Should Northern Ireland Still Make Changes to Its Abortion Law?

Northern Ireland remains mum on the issue regarding abortion and still has a ban in place for the controversial activity. However, should they consider foetuses with possible birth defects that could shorten its lifespan for abortion?

Let’s get things straight. The UK legislation protects people from pain and suffering. Even our justice systems encourage people to report pain and suffering as clauses to gain recompense for damages. If children are made to suffer because of their birth defects by being alive, shouldn’t it count as child abuse and pain and suffering charges?

According to Justice Minister David Ford “I believe we owe it to people who have highlighted the case in the media and others who have suffered in silence that we address those issues which have caused significant concern.”

Sarah Ewart made her case public when she said she had to travel to London to have her child aborted because the baby was diagnosed with anecephaly, a severe brain anomaly that lowered the survival rate of her child even if it should survive after childbirth.

Having an abortion law in Northern Ireland would be helpful especially with the proper regulation of the industry and the proper legalities in place. It also lowers costs for those who intend to have an abortion.

Currently, North Ireland only allows mothers to have an abortion if the child is putting the mother’s life in grave danger. I don’t think this would be enough.

The Irony of the Ashya King Case

It is heartbreaking for parents to be separated from their children, especially during their time of need. The sad thing is that the emotional impact on parents seeing their child in pain and professionals unable to find a solution does not count as evidence. This is the situation of the Kings after they were arrested for “stealing” their son from the hospital.

Ashya was under medical orders not to be removed from his life supports as it could prove fatal to his condition. Defying orders because both parents lacked confidence in the methods of NHS medical procedures, the Kings stole away their son, sold their Spanish apartment to raise money for their son’s would-be proton beam therapy in Czech or any European country who provides the service.

Common sense was not too common in the aftermath of the parents’ arrests. Medical staff advised police that Ashya was in “grave danger.” Upon arrest, British legal authorities even had the nerve to request a criminal history review for the couple based on their actions.

In essence, the UK government’s logic is like this; the parents’ motive was to kidnap the child without considering his health. They are assumed suspects of criminal activity for disobeying medical orders. But then, as I said earlier, the emotions involved in seeing a child in pain with doctors unable to do anything cannot be used as evidence in the Courts.

Constitution once again proves it is emotionless. Practical, effective, but emotionless.

Why the UK Does Not Need a “Revenge Porn” Law

Many of us were puzzled when the UK Courts voted against having a “revenge porn” law. I mean, social media is a potentially hazardous environment to one’s personal information, especially intimate ones. Ex-lovers, taking it out against their former partners, upload explicit media for everyone in their networks to see to tarnish the reputation of the other.

And oftentimes, this particular media is spread to different websites, allowing search engines like Google to easily find the particular information due to its repeated appearance.

The “revenge porn” law will protect victims of such slanderous publicity to file litigation against their former partner.

So why would the UK courts want to stop the revenge porn law?

Well, my opinion is that today, the UK courts are facing modern terms. Terminologies like cyber bullying, revenge porn, trolling and other undesirable and hostile internet activities are yet to be integrated in the constitution. If the UK courts approve a law that uses an ambiguous word, then the law is ambiguous in itself.

The second thing is that the UK already has a co-author or co-creator agreement law. This publishing law requires that the published content online should have the approval of the two parties or else, the uploader is responsible for breaching the trust of the other owner. If they add a new revenge porn law, which has almost the same statements, then it can become a confusing constitution.

The Security Paradox of the UK’s Possible Surveillance Laws

In the face of potential local terrorism, UK political parties discuss the feasibility of having additional emergency laws that would allow phone companies to store information from subscribers from six months to two years. Many human rights and privacy rights groups, including the Big Brother watch, warn that the UK government must “think clearly” and not overreact to the situation.

The UK government intends to use the indiscriminately collected data to find potential returning terrorists and extremists who fought in the fronts of the Middle East alongside known factions such as the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (ISIS) and rebels in Syria. Reports of British Muslims joining their ranks have increased, with uploaded recruitment videos showing some of the extremists and their lives in the UK.

Currently, us, the public, is facing a collective paradox that only leaves us with a single choice. Will we want to have the government peer into our daily lives and privacies to help them find the potential terror threat in our own neighbourhoods? Or will we have them enforce the security of our privacies as we have the right to protect ourselves and our identities from the public?

Referring to an internet joke, privacy laws are a “first world problem.” But privacy is an essential human right. But then again, who has privacy when the Sharia-driven extremists dominate the culture of the western world through force? Maybe we should think of that. Maybe we are just prioritising our own selfishness, or maybe we are paranoid that someone may try to manipulate our lives, namely the government.

Either way, we may have to trade some of our privacy in the end.

Google “US Digital Millennium Copyright Act” Complaint to Have New Partner

Whenever we search Google for a download of a song from some server (of course, illegally), Google will flag certain websites and results. Indicating at the bottom of its page, it would say Google had removed a number of results from the page after it received complaints from the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This became famous with many first-time Google users who thought they could find some direct download links.

After the EU courts had ruled that Google consent to the requests of the “right to be forgotten,” Google will now be adding a new message below search results. When people search for individual names, it will now show that it removed a number of results because of the European Court of Justice’s ruling for an individual’s right to be forgotten.

Truthfully, I can see from other articles that Google is against the ruling, but is powerless to act against it, but I can also see the bright side. Google can expose pretty much everything about an individual, including some salacious and obscene things they have done, which is recorded on media.

This is great and all, especially for those wanting to “start over” to help elevate their careers, but the real problem is the servers. If the media is still stored in an external server, Google could only block, but not completely remove it.

But now, at least we’re going to see two flagging messages from Google.

Public Interest is Important in Gerry Adams Case

According to observers, the Gerry Adams case is very delicate simply because it affects the balance of political powers in Ireland. The impact of charges against Adams, who had a connection to the killing of Mrs. McConville and ordered the woman’s death, could upset the balance of the public.

According to the son of Jean McConville, Michael had told police that Gerry Adams will receive a “backlash” should he decide to release the names of the people who killed her. Adams denied the statement. On Sunday, he was released after being questioned about the case, which happened in 1972.

Police believed that Adams had connections with the Irish Republican Army.

However, Michael vowed to get justice for his mother’s death.

Law experts said that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland should step in and oversee all criminal proceedings on behalf of police forces. The Justice Act of 2002 binds them so. The police is advised to leave the decisions to the Public Prosecution Service of the DPP.

The impact of the Gerry Adams case in the power-sharing government of Northern Ireland may shake violently, according to political analysts. Adams was released on Sunday, but the PPS will can still call him back if evidences point to charges against him.

Source

The Alarming Rate Muslim Laws Are Integrated into the UK’s System

The last time I recalled Sharia Law was that the western countries condemned it for its extreme disregard for human rights in favour of tradition and practice. Sharia law prevented women from education and their rights and even left young MalalaYousafzai almost dead at the hands of Taliban assassins. 

However, if you knew the way the world works, you would have figured out by now that governments prefer a balance of human rights and economic progress in countries. The UK is no exception; it is integrating some changes in the UK legal system to accommodate Sharia laws.

Despite the UK having a small population of Muslims, the integration of Sharia law will allow the UK a richer network of business, corporations and individuals from the population to enrich its economic prospects. If your rights are respected, you are appeased and you would want to serve the government that granted you access to such privileges. This will make corporation heads look up and smell the coffee to help the UK back up to its feet.

It is not a bad thing but Sharia law will have implications not just to the Muslim community, but also to the entire population of the country. In every new law there are trade-offs in loyalties. Immigrants are annoyed and experts criticize the UK’s new immigration laws. The integration of Muslim laws, while it helps the economy, could have non-Muslim males refuse inheritance to their wives.