Humanities desk
< May 21	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 22

Lieutenant governor (Canada)

Why are lieutenant governors considered personal representatives of the monarch? I would have expected them to represent the Queen of Canada rather than representing Catherine Middleton's grandmother-in-law. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Middleton's grandmother-in-law is not only Queen of the UK, but also Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of Jamaica and the monarch of all the other Commonwealth realms across the globe. Obviously, a monarch of all these Commonwealth realms cannot be everywhere around the world at once, or literally live in a plane constantly jetting across the globe (or, in the case of those monarchs whose reign was before the invention of the airplane, constantly living at sea), so you have local guys like lieutenant governors in Canada that are available to carry out some of her constitutional and ceremonial duties for her on her behalf. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperus is Phosphorus? --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This official website seems very clear that they do represent the Queen of Canada. Do you have any evidence that this is incorrect? Warofdreams talk 09:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself says that they're personal representatives. Doesn't that wording mean that they represent the person who happens to be the Queen of Canada, rather than the office of Queen of Canada? Perhaps our article needs to be reworded. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also talk about "... newly installed lieutenant governors will, at some point in the first year of their mandate, be invited to a personal audience with the monarch". Is there any other type? Mass audience, perhaps? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea, as you may be alluding to is that they get to sit down one-to-one with Liz. Or at least she gets to sit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One on one behind closed doors (sounds a bit naughty, doesn't it) is what I was thinking, but how is "personal audience with the monarch" significantly different from just "audience with the monarch"? Nobody reading the latter form of words would imagine there'd be anyone there other than the LG and the monarch, would they? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they mean "private audience". But even then, nobody would think an audience with the Queen would take place on the stands at Wembley or Wimbledon, so "private" is pretty much redundant. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's redundant - keep in mind that there's different levels of "public". It doesn't automatically mean in front of a group of thousands with simultaneous live telecast. Given that this is royalty, I would imagine "public" in this context would properly refer to "public court". That is, the meeting is private in that it's not in front of the associated stewards, chancellors, chamberlains, constables, marshalls, etc. which make up the royal court. (Yes, these days such official court proceedings rarely happen, but this is the monarchy, so you have to make great allowances for historical precedence.) So "private" in the sense of "the Queen, the governor, and perhaps a few select people which HRH invites, but not the standard list of royal hangers-on which typically would be expected to be present for meetings (or would have 500 years ago)." The other sense of private being used here might be a contrast to "public record". That is, the Queen and the governor get a little tête-à-tête, without their topics of discussion being recorded in the official record of the Royal court. -- 140.142.20.101 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take the "personal" to mean not that they represent the person who happens to be queen, but that they are a person representing the monarch, when a living person is required; as opposed to The Crown in the form of judiciary, legislature etc. I have no evidence for this though. --ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what it means. A lieutenant-governor is an individual person tasked with the constitutional and ceremonial duties of the sovereign, which is why he or she is called a "personal representative", as opposed to the theoretical "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of (jurisdiction)" that all government business is handled under. If Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, happens to be in town at the time a bill comes up for Royal Assent, it would be appropriate for her to be asked to give Assent herself. However, as the Queen is no fool and usually visits Canada during the hot, sunny summer when Parliament and the provincial legislatures are not in session, this doesn't often arise. --NellieBly (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She was in Ottawa for the Constitution Act 1982, where it was symbolically appropriate for her to be there...but I can't think of any other occasion like that. Has she ever assented to anything else in person? That would be interesting. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Assent says: In Canada, the traditional ceremony for granting Assent in Parliament was regularly used until the 21st-century, long after it had been discontinued in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms. One result, conceived as part of a string of royal duties intended to demonstrate Canada's status as an independent kingdom, was that King George VI personally assented to nine bills of the Canadian Parliament during the 1939 royal tour of Canada—85 years after his great-grandmother Queen Victoria had last granted Royal Assent personally in the United Kingdom.

In Australia, certain bills have been reserved for QEII's personal assent when she was visiting; the Flags Act 1953 and the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 (see p. 4) were such cases. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were the commonwealth realms technically neocolonies?

Commonwealth realms are countries which share the same monarch as the UK (mostly former British colonies except for Papua New Guinea which was a merger of two other colonies) but are independent, sovereign nations. In Australia for example. I read that, until 1986 with the passage of the Australia Act, the UK could be involved in Australian politics, or that the last court of appeal in Australia was the Privy Council. Especially in the case of the latter, this was the case for other countries as well, even those that were no longer commonwealth realms until recent times. Does this mean that the commonwealth realms were technically neocolonies? Although it appears to have been more out of tradition, was there a time that the commonwealth realms were essentially neocolonies, although not at present? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were actual colonies once, there's nothing "neo-" about them. After they became independent realms, the British government by convention did not intervene in local politics despite any technical or constitutional power to do so. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "neocolony"? I've heard of neocolonialism. It's generally a criticism rather than a term that would be applied by proponents, so probably a better name would be cryptocolonialism, as it seems to mean something like "colonialism that doesn't want to call itself that". But I've never heard of a neocolony. Here, let's see if they turn up blue, neocolony or neocolonialism or cryptocolonialism. --Trovatore (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the neocolonialism article has serious POV problems; someone should address those. --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A neocolony is a country that is experiencing neocolonialism. What I meant is that technically, were they still somewhat self-governing colonies? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of neocolonialism was developed by Kwame Nkrumah. He was broadly a supporter of the Commonwealth, and saw it as a useful organisation of independent states. There's not going to be one single correct answer to this question, as there have been multiple subsequent definitions of neo-colonialism, but the only work which I can find describing Australia as a neo-colony is this one, which claims that it is a view held by most of the Australian left, but then attacks that supposed position. It doesn't discuss this in terms of the Commonwealth, but rather focuses on economic ties. There is much more considering whether Australia itself is a neocolonial power. Warofdreams talk 09:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One reason why Australia is not considered through world-systems theory as a neo-colony, is that Australian capital operates on an equal footing with metropolitan capital; and, that unlike in other states, the exploitation of primary industry has been historically used to fund much higher standards of living than in other export oriented primary production countries. Coded phrases are used in Australian political life to describe this, such as "Riding on the Sheep's back" or the "Minerals boom." As noted, Australia is an imperialist bastard in its own right: Free East Timor? I'll take two thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you, Fifelfoo; and thank you, Fifelfoo. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from some coat-racking in the end of the section "Neocolonialism as economic dominance", the article neocolonialism doesn't have any POV problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously disagree. It appears to have swallowed the Marxist line whole. I understand that this does not strike you personally as incorrect, but it is still very non-neutral. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It appears to have swallowed the Marxist line whole." It is an article about a concept developed by Marxists, used in Marxist contexts. The article consistently discusses neocolonialism as a concept, "Those leaders closest to France (particularly during the Cold War) are presented in this critique as agents of continued French control in Africa." and not as an actuality, despite various theories of dependency being dominant in the scholarly literature. If the article has a POV, it is that despite the preponderance of scholarship, it describes neocolonialism as a scholarly concept, rather than as an actuality. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that it describes it as an actuality, when it should not. --Trovatore (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paens to the methodology underpinning neocolonialism such as (doi:10.1080/03050628308434601) are indicative of where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies; while you're free to believe what you like in your personal life, in writing articles we WEIGHT on such a basis, and this is the basis of NPOV, not the absence of points of view, but the presentation of what the appropriate scholarly or professional consensus is. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in the field and am not nearly as familiar with the literature as you are. However, put bluntly, I don't really trust you. Not that I think you're being intentionally dishonest; I don't. I think you sincerely believe that stuff, and it colors your evaluation of which sources are more reliable. --Trovatore (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If you want to read up on competing viewpoints, IIRC the other major theories of state relations are realism and idealism, but neither engages to the same extent with the economic interdependence of states. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-colony isn't in the OED, but it seems pretty well attested on Google Books. I'll add it to Wiktionary. Warofdreams talk 09:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Privy Council: at least from the mid-20th century onwards, the Privy Council has served the independent Commonwealth realsm more like a centralised adjudication service than an instrument of colonial oppression. The independence of the judiciary in the United Kingdom, general respect for the changed constitutional arrangements between the realms, and the evolution of the coersive empire to the consensual association that the Commonwealth is today has contributed to this change.

In any case, any lingering influence which Britain might have had over the colonies in any form is derivative from the previous colonial relationship, there was no point where Britain attempted to re-assert colonial-like influence over the realms which it had previously given up. It seems quite a stretch to call it neo-colonialism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in the early days of Canada, there were a fair number of conflicts over foreign policy, generally involving relations with the US, as foreign policy was run from London. Generally Canada got screwed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days, yes, the same things happened with all of the former colonies of the UK as they progressed from colonies to self-governing dominions to fully independent states. Today, however, I see no practical evidence that the various Commonwealth states are under any practical control of any UK institution. They are fully sovereign, fully independent states. --Jayron32 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval means of publication

In The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards apparently it was "nailed" to the middle of the doors of Westminster Abbey and St Paul's Cathedral as a placard. Was this the normal means of publication in these times? Do we have more details of this means of publication in some article?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luther's The Ninety-Five Theses were famously supposed to have been nailed to a church door, and apparently a manifesto in the name of Jacopone da Todi was nailed to church doors in Rome, and a copy was left at the high altar of St Peter's. Banns of marriage were traditionally posted on church doors, although I'm not clear when that practice dates from, and whether it's connected with the tradition of holding marriages at church doors. Warofdreams talk 15:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a side question, didn't continuously nailing things to a door damage the door to the point where it splintered ? Or did they accommodate this with cork or some other soft wood, in an early version of the bulletin board ? StuRat (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They used heavy, good quality seasoned oak for their church doors. Answers.com [1] says they were nailed together and many have lasted until today. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you haven't seen the door of a cathedral. They tend to be about 8 feet high, 6 feet wide, and a foot thick. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The overall dimensions don't matter if they always nail it in the same place. I'd expect that place to turn to mush after centuries of nailing. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doors would probably be replaced for other reasons. Does any medieval cathedral still have its original doors? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many hundreds of medieval church doors in England; as Looie496 says, they were built to last. The most famous is the north door at Durham Cathedral because of its remarkable sanctuary knocker. Alansplodge (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I walked through that door yesterday! --ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! I know Nantes Cathedral has some extremely old-looking doors but I honestly have no idea if they are original. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen official documents from US county governments , presently in their files, which have holes and ink washed down the page from being nailed to doors or outdoor noticeboards in the 1850's, so the custom is just not an ancient one. I suppose the file copy somehow shows that due notice was given of a tax sale or whatever, but it seems like anyone could have ripped it off and destroyed it. Edison (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called constructive notice. You are doing a legally-defiined due diligence to notify the affected person. Usually, you print it in the newspaper a few times too. It's all what the law says.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were the "documents" of the fourteenth century made of paper (as we pretty much know of printer paper today) or did they consist more of the linen material?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vellum, parchment... --TammyMoet (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., now I get it. Would it have the appearance of a type of "linen"?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This of constructive notice would be the means of notifying people affected (e.g. parliament) when nailed to key churches in the fourteenth century. It is then the publication (broadcaster) or the deliverer method to notify certain key people about a document?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another question is how many people in mediaeval times actually were literate. Depending on who your target audience was, nailing a document to a door might not be the most effective form of mass communication. Hiring a man to shout your message out from the roof tops might have been a more efficient way of getting your message out to the masses. V85 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be effective since the church was the central point of any settlement, whether village or city. Everyone would see it, and there would definitely be someone there who could read it, no matter the overall literacy rate. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be "normal" to post notices in a public spot (like the doors of a medieval church, or in a modern context, say on a bulletin board at the town hall), but remember that this was also (in modern terms) a publicity stunt. They were trying to draw attention to their cause, so it wasn't just a normal display of information. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Justice, Writing and Revolution explains how the activists in the "Peasants Revolt" in England (1381) used written documents in English. Writing in English (rather than Latin) was an innovative practice, and it strikes me as remarkably similar to the way groups use social media for organising protests today. Not everyone had access, but enough people did for it to be effective. They posted "bills" on church doors, and then had them read aloud to public gatherings. And when someone made a speech, people wrote it up and posted it in public. So they were using oral and written communication together. On the physical qualities of oak doors, the oak goes rock hard over time rather than soft. Lots of medieval church doors are extant, see them on Google images, marvel at the amount of complex ironwork in them. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That should be useful for Doug, since the Lollards are connected to the Peasants' Revolt. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were town criers and heralds.—Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although town criers would have only done the bidding of the Aldermen and heralds were (and are still) strictly for royal news only. These were not channels of communication for ordinary folk. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smokey (the) Bear and US federal law

According to Smokey Bear, during the original bear's lifetime, federal law (16 U.S.C. 580 (p-2); 18 U.S.C. 711) prohibited the existence of another Smokey, which led to problems for a California zoo that named its fire-scarred bear "Smokey". I don't know how to search the US Code, so I can't figure it out — what kind of rights did the Forest Service own over Smokey? Trademark would seem to make sense, but I'm looking at a dead-tree NPS document from 1970 claiming that the Forest Service was demanding the zoo change the bear's name "solely to protect its copyright and interest in Smokey the Bear". I can't understand how they could own copyright purely over the name of a non-fictional creature, especially since the related fictional concept is PD-USGov — unless, of course, the relevant portions of the US Code made an exception here. Further complicating things is the rights status of the images at the Smokey article; except for one that was created by a Wikipedian, all of the images featuring Smokey bear some sort of PD-USGov license template. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. government can own copyrights. For instance, if they hired an advertising firm to create Smokey with the contract including a tranfer of copyright to the Forest Service. Rmhermen (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but what does this specific law say? Unless it made a specific exception in this case, I can't see how they could copyright a name. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can search the US Code here [2] I had a hard time finding the right part of 16 USC 580, but 18 USC 711 law says: Whoever, except as authorized under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Association of State Foresters and the Advertising Council, knowingly and for profit manufactures, reproduces, or uses the character “Smokey Bear”, originated by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Association of State Foresters and the Advertising Council for use in public information concerning the prevention of forest fires, or any facsimile thereof, or the name “Smokey Bear” shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Reviews of work of historian Antony Polonsky

I'm looking for reviews of books by Antony Polonsky, in search of a more rounded appreciation of his work. Thus far I have found: M. Berkowitz, Department of Hebrew & Jewish Studies, UCL [3]; Tony Kushner, The Jewish Chronicle [4]; Jeffrey Veidilinger, H-Net, Humanities & Social Sciences Online [5] and Timothy Snyder, The Wall Street Journal [6]. Guidance to to reviews, either in academic journals or mainstream press, would be welcome. Mick gold (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly reviews of historical books occur in scholarly journals. They are poorly indexed, and may appear up to 2 to 3 years after a book's first publication. Apart from journals known to review many works (American Historical Review), or sources dedicated to reviews (H-net reviews), you'd be looking at reviews in topical journals. Honestly there's no good way to do this except looking through the reviews in all time relevant topical journals, due to the poor indexation. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A search in Google Scholar or something like Mendeley turns up a few reviews. Warofdreams talk 09:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can a US state unilaterally secede?

--Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Secession in the United States? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article said that it is currently unknown. I'd like to know whether that's correct or not. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather legally ill-defined. However, as a practical matter, they would be able to secede if the US gov didn't send in troops to prevent it, and I can't see that happening these days. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect them to use economic sanctions, rather than military action. I doubt any US state could survive long without trading with the rest of the US (not without a massive drop in standard of living, anyway). --Tango (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the state, the US might not be able to withstand the loss of trade either. For example, if California seceded, food prices would skyrocket from a trade embargo. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If California seceded, and the US took no military action but basically just "let it happen", they would still immediately cut off all federal aid. Already being strapped for cash, the state would become very unpleasant to live in, very quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least in 2005, California provided 1$ of federal income tax for each 69c received in federal spending.[7] California is a very rich state - they just don't want to pay taxes to the level needed to maintain the services they do want. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That 31¢ might go long way to filling the gap. And, if the US wanted to maintain it's military bases and labs in CA, they would then presumably need to pay rent to CA, as well. StuRat (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is settled law. Per Texas v. White, "the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"." So it shall be written, so it shall be done. --Jayron32 20:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, by seceding, you are declaring yourself no longer subject to US law, so it's pretty irrelevant what the courts say. --Tango (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If we assume that secession can't occur unless it is legal, then the US must still be part of Britain, right ? StuRat (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It became legal by virtue of the peace treaty signed between the two nations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and if a state seceded now, I suspect eventually we'd have a treaty between it and the US legalizing it all. But, even if it Britain had never formally recognized the US, it still wouldn't change the facts on the ground, and the same would be true if a US state seceded. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, so the Congress basically declared that seccession was illegal and that it never happened in Texas v. White. So technically all history book about Southern seccession are illegal.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"So technically all history book about Southern seccession are illegal." — ???. The Southern secession attempt was illegal. History books talking about it are not. Even books that argue it was legal are not illegal. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laws have a history of saying things that are, well, just not so. See My favourite silly law. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I'd be interested to know if there are any actual examples of that law having been applied? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the legislators just dreamt that up one day when there wasn't much else happening. No, it must have been the Commissioner of Taxation, a public servant, who advised the government he and his staff couldn't do their jobs properly (collecting revenue for the government) without such a power. I can't imagine they'd have argued for such an apparently weird power but never used it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably if the taxman were to say "I deem that you earned one billion Australian dollars last year, so your tax bill is AUD 435,273,412; pay up please", there would be some sort of recourse? --Trovatore (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, it's applicable only in limited circumstances, viz. "For the purpose of making a declaration under this Subdivision", i.e., whatever subdivision of A New Tax System (Goods and Services) Act 1999 that s.165-55 falls under. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather like the principles of equity "That which should have happened is deemed to have happened" - at first blush it look slike a get-out clause "I should have paid, so I am deemed to have paid and hence owe nothing." The actuality is rather different, more like "You should have written a lease, therefore you are deemed to have written a lease, and therefore the law treats a lease has existing." Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Texas v. White stated that "Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States." So a law basically said secession never happened that what I was talking about. I agreed it is a weird law and weird ruling; the case wasn't even about a state wanting to secede.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it didn't say it never factually happened. It said it never legally happened. That's not so weird. On the actual facts, of course, people who had bought the bonds (even second-hand) got totally hosed by the ruling, in favor of what looks like a totally unmerited windfall for the State of Texas. I find it interesting that Texas v White is almost always referred to in this "no, you can't secede" context, and the equity of the actual result is hardly ever discussed. --Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not as hosed as the folks who invested in confederate money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's different. When a company in which you own stock, goes bankrupt, you expect to lose your entire investment. You don't expect to have to give back everything you bought from the company, to its new owners.

A cartoon version of the outcome is: The State of Texas sold the bonds note: US Treasury bonds, not Texas bonds or Confederate bonds, but it was in rebellion so it didn't have the right to, so if you have these bonds, you have to give them to the State of Texas. --Trovatore (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect of all this is the many Native American tribes that "disowned" their treaty obligations to the US and made new treaties with the Confederacy during the war—such as the Creeks, Choctaws, Cherokees, and Chickasaws, and others like the Wichita and Comanche. The Confederate treaties were more generous than what had been promised in earlier treaties with the US—understandably because the Confederacy desperately needed alliances with these tribes. The US never recognized the validity of any of these treaties because the Confederacy was never considered sovereign. Pfly (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a middle case, somewhere in between the currency and the bonds. On the one hand, it could be construed as the tribes having "bought" something from the Confederacy (land, maybe? I'm not familiar with the details.) But any obligations agreed to by the Confederacy would of course not be binding on the United States. And certainly it doesn't have the stark WTF aspect of Texas v White, where the State of Texas is claiming that it is owed something, on the basis of the bad acts of the State of Texas. --Trovatore (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the Southern states (a) never left the Union and (b) were required to apply for readmission to the Union. —Tamfang (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was another court case where, under a law entitling members of state militias during the Civil War to receive pensions, those in the Confederate state's militias sued to get their benefits, on the basis that they were still a part of the US at the time. I believe they lost, however. StuRat (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The bottom line is that the courts had to walk a fine line to avoid any legal recognition of the CSA. The south was in rebellion, but their rebellion was unconstitutional. As per the courts. And I notice they did leave a loophole. Surely a state can secede if the other states approve. No problem there. In the case of the south, they didn't seek permission, they simply did it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm some data about states with death penalty for apostasy

According to the attached map, only the countries mentioned in Apostasy#Countries have death penalty for apostasy. However, the article mentions these states as examples, and I wonder if it's a full list – perhaps other countries have such death penalty as well, that the map doesn't mention? Could you please check if this data is indeed comprehensive?

Thanks, 89.139.173.74 (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to make requests, inquiries or suggestions about this is probably Talk:Apostasy. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not provide legal opinions (see WP:NOLEGAL). If you're planning to apostasize, please consult legal counsel first. Gabbe (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, those are some extraordinarily misleading replies. First of all, the OP came to the right venue, as article talk pages are only for improvement of the articles, not general discussion of the subject. Secondly this is in no way a question about legal advice, but simply a query about which countries have death penalty for apostasy, nothing more nothing less. I am sorry I can't help the OP with answering the questions as it is not my field of knowledge, and Google search turns up all kinds of unrelated stuff, but I hope someone will be able to answer the question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be in Amnesty International country reports. They carry quite a lot of detail about executions. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for a thorough fact check, but a quick bit of research suggests that the map is accurate. The death penalty for apostasy is a unique feature of some versions of Sharia. (While European states once killed people found out of compliance with the official version of Christianity, that practice ended during the early modern period.) To my knowledge, no other legal tradition today prescribes that penalty. So the penalty will exist only for apostates from Islam and only in countries where Islam is established as the state religion. The map shows most such countries. I did not confirm that every country shown on the map has this penalty, but I checked the countries not shown on the map where Islam is the state religion, namely Oman and Morocco, and neither of those two has a death penalty for apostasy. (Apostates do face other legal sanctions in both countries.) Note on the map that Nigeria is shown in a lighter color than the other countries. That is because the death penalty applies only in Nigerian states that follow Sharia. Marco polo (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do doubt whether Egypt should be included in the map. According to the book Citizenship in the Arab World, by Gianluca Paolo Parolin, Egyptian law "does not prescribe the death penalty for apostasy". (The author does go on to say that according to some, citizens should take the right into their own hands and kill the apostate, for which they cannot be punished.) As the book is from 2009, I do not know whether this situation has changed since the 'Arab Spring' change of power, but barring any evidence that it has been made a capital offense, I think it should be removed. The picture's description uses as a source Apostasy#Countries, and that page cites the this editorial as evidence Egypt has the death penalty for apostates, but that article is from 2007 and seems less reliable than the book I cited above. - Lindert (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]