Thread

US sanctions force The Netherlands off Microsoft and toward alternative NixOS

388 points · 396 comments · mywacaday

guidoiaquinti · 1790685221 · focus · HN ↗
Several International Criminal Court (ICC) judges have been unable to access their bank accounts or receive routine salary payments and financial transfers due to financial blockages triggered by United States sanctions. In the country where they live
1. rapsey · 1790686393 · focus · HN ↗
  ICC judges getting the right wing activist treatment, except the activists get it from their own government.
  1. flohofwoe · 1790687230 · focus · HN ↗
    Concrete examples to verify such claims please? Also in civilized countries such things are decided by the justice system, not the government (which to the surprise of many simple minded people - like a certain US president and his fanbase - is independent from the government).
    ecshafer · 1790688282 · focus · HN ↗
    The concrete example would be Canada "debanking" the truckers who protested in Ottawa for exercising their GOD given right to free speech. Another concrete example would be Germany having banks close accounts for the AFD and AFD related people.
    flohofwoe · 1790688593 · focus · HN ↗
    Some basic googling would tell you that:
    1. the AfD thing was the decision of individual banks, not of the German government. Basically, in a free world companies can decide who they want to do business with.
    2. the Canadian trucker "debanking" was quickly resolved because the Canadian justice system did their job and overruled the unlawful "emergency" government order
    coredog64 · 1790693167 · focus · HN ↗
    After being heard to exclaim "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", Henry II subsequently explained that the 4 knights each came to their own individual decisions about how best to deploy their swords.
    flohofwoe · 1790693683 · focus · HN ↗
    A poor analogy for democratic countries (spot on for Putin and his merry band of oligarchs though).
    SllX · 1790694088 · focus · HN ↗
    Being a democracy does not make countries immune from the phenomenon where under their own judgment, private actors decide with information provided to them in part by their own government, it’s more often than not in their best interest to be with them rather than against them.
    ecshafer · 1790695344 · focus · HN ↗
    What if the private company is "deciding under their own judgement because the VP's roomate from College is a chief of staff and they were told it would be really helpful if they decided in a beneficial way? We saw from the Twitter files that Twitter had an active relationship with members of the Democratic party and agents of the government to decide under their own judgement to ban or downrank certain people and ideas. This led to another concrete example of major outlets being effectively banned (The New York Post) due to the Hunter Biden Laptop issue. This behind the scene collusion is where the "they are a private company" line falls apart.
    SllX · 1790697261 · focus · HN ↗
    They are private companies. That doesn’t mean it isn’t in their best interest to maintain good relations with the people directing the nation’s sovereign power.
    Never forget: sovereign power outranks corporate power. Corporations are better at making money. Sovereigns are better at violence.
    Y-bar · 1790693312 · focus · HN ↗
    Which _specific_ GOD gave that right and did any of the other gods concur?
    ecshafer · 1790693928 · focus · HN ↗
    There is only one GOD.
    kijashdkujdfhas · 1790694686 · focus · HN ↗
    According to you. Others may believe in values ranging from 0 to some large N.
    benenrjdnz · 1790694864 · focus · HN ↗
    Off by one error.
    flohofwoe · 1790695163 · focus · HN ↗
    Damn right! But I doubt the Flying Spaghetti Monster cares much about the indiviual rights of Canadian truckers (<a href="https://www.spaghettimonster.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.spaghettimonster.org/).
    Shiggy_ · 1790694248 · focus · HN ↗
    The obvious answer here is "the one that you hate." Or, the Christian god of Abraham.
    The preamble is not subtle: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
    Now, legally/philosophically speaking, the Canadian concept of free-speech is laughably weak, as is all Canadian rights. Specifically, section one clearly states that rights are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Effectively, if the government decides that you're "not reasonable," you have no rights.
    The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God, where the idea is that the government is to uphold the existing divine rights afforded to all human beings, as opposed to the British system of which Canada (and the rest of the common-wealth is based off of) is a part of, where the government _grants_ the rights.
    Another example of this is the British crown, in which authority is given by God. Many of the older cities derive their local authority in the same way. If I recall correctly, I believe that the city of London is so old that they actually mixed it up, and derive theirs from "time immemorial."
    Y-bar · 1790694728 · focus · HN ↗
    Serious question: Why would I hate any god?
    Shiggy_ · 1790694865 · focus · HN ↗
    Serious question: Why are you pretending that you don't know which god the western world is referring to in its legal documents?
    Y-bar · 1790695101 · focus · HN ↗
    I don’t regularly read legal documents of nations I don’t live in. Why did you assume I hate any god?
    Edit: the constitution in my country mentions no religion or god. Neither does the Lisbon Treaty or the Treaty on European Union.
    dragonwriter · 1790695375 · focus · HN ↗
    > The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God
    No, the legal system is not; there are non-legal documents which claim both of those things, but being subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” is very much how the US elgal system treats them. There is even, in federal Constitutional case law, an established, gradated system of tests (rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) depending on which right is at issue and for whom it is being limited as to whether there is sufficient justification.
    someonebaggy · 1790696207 · focus · HN ↗
    The same people who will tell you it's wrong to debank truckers for blocking highways will also complain that we don't debank climate protestors who block highways.
    someonebaggy · 1790696279 · focus · HN ↗
    btw Germany doesn't have free speech. It is explicitly illegal there to deny the holocaust (the German one) or to spread racial hatred.
    ecshafer · 1790697949 · focus · HN ↗
    All men, being created by GOD, have certain inalienable rights, like free speech. Whether a country infringes upon those rights or not is a different story. Germany has a history in authoritarianism that seems to persist.
    someonebaggy · 1790701681 · focus · HN ↗
    Personally, I was created by my parents.
    saulapremium · 1790703975 · focus · HN ↗
    Sigh, it's pretty depressing to have to read stuff like this on a place like HN that is otherwise pretty informed and mature.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.