Bu Lai En wrote:This old Taipei Times feature is good:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/ar ... /11/159895
Tigerman wrote:There is a difference. When testing, even randomly, drivers for drunk-driving, they are looking to ascertain whether the drivers are driving while impaired by drink. They already KNOW that the individuals who they are requiring to take the test are in fact driving.
Contrastingly, the police at the party did NOT catch anyone in any sexual act, so they don't know that anyone was in fact "driving" while impaired. Its not a crime to be HIV+ any more than it is a crime to be drunk.
The cops don't know who, if anyone, was driving. Cops don't enter a pub and demand pubgoers to all take a breathalyzer test. They wait until the pubgoers leave the pub and start driving.
chodofu wrote:Hence my wavering and qualifications before the statment. Yes they are different, but the fact of the 14, the drug abuse, and the high risk, seems to provide sufficient evidence of "drunken driving".
chodofu wrote:As it stands I do not see any clear violation of human rights.
chodofu wrote:What these guys were doing was incredibly dangerous. Their actions should be called into question, all 98 of 'em.
chodofu wrote:As much as I do not like it, I can live with it as waiting for the unspecting to transfer the disease is like waiting for the drunk to hit an innocent pedestrian.
chodofu wrote:After all, isn't it a greater violation to wait for these guy's to have sex again (start driving) and then bust them in the act?
tigerman wrote:Tigerman wrote:chodofu wrote:After all, isn't it a greater violation to wait for these guy's to have sex again (start driving) and then bust them in the act?
Chou, I can't resist. That was, basically, Bush's argument for utilizing preemptive force against Iraq... but you don't appear to support that.
Doh!!. Actually, I was all for the war. As for all the other rebuttals, I know I am walking a thin line here, especially since I lack any hard facts.No more so than is my drinking in a pub evidence of my driving while drunk. Heck, I don't even drive... yet you'd have me hauled off to jail for failing a breathalyzer test while seated in a pub... Chou, say it ain't so!
It is difficult to cry human rights violations here. Noise complaints were the reason for the police to show up. Illegal drug use was the reason to call for back up cops and investigators, and when/how the media caught on. Now we already know that the media is out of control (and yes Flcka in America too). Its just another disgusting act and poor self censorship on their part.
Mother Theresa wrote:In the US, the fact that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty is considered extremely important and judges and jurors are often disqualified from a case if they have prejudged it. In Taiwan, on the other hand, that idea doesn't carry much weight as evidenced by the routine media coverage of criminal suspects who are apparently presumed guilty until proven innocent. For a while I thought they were going to be putting burlap sacks over the heads of the arrested to protect them from the cameras but I guess they changed their minds.
I think all of this is related to public apathy in Taiwan about the death penalty and other human rights issues. People here just don't care unless it involves themselves or maybe their family. If its just 98 homos in their undies, who gives a shit -- it's not my problem and they're probably guilty of something anyway.
Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 1 visitor