THW permit legislating by citizen initiated referenda

Citizen-initiated referendums

We cannot all go down to the local town centre as the ancient Athenians did. Our nations and our states are too big for that. Citizen-initiated referendum is one way for citizens to have a direct say in government decisions where there are large populations. Two of the things citizen-initiated referendum can do are:

• allow citizens to propose a new law

• allow citizens to vote against laws passed by parliament.

Some countries that have citizen-initiated referendum have one of the above and others have both.

Citizen-initiated referendum in three countries

Switzerland

The Swiss have had citizen-initiated referendum for over 100 years and in that time have voted on more than 300 issues. In 1977 the people rejected a proposal by the government for a new kind of tax. In 1984 they rejected another government proposal to reduce the working week from 42 hours to 38 hours.

United States

In the United States many states have some form of citizen-initiated referendum. In California during the 1990 elections, voters had to deal with a ballot paper with 20 referendum questions and 144 pages containing arguments for and against each referendum proposal.

In the 1960s the Californian government passed a law that real estate agents and owners of apartment houses could not use racial discrimination against people who wanted to rent or buy apartments or houses. The real estate agents initiated a referendum to overturn this law so that they could discriminate against people in this way. The real estate agents won.

Four states have voted to bring back the death penalty through referendum. Anti-gun laws have been introduced in several states.

Italy

In Italy the citizens can only initiate a referendum to vote against a law passed by the government. They cannot initiate a referendum to propose a law. In 1991 Italian people voted to remove a law which prohibited divorce.

How citizen-initiated referendum could work

Step 1

Some people in the community want a new law or to remove an existing law. They collect a number of petitions of registered voters and take them to the electoral office (say 1 per cent of voters in a majority of electorates in order to move to the next step).

Step 2

Parliamentary officers prepare a proposed law.

Step 3

The proposed law is debated in the parliament. If the parliament does not pass the proposal, it moves to Step 4.

Step 4

A referendum is held and if a majority of voters in a majority of electorates support the proposal, it becomes law.

This House Believes That we should have more direct democracy?

Arguments against more direct democracy	Arguments for more direct democracy
People already have a choice between members of parliament and the government programs they support.	People have more say about particular issues. Sometimes politicians of opposite sides agree among themselves on a policy they know the people don't support.
People already have to vote for federal, state and local governments. They don't want to have to go to polling booths more often. Electronic voting is not a realistic option; it has too many problems.	Electronic media allows debate and voting among large populations without any need for people to come to one place.
People have an opportunity, apart from elections through community and lobby groups to influence governments and governments are often guided by opinion polls.	Governments and parties can still play a role as they do today.
Citizen campaigns can more easily be led by people or groups with money - meaning wealthy groups have too much influence. Individual citizens or groups of citizens who propose change may not have the interest or the ability to make proposals in the best interests of all the different groups in the country or state.	Politicians are not the only people who are expert in making decisions for the nation as a whole. As people become more involved they become more expert.
Representative governments should look after the interests of minorities as well as the majority that voted for them. The people may be more influenced by prejudice or less concerned about minority rights.	Representative governments have not always looked after the interests of minority groups.
Once the people had voted on a citizen-initiated referendum it would have to become law. There would be no opportunity for the parliament to review the proposed legislation or make changes before it became law.	There is no reason to think that citizens will be any better or worse than governments.

referendum campaigning is much less well developed and well understood than the art of election campaigning. More effective in saying “NO” than saying “YES”
Amongst other things, modern political advertising tends to be:

* negative, often fiercely so;
* visual rather than textual;
* targeted to different segments of an electorate which is profiled and segmented in depth by party organisations;
* in particular, targeted at “swinging voters” who are considered by the parties to be the voters who are least well-informed, least civic minded, most materialistic and most easily stirred to negative emotions;
* increasingly short and simple;
* content-free as far as substantive issues and policies are concerned;
* geared to selling personalities rather than policies.

None of this is well suited to securing the passage of a referendum proposal, and task which requires (a) clearly explaining the proposal so that a large majority of the voting population understand it and (b) providing persuasive arguments to convince a majority of the voters to support it.

Federal Judge Blocks Online Pornography Law

background
A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed “harmful.”
Under the law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web publishers would have been required to request credit card information or other proof of age from Web site users to prevent children from viewing material deemed “harmful to minors” by “contemporary community standards.” Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

pros
Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods, including software filters, that parents can use to control their children’s Internet use.
“Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material,” Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that “perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”
“If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet,” said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. “All Internet would have had to be brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that take place on the Internet.”

cons:
But others were disappointed.
“It’s a very frustrating decision. We have an epidemic problem of kids accessing pornographic material online,” said Donna Rice Hughes, president of Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to protect children from pornography and online predators. “Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting trumped.”
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries receiving certain federal money to use software filters. The high court upheld that law in 2003.
Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University, said the case decided today indicates the shifting stances that civil libertarians have taken regarding controls placed on the Internet.
“Civil libertarians have long had a ‘love-hate’ relationship with filters,” he said, adding that while the A.C.L.U. argued in this case that filters are preferable, the organization has also voiced concerns about them.
“People buy filters worried about pornography, but then they see they can also block sports, politics and lots of other things, so they block those, too,” Professor Lessig said. “The result is to reinforce this infrastructure of filters.” That, he said, may lead to “less free speech than we would have if the government could only get it right in their approach to limiting pornography.”
Mr. Hansen said that his organization has only opposed the mandatory use of filters, not filters themselves.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law would have a chilling effect on free speech.
“We know from experience that putting up any barrier in front of your content, whether its an advertisement or a subscription wall or anything that delays someone’s access, has a big impact on traffic,” said Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com.
In a post-trial brief, Peter D. Keisler, a government lawyer, argued that depending solely on filters was insufficient. “It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government’s addressing the problem at its source,” he wrote.

Sub-prime lending

Subprime lending (also: B-Paper, B-tier, non-prime, near-prime, special finance, second chance lending) describes a specific lending market sector. Typically, subprime customers are those who do not qualify for prime market rates because of a blemished or limited credit history. Subprime customers are therefore charged a higher interest rate, to compensate for the increased future probability of default.

The general lending philosophy can be described as "priced to risk," where the interest rate the borrower pays increases as their risk level to the lender increases. In the United States, subprime borrowers are generally defined as individuals with limited income or a FICO credit score below 620 (on a scale between 300 and 850).

Origins and Motivations
Subprime lending evolved the same way as other businesses, with a realization of the demand in the marketplace and then providing a supply to meet it. With divorce being common in society, bankruptcies and consumer proposals being widely accessible, a constantly fluctuating economic environment, and consumer debt load on the rise, traditional lenders are more cautious and have been turning away a record amount of potential customers.[citation needed] Statistically, approximately 25% of the population falls into this category (credit score < 620).[citation needed]

Motivation for the Lender
To access this increasing market, lenders take on the risks associated with lending to people with poor credit ratings. Subprime loans are considered to be risky for the lender due to borrower's weaker or limited credit history. A weak credit history may include a history of late credit card payments, one or more 30 day mortgage lates, and notices of default. Lenders subsquently adjust their underwriting criteria to reflect the increased payment risk. This payment risk is reflected by charging a higher interest rate over the life of the loan.

Motivation for the Borrower
Subprime lending offers the opportunity for borrowers with less then ideal credit to gain access to credit. Borrowers subsequently use this credit to purchase homes, or in the case of a cash out refinance, finance other forms of spending such as purchasing a car, paying for living expenses, or even paying down a high interest credit card. However due to the risk profile of the subprime borrower, this access to credit comes at the price of higher interest rates.

Subprime Lending and Re-establishing Personal Credit
Some subprime finance companies offer customers with poor credit a chance to re-establish their credit and eventually become a prime customer. Consumers with poor credit can borrow at higher-interest rates from subprime lenders. Once the borrower has shown responsibility in paying off debts and re-established a positive payment history, credit rating can increase. While an overwhelming majority of mortgage loans, subprime or otherwise, are reported to credit bureaus, not all are.[citation needed] Customers wishing to re-establishing their credit should check that their payment history is reported.

Recent Problems with Sub-Prime Lenders
Recently many subprime lenders have gone bankrupt or stop making loans. The prevailing cause for their insolvency or exit from the subprime market is increased defaults from the loans these lenders have originated. The increase in defaults can be artibuted to the type of loans being made by subprime lenders. A common subprime loan product is the "2-28" loan. A "2-28" loan is a loan with a low initial interest rate that is fixed for two years. After two years the interest rate resets to a higher adjustable rate for the remaining life of the loan, in this case 28 years. Other varients of the "2-28" loan product are the "3-27" and the "4-26". One of the concerns with such loan products is that the borrower qualifies for the initial start rate which may be as low 1-2% APR. After say 2 years, when interest rate resets, the borrower may suddenly find themselves unable to make their payments. The new interest is typically some margin over an adjustable index. For example 5% over 12 month LIBOR which would be 10.203% as of 3-19-07. Many of the loans made to subprime borrowers in the recent real estate boom have been of the "2-28" variety. The "2-28" product is designed to have the borrower refinance after 2 years, when the fixed portion of the loan is over. For the borrower refinancing is not problematic provided that their homes have held or increased in value. If the borrower has some equity in their home then depreciating home values are not so troubling. However what happens when the borrower has borrowed 100% of the value of their home and the value of their home decreases? In such a situation the borrower is said to be "underwater": owing more then the home is worth. Borrowers finding themselves unable to refinance out of crushing monthly payments are faced with two options: keep making payments or stop making payments. In the latter case the borrower defaults on their loan resulting in a loss of revenue for the lender.

New Century Financial, previously the second largest sub-prime mortgage lender in the U.S., in March 2007 stopped accepting loan applications was delisted from the NYSE as a result of difficulties with its subprime loans.

Legalize Euthanasia

legalize euthanasia

is the practice of terminating the life of a person or animal in a painless or minimally painful way in order to stop suffering or other undesired conditions in life. This may be voluntary or involuntary, and carried out with or without a physician. In a medical environment, this can be carried out by oral, intravenous or intramuscular drug administration.

Reasons given for Voluntary Euthanasia:

* Choice: Choice is a fundamental democratic principle and is the basis of the Free Enterprise system.

* Financial: It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society.

* Pain: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease can be incomprehensible, even with pain relievers, to a person who has not gone through it. Society should not be able to force them to endure such hardship.

Reasons given against Voluntary Euthanasia:

* Hippocratic Oath: Every doctor must swear upon some variation of it, and the original version explicitly excludes euthanasia.

* Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable. [1] This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.

* Theological: Many religions and modern religious interpretations explicitly regard both euthanasia and suicide as sinful acts (see Religious views of suicide).

* Competence: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.

* Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable or palliable, the correct action is to attempt to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.

Pro-Choice

make it legal for a competent adult, who is suffering unbearably from a terminal illness, to be allowed to request medical help to die at their own informed and persistent request - If that's what they want.

Everyone wants a good death, which is why opinion polls show 85% of the population support us.

The doctor/patient relationship has changed a lot over the last 50 years, from 'doctor knows best' towards a more equal relationship with doctors giving patients the information they need in order to make their own informed decisions. But when it comes to end-of-life decision making the relationship is far from equal: patients are still disempowered.

This requires a two-way dialogue with our doctors, where our wishes about our own lives are respected.

The desire to have control over our lives is a fundamental part of our humanity.

Everyone knows that doctors help people to die even though it is against the law. For example, in a recent survey 4% of UK doctors admitted to assisting in a patient's suicide, although the real figure is likely to be much higher.

Each year 'mercy killing' cases are brought to court but juries refuse to convict, or when they do judges only give suspended sentences. Without legal safeguards there is little protection here for vulnerable people.

Belgium, conducted a full enquiry into end-of-life decisions, discovered it had five times the amount of non-voluntary euthanasia as the Netherlands, where assisted dying is strictly regulated. The Belgian Senate has now voted to legalise voluntary euthanasia because it recognises regulation is the best way to protect the vulnerable.

Pro-Life

Promoters of these practices take a utilitarian view of human life rather than viewing all human life as uniquely created and deserving of absolute respect.

Dr Christopher Hufeland, Goethe's doctor, warned in 1806 "The physician should and may do nothing else but preserve life. "Whether it is valuable or not, that is none of his business. If he once permits such considerations to influence his actions, the doctor will become the most dangerous man in the state."

The legalising of intentional killing is the catalyst for the wholesale destruction of the elderly - we have seen the torrent of death in Holland where the elderly are terrified of entering hospital for fear of involuntary euthanasia.

THBT we should ban all advertising during children's TV programs

Background:
Nowadays, 70% of the ads during children’s TV programs are food advertising, while the rest are mainly for toys, video games, etc. This arouses people’s concern for children’s physical and psychological health. Fast food chains alone spend more than 3 billion dollars a year on advertising, much of it aimed at children. The results is a nation of overweight children, according to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada—which says that almost one in four Canadian children between 7 and 12, is obese. A 2002 U.S. study showed that fast-food commercials during kids programming on Saturday mornings are pitching bigger and bigger portions, a trend that researchers link to an the alarming rise of obesity among young people.

Pros:
1. Health concern
1) Obesity, cardiovascular diseases:
In Britain, the Labour Party banned fast food ads during children’s programs in 2006. Child obesity rate doubled in the past decade.
2) Ads flash much more quickly than regular programs, and the high frequency of light change is a strain on children’s eyes. (*Identify significant and insignificant points. This is a minor point)

2. Materialism
1) Desire for more than they need;
Marketers have discovered something about children that parents have long known—they love to collect things. Kids’ collections used to consist of marbles, stamps or coins. But now they amass huge collection of store-bought items such as Beanie Babies, Barbies or Pokémon cards and figures.
2) Desire for more than their parents can afford;
The marketing strategy behind the Pokémon was simple and lucrative—create 150 Pokémon characters, then launch a marketing campaign called "Gotta Catch 'Em All," to encourage children to collect all 150 of the cheaply made, over priced figures. This costs a fortune.
3) Parents may spoil their children, or children may bear a grudge against their parents

3. Cultural influence
1) Women’s image (images of little girls and their young mothers in the ads);
The image of Barbie dolls and the concept of beauty for little girls.
2) Misuse of idioms;
3) Imitation of babbling, lallation, and incomplete sentences, etc. (critical period of language acquisition)

Cons:
1. Children’s right to choose as little consumers
1) Equal rights in purchase, under parental guidance;
2) Parents may not know what their children need and like;
Children understand these things much better than their parents think they do. Old-fashioned parents need someone else to introduce children to the modern world of commercial communication. And who is better placed to do that than advertisers?
3) Parents ultimately pay for the goods, and therefore junk food will not overwhelm;
Whether ort not cheese is healthy, parents should be the ones deciding what kids eat, not the government.

2. Source of revenue for children’s programs
1) Most effective way to promote sales for enterprises (win-win situation)—manufacturers can spend more in R & D to improve and innovate.
2) Educational TV programs depend on advertising.
Food advertising is a necessary revenue stream - without ad revenues from food companies, TV channels couldn’t afford to make kids' programming. Kids would suffer. A ban on ALL advertising during children's shows would result in NO children's shows.

3. Educational
1) To arouse resonance, most ads during children’s TV programs contain educational elements (eg: Barbie’s ads: children should be helpful)
2) Early exposal is not necessarily bad; it helps foster a right attitude ASAP.
Plus) A ban would be futile anyway. There’s no way you can stop kids being exposed to food advertising If not during the ads, then in actual programming content, in adult time slots, and in other media.
-There are already regulations in place; China’s advertising law prohibits harmful ads to the physical and psychological health of the minors.
-There are other factors at work besides television advertising, such as the popularity of computer games and the lack of interest by kids in sport and exercise.

copyright by Wang Yingchong