This conversation is closed.
That INTENT of a LAW must become reason to enlarge its interpretation if it the INTENT is not delivering the intended benefit
A right is something that is "just given" in a democratic environment. I believe the a 250 year old charter has enshrined this in constitutions in almost ALL democracies all over the world.
Now we have some matured democracies and the literate know that a LAW starts off as a line phrased in a language which was driven and based on "the then circumstances that had a causality" . This logic we use to solve serious problems that do not create more conflict.
250 years ago the causality and circumstance was "slavery which had to be abolished in a sustainable way". I believe we should agree that lots of things have evolved and changed over 250 years and specially the numbers. While we never want to change any word within the charter; perhaps some additions, based on the fact that Every Law was designed to have an intent.
Society and judges ( not lawyers and activists) should consider INTENT to be to be a major factor IF A LAW HAS is been unable to deliver because of NEW circumstance and causality.
Logically when following the Law, everyone and anyone who physically lands or just stands in a democratic geography/soil must be granted his/her civil rights which are basic human rights. This is perfect.
BUT what if that person has no clue about "what this means" or has no concern for this new alien society since he or she has never lived in a democratic society, and he/she even has a logic to do damage to this new society. So what happens when persons who come from a land where there is NO DEMOCRACY are given freedom because he/she now just stands on a soil which has been built and declared to be a Free society by others. Now I will not state my opinion because there are many with more knowledge; so as an observer living (and having visited lands) where one is told is a democratic society has seen and experiences that Today just a fringe opinion or behavior seems to change and control the lifestyle of the majority. So is democracy based on soil or does it lie between the ears