opinion turn due to demographic changes?
I can only speak for the countries I know most (my country of birth, Spain, and the country where I live, the Netherlands).
In the Netherlands, article 1 of the Dutch constitution has been interpreted as forbidding any kind of discrimination for reason of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, and possibly some others. In that respect, it would seem that gay and women rights are explicitly protected and secure. To do anything against that, they would first have to change the constitution itself (Geert Wilders, our local resident lunatic in parliament, harped some years ago about getting rid of article 1 of the constitution. He wasn’t particularly vehement about it and, anyway, the shitstorm that he unleashed made him backtrack quite quickly).
In the Spanish constitution, article 14 (“Los españoles son iguales ante la Ley, sin que pueda prevalecer discriminación alguna por razón de nacimiento, raza, sexo, religión, opinión o cualquier otra condición o circunstancia personal o social.”) has been interpreted in the same way (especially the last clause: “all Spanish citizens are equal before the Law, without discrimination due to birth, race, sex, religion, opinion, or any other condition or circumstance, personal or social” – That last clause has been interpreted as including sexual orientation).
Regarding same sex marriage, interestingly it can be considered to be supported by the Spanish constitution as originally written in the 1970s. Article 32:
"1. El hombre y la mujer tienen derecho a contraer matrimonio con plena igualdad jurídica.
La Ley regulará las formas de matrimonio, la edad y capacidad para contraerlo, los derechos y deberes de los cónyuges, las causas de separación y disolución y sus efectos."
Which means: "1. Men and women have the right to enter a marriage contract with equality before the Law.
The Law will regulate what forms of marriage are allowed, the age and mental capacity [deemed to be needed] to enter the contract, the rights and duties of the spouses, the causes for separation and dissolution, and their effects."
The point, then, is that paragraph 1 of Article 32 only mentions that “men and women have the right to be married”, NOT anything about “a man with a woman”.
Paragraph 2 establishes that Congress is the one in charge with enacting the laws that specify what forms of marriage are accepted. Obviously the intention when the Constitution was written was to allow for the introduction of civil marriage in Spain, or marriage in front of religious authorities other than the Catholic church. However, with the Constitution-as-written, it also allows for same-sex marriage.
If that was the intention of the writers in the 1970s, I am truly impressed at their foresight.
========
Now, regarding more conservative islamic populations in Europe (which, btw, are not that “fast growing” – I remember reading that, in the Netherlands, ironically we have one of the lowest amounts of immigrants, percentage-wise: Only about 2.5% of the population is non-Dutch. Of course you have places like Rotterdam where something like 40% of the population is from abroad, but the rest of the country is remarkably homogeneous)…
…there have been some cases where recent islamic immigrants in Amsterdam confronted and assaulted gay couples walking on the street. I remember reading that there were a couple of somewhat high-profile cases. However, as far as I know, the police quickly fell on the assaulters like a ton of bricks.
Let us not forget that the “gay-friendliness” of places like Amsterdam and others has actually attracted quite a few gay muslims that feel safer there.
It thought it might be relevant to mention that abortion is illegal in Ireland. So you could technically say that the U.S. is more progressive about abortion than Europe. It’d be a bit disingenuous, but not technically incorrect.
Hardly disingenous. Legally, the US is probably the most pro-choice in the world. In terms of public opinion on abortion though, we’re probably less pro-life. Have any European countries been extensively polled on their views on abortion?
Death penalty – The public support for death penalty is only slightly lower in West Europe (& Canada) than it is in the USA.
Abortion – Several European nations have way stricter abortion laws than the USA. In Denmark it is 12 weeks cut off date; only in exception and very rare cases until 24 weeks. Never after 24 weeks. A large majority of Danes would find the American laws amorally lenient.
Healthcare – In Denmark complicated cases are routinely moved to the USA, and in general the healthcare system is not considered on par with the American.
Gay Rights – Abstract rights on paper does not translate into better conditions, and recently American gay rights organisations have had to warn its members to beware of even erstwhile so gay-friendly cities as Amsterdam and Copenhagen. But still Copenhagen but must be better than Malmø in Sweden, since we’ve had some refugees fleeing that place (together with the Jews).
Besides have you ever been to the Faroe Islands (which I guess is part of Western Europe). Gays need not apply (leading politicians routinely thunder against their amoral lifestyle, but the native homosexuals have fled to Copenhagen anyway) and abortion is pretty much illegal. There’s hasn’t been a murder in decades (or centuries, I forget) but if there was they’d probably lynch him on the spot without any complicated legal discussion about the death penalty.
Depending on how you look at it, I’m not sure it’s even a technicality. The US really does have pretty liberal laws on when women are allowed to choose abortion for any reason. (That doesn’t always mean it’s always easier for a woman to get an abortion here, although I bet it actually is easier in an urban area in New York than it is even in Germany, let alone Poland or Ireland.)
This is not a fully accurate statement of the law. While it is true that the federal government is one of limited powers, it could mandate a resolution to all of these items through a variety of mechanisms.
I’m not saying that it should or that it will, but it certainly can.
The death penalty could easily be barred via a Supreme Court ruling that it violates the 8th amendment. The Court in fact stayed all death penalties from 1972 until 1976 in the Furman case - ruling that it was being applied in an unconstitutional manner. They didn’t rule it per se unconstitutional, but they certainly could if they wished (as they have already ruled it per se unconstitutional in cases where no victim is killed).
Of course, a constitutional amendment could accomplish the same thing.
For gay marriage, a simple constitutional amendment could do the trick, but so could a Supreme Court ruling that incorporated sexual preference as a protected class, or even legislation that provided federal benefits to same sex couples and legislation incorporating a broader interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause when it comes to same sex marriage (effectively meaning that only 1 state would need to legalize same sex marriage).
For the teaching of evolution, the federal government could just tie education dollars to the requirement and that would pretty much seal the deal (this is how the feds have imposed open container laws and speed limits, just tie highway money to it - more specifically it’s how they implemented the testing mandate of no child left behind).
So none of this is beyond the power of the federal government (although one could argue that it should be - but that’s a different debate).
Why can’t we put these behind us? Two reasons- the South and the Republican Party. We have one region whose social views are considerably behind the rest of us and a party that caters to the knuckle-walking, mouth-breathing social conservatives.
