Cynic wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:10:36 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>> If you have that little respect for Bahrain's laws - then don't go
>> there. Or go there with a Diplomatic Immunity and/or an army and/or as
>> part of an emergency relief effort under the auspices of an organisation
>> that has demanded that its staff will not be subject to local laws.
>
> It is often the case not of having no respect for the laws of a
> different country, but of having no idea that the act in question is
> illegal. Yes, I know that ignorance of the law is no defence, but do
> you know *anyone* who finds out what all the laws are that apply in a
> country they go to on holiday?
>
> A person might, for example, take his separated (but not divorced)
> girlfriend on holiday without realising that adultery is a crime in
> the destination country. That could be unfortunate if he were to be
> arrested in that country, but I see no reason why he should be put on
> trial for the offence if he returns home safely.
I can see the logic that the justice system in that country should take
account of the facts when determining whether it is the public interest
to prosecute. But not that the geographic location of the accused should
determine the outcome.
>
> It would also be a bit ridiculous to convict a person back in the UK
> for doing something that thousands of other people do perfectly
> legally in the UK.
>
Why? The person broke a law that applied to them and they haven't. Seems
a very simple difference to apply. One person can be convicted of
failing to salute in the UK, whilst thousands of other people quite
legally refuse to do so. One went overseas in order to become subject to
additional laws. One joined the army.
--
Sue
|