Thanks for this piece.

This week, the Chamber of Deputies agreed to pass a new law on the protection of human rights defenders and journalists which, in principal, gives practitioners a small measure of support if they find themselves targeted because of their work.

Unlike the startlingly toothless prosecutor’s office that was supposed to crack down on attacks on journalists – which has yet to see a single conviction – this latest initiative may yet prove to be an iron fist.

Sorry but can anyone explain to me why the hell a journalist should be entitled to more protection than anyone else? Why should journalists be specially protected?

This is LC. We get bleeding heart complaints about criminals and their treatment all the time. Suddenly you’re demanding an iron fist to deal with people who have the nerve to attack our new aristocrats who are entitled to special legal protection the rest of us are not? The sense of entitlement and superiority would be stunning from a Battenberg.

There is not even a single reason to think this journalist was not a routine victim of Mexico’s insanely high crime rate.

Excellent piece – and lets hope the new rules have some impact – though of course that may prove very difficult in a nation so heavilly corrupted throughout its institutions.

SMFS -

Sorry but can anyone explain to me why the hell a journalist should be entitled to more protection than anyone else? Why should journalists be specially protected?

Because journalists trying to investigate the cartels are specifically targeted while, say, grocers, electricians and hairdressers generally aren’t.

@4.

Because journalists trying to investigate the cartels are specifically targeted while, say, grocers, electricians and hairdressers generally aren’t.

Grocers, electricians, hairdressers, housewives, doctors, nurses, students, musicians, and many other people are routinely kidnapped, ransomed, tortured and murdered by psychotic Mexican narco gangs. Sometimes for ransom, sometimes simply to spread terror throughout an area for the purpose of control.

Journalists shouldn’t receive protection that is denied to others.

Isn’t the point of extending special protection to journos that it means everyone can get a relatively accurate picture of what’s going on? I’m not comfortable with the two-tier thing either, but I think the reasoning goes beyond “journalists are really special and precious”.

Or even more simply: if you can protect some people, do it.

Course this is a problem created by our own war on drugs laws, essentially we’re funding these thugs by dint of making trade in narcotics illegal, thus creating the lucrative black market in the first place, which funnels money all the way back to the suppliers – the barbarous Cartels. Finger wagging, jail terms and crack downs on the drug trade in our neck of the woods aren’t working, and these bastards gain more and more wealth and power as time goes on.
Still, given the way the economies being managed here at the moment I suppose we’d best get used to trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Kaboom -

All of those people can be murdered, of course. The gangsters are among the world’s most unscrupulous criminals and anybody in their path is in horrific danger. But, unlike the journalists, they aren’t targeted because of their professions. Journalists who comment on the drug wars are, and that doesn’t merely put them in them in greater danger, it threatens to dissuade them from covering it…

“Reporters who choose to ignore the drug trafficking scene are usually safe,” explains Michael Forbes, the editor-in-chief of the Guadalajara Reporter newspaper.

For the same reason, many newspapers have also deliberately stop covering stories related to drug-related crimes.

This “no special treatment” thing is an odd sort of egalitarianism. Especially when I’d guess it comes from people who are decidedly right wing.

I love that if we asked those opposed to specific protections to those who actively put themselves in harms way to help better inform the public and in so doing play a crucial role in securing public safety in places like Mexico – are almost certainly not in favour of, say, the military or police being allowed to go on strike like the rest of us – because, frankly, they their active service is crucial to our public safety in the UK.

Or would one of them like to be consistent and suggest (rather ludicrously) that the police should be equal under the law and thus allowed to strike for two days en mase under democratic mandate from their union?

Why is SMFS so hateful? Seriously – he (and I am sure that it’s a he) has nothing pleasant to say, ever. What a twunt.

Anyway – agree with this post. More should be done to expose Mexican corruption and drug industry but why would you bother if you’re gonna get executed and it not be properly investigated. A disgrace.

“Sorry but can anyone explain to me why the hell a journalist should be entitled to more protection than anyone else?”

Well, obviously, if publicising the acts of organised crime against ordinary Mexicans carries a de facto death penalty, how are ordinary Mexicans ever going to be protected?

But hey, if you don’t think journalists have the right to write about the plight of ordinary people in Mexico without being killed – fine! But if you don’t want to be a hypocrite, I suggest you shut the f&*% up your loud mouth in your comments about the rights of ordinary people in Mexico. If you don’t think Mexicans should be afforded protection to write things which upset the boss, why should you? The boss says there are no murders.

4. BenSix

Because journalists trying to investigate the cartels are specifically targeted while, say, grocers, electricians and hairdressers generally aren’t.

So what? That might be a reason for the police to spend more time looking at investigating journalists. It is not a reason for special laws to be passed. Even in Mexico murder is a crime. Why a special class of victims?

6. Chaise Guevara

Isn’t the point of extending special protection to journos that it means everyone can get a relatively accurate picture of what’s going on? I’m not comfortable with the two-tier thing either, but I think the reasoning goes beyond “journalists are really special and precious”.

You assume journalists are the fourth branch of constitutional government. Or would be if we were in America. They are not. They are just people doing their job. Poorly in the main. Your argument is precisely that they are special. They have some special role in informing the nation. Actually we all know. We don’t need journalists or their special regard for themselves to know. So why the special laws?

Or even more simply: if you can protect some people, do it.

Yeah. Like the White people. Or the rich people. Or LC readers.

8. BenSix

But, unlike the journalists, they aren’t targeted because of their professions. Journalists who comment on the drug wars are, and that doesn’t merely put them in them in greater danger, it threatens to dissuade them from covering it…

Then they need to think of a new career. And it is odd that you hold journalists in such low regard. They usually are proud of the fact they can play soldier by being escorted in warzones. Are you saying it is all a front and they are scared easily?

This “no special treatment” thing is an odd sort of egalitarianism. Especially when I’d guess it comes from people who are decidedly right wing.

And yet I tend to think the law ought to apply to everyone equally. I am not happy about the slow evolution of a special class of people who have different protections in the law. We tried that back when Peers were only tried by Peers. I don’t think we want to go there again.

9. margin4error

I love that if we asked those opposed to specific protections to those who actively put themselves in harms way to help better inform the public and in so doing play a crucial role in securing public safety in places like Mexico

There is no evidence that journalists play any role in securing public safety in places like Mexico. Or anywhere else. This is just class solidarity from what I can see – SWPL protecting other SWPL.

are almost certainly not in favour of, say, the military or police being allowed to go on strike like the rest of us – because, frankly, they their active service is crucial to our public safety in the UK.

Public servants. Who face danger every day. Not remotely like journalists.

11. jungle

Well, obviously, if publicising the acts of organised crime against ordinary Mexicans carries a de facto death penalty, how are ordinary Mexicans ever going to be protected?

Oh really? So the death penalty deters does it? How interesting. I hope you remember this conversation the next time we have a debate on penal reform. You have utterly failed to join the dots between protecting ordinary Mexicans – the job of the woefully incompetent and corrupt police – and reporting cartel crimes. I can see none. You have not even provided a reason to think there is one. You have just bought into the journalists’ myth of themselves as noble protectors of the public. They are not. They play no useful role in modern democracy.

But hey, if you don’t think journalists have the right to write about the plight of ordinary people in Mexico without being killed – fine!

Except, of course, I do. Again this is a massive logic fail. Journalists are already protected against being killed by laws that outlaw things like murder. That is not the question. The issue is why they deserve some special laws to protect them even further not available to ordinary people. A second follow on question is given that the laws against murder are failing to protect them, why would anyone think that some new useless laws will protect them any more.

But if you don’t want to be a hypocrite, I suggest you shut the f&*% up your loud mouth in your comments about the rights of ordinary people in Mexico. If you don’t think Mexicans should be afforded protection to write things which upset the boss, why should you? The boss says there are no murders.

You know, I would reply to this if it made any sense whatsoever. It does not. It shows all the signs of you being so determined to pick a fight with me you have replied before thinking – before even knowing what the issue we are talking about is. And it is incoherent anyway. Would you like to try again?

Then they need to think of a new career. And it is odd that you hold journalists in such low regard. They usually are proud of the fact they can play soldier by being escorted in warzones. Are you saying it is all a front and they are scared easily?

To be scared to be the target of cartels is not to be scared easily. Read Borderland Beat. These guys would make the Cosa Nostra or Yakuza wet themselves.

And yet I tend to think the law ought to apply to everyone equally. I am not happy about the slow evolution of a special class of people who have different protections in the law.

We’re talking about Mexico – where murderous criminals have been waging a campaign of intimidation against anyone who threatens their interests, and who often leave their mutilitated bodies dumped in public parks – not Islington.

Even when I disagree with you, SMFS, you often make me think but this, frankly, is lame.

13. BenSix

To be scared to be the target of cartels is not to be scared easily. Read Borderland Beat. These guys would make the Cosa Nostra or Yakuza wet themselves.

And yet in places like Colombia the cartels did much the same. The best response is an effective law enforcement campaign. Not demanding new laws.

We’re talking about Mexico – where murderous criminals have been waging a campaign of intimidation against anyone who threatens their interests, and who often leave their mutilitated bodies dumped in public parks – not Islington.

But it is someone from Islington writing. With warm support from readers from Islington. About people in Mexico who are like people in Islington. Who often lobby for special laws for their own interests in Islington. It is a worldwide problem and it is as wrong in Mexico as it is here.

As I said, it is international class solidarity.

I have found this thread – especially when taken in conjunction with other LC threads covering journalism and the media – to be most educational.

I can honestly say that I have learned a lot from it.

I have learned that a belief that the lives of all members of the public having the same value is seen as somehow “right wing” by some on the liberal left.

Having known many people who have spent considerable time in Chiapas, I’m sure they will be thrilled to know that the lives of those people who they have known for many years are of less value than the life of a journalist.

If we transfer the concept to this country, we can only conclude that the lives of people who live on my estate are of less value than the life of an Islington based journalist.

Due to previous comments on other threads about right wing journalists, the NOTW, News International etc, I must also conclude that not only should journalists have different legal protection to the rest of us, but that the legal protection should vary in accordance with the political views of the pundit, or the media organisation for whom that pundit works.

Thankyou for the instruction.

@ 12 SMFS

“You assume journalists are the fourth branch of constitutional government. Or would be if we were in America. They are not. They are just people doing their job. Poorly in the main. Your argument is precisely that they are special. They have some special role in informing the nation. Actually we all know. We don’t need journalists or their special regard for themselves to know. So why the special laws?”

I think that the ability to divine international news out of thin air is rarer than you think, i.e. non-existent, unless you want to show me how the magic works.

*They* aren’t special, as individuals. The *job* is special. The same applies to medics in combat – they are presumably no more deserving of life than normal soldiers, but not shooting at them keeps combat civilised in a way that benefits everyone, while still allowing combat to take place.

“Yeah. Like the White people. Or the rich people. Or LC readers.”

Option 1) Save the journos/whites/rich people/LC readers.
Option 2) Let everyone die.

If you pick option 2 you’re a fucking misanthrope (not that this would be news). You’re dodging the obvious point that “saving some people” > “saving nobody”, by making childish comments where you place a perceived advantaged group in the hypothetical “saved” category. Well, whoop-de-do, your Junior School Debating Badge is in the post.

One more and I’m done.

I have learned that a belief that the lives of all members of the public having the same value is seen as somehow “right wing” by some on the liberal left.

If I apologise for wrongly predicting that you’re right wing will you apologise for wrongly asserting that I’m on the liberal left?

Having known many people who have spent considerable time in Chiapas, I’m sure they will be thrilled to know that the lives of those people who they have known for many years are of less value than the life of a journalist.

Having known many people who have spent considerable time in Yorkshire, I’m not sure there’s been worse a misreading since the guy who thought that 1984 was an instructional book. It’s not that they’re inherently more valuable, it’s that they’re (a) at particular risk as individuals (b) at particular risk in a manner that, as I referenced in my first response to you, have precipitated social harms. But, still, I admire you for sticking doggedy to this principle. I guess you’ll be campaigning against the stationing of policemen outside 10 Downing Street, the House of Commons and Buck’ Palace?

If we transfer the concept to this country, we can only conclude that the lives of people who live on my estate are of less value than the life of an Islington based journalist.

When England is riven by gangs of marauding Zetas, get back to me.

16. Chaise Guevara

I think that the ability to divine international news out of thin air is rarer than you think, i.e. non-existent, unless you want to show me how the magic works.

And yet the human race has managed for a long time without too much trouble. Even ignoring the massive expansion of new media like blogs. Newspapers are not special. They are a brief experiment from the 19th century that has gone wrong. They will pass away. And no one will miss them.

*They* aren’t special, as individuals. The *job* is special. The same applies to medics in combat – they are presumably no more deserving of life than normal soldiers, but not shooting at them keeps combat civilised in a way that benefits everyone, while still allowing combat to take place.

Except medics in combat perform a useful function. The media does not. In fact doctors perform a useful function in most walks of life. The media does not in my opinion, but even if you think it does, it does not follow that either doctors or journalists deserve special laws to protect them.

Option 1) Save the journos/whites/rich people/LC readers.
Option 2) Let everyone die.

If you pick option 2 you’re a fucking misanthrope (not that this would be news). You’re dodging the obvious point that “saving some people” > “saving nobody”, by making childish comments where you place a perceived advantaged group in the hypothetical “saved” category. Well, whoop-de-do, your Junior School Debating Badge is in the post.

Except you have missed Option 3: Enforcing the law equally and saving everyone or at least as many as is feasible. You insist that these special laws will save anyone. Why? Murder is already illegal. How is enforcement of that law going? If they can’t enforce that one, why will a new one help? If they can, why is a new one needed? What this is is a gesture to the special new class of media people who think they are better than the rest of us. They are not. Mexico needs to enforce the laws it has. Not create a special new class of specially protected people. It would be just as outrageous to specially protect White people as it would journalists.

@ SMFS

“And yet the human race has managed for a long time without too much trouble.”

You realise this is a general argument against doing anything new, ever?

“Even ignoring the massive expansion of new media like blogs. Newspapers are not special. They are a brief experiment from the 19th century that has gone wrong. They will pass away. And no one will miss them.”

I love the way you can’t distinguish between “myself” and “six billion people and counting”. If you’re talking about the possible death of print media in the face of new media then you’re off at a tangent: online news sources still need journalists.

“Except medics in combat perform a useful function. The media does not.”

So you’re happy to be ignorant about everything that doesn’t literally happen in front of your face. Fine. I’m not.

“In fact doctors perform a useful function in most walks of life. The media does not in my opinion, but even if you think it does, it does not follow that either doctors or journalists deserve special laws to protect them.”

I’m not arguing that they *deserve* it. I’m arguing that society and indeed human civilization as a whole benefit from access to information, especially when that information is gathered from somewhere where angry people are waving guns around.

“Except you have missed Option 3: Enforcing the law equally and saving everyone or at least as many as is feasible.”

An option you also ignored when arguing that “let everyone die” is better than “save some people”. But let’s look at it.

“You insist that these special laws will save anyone. Why? Murder is already illegal. How is enforcement of that law going?”

The laws give extra support, presumably in the hope of helping journos protect themselves. Although if these specific laws are useless, fair enough: I’m much more interested in the general principle of nonviolence towards the press.

“What this is is a gesture to the special new class of media people who think they are better than the rest of us.”

No, that’s a made-up version fabricated by LC’s resident Mr Grumpy.

“They are not. Mexico needs to enforce the laws it has. Not create a special new class of specially protected people.”

False dicotomy.

“It would be just as outrageous to specially protect White people as it would journalists.”

Just as it would be as outrageous to only let white people practice medicine as it would to only let doctors practice medicine, yeah?

smfs #12

so you don’t believe there is a fourth estate to civil society? You don’t believe a free press plays a part in democracy? Because if so, fair enough. But if not, how can you argue that journalists don’t play their part in establishing social stability, freedom and security for society at large?

19. Chaise Guevara

You realise this is a general argument against doing anything new, ever?

Yes and it is a damn good one in my opinion. Even if your mileage may vary.

I love the way you can’t distinguish between “myself” and “six billion people and counting”. If you’re talking about the possible death of print media in the face of new media then you’re off at a tangent: online news sources still need journalists.

There is no evidence that people will miss newspapers. They are dying all over the place precisely because people can’t be bothered any more. And why should they? They are grossly expensive and poor quality. On top of which they are so unbelievably biased and they do not even know it. A great example being the recent correspondent’s dinner where Obama was roasted. Jimmy Kimmell made a joke about Fast and Furious. Clearly no one got it. All those leading prize-winning journalists and none of them had even heard of it.

Even if on-line sources will need journalists that does not mean they will need the deadwood media. What is more we are already seeing a shift to more citizen journalism. The BBC and CNN pretty much rely on people who are in Syria or Afghanistan or Iraq and are filming events on their own cameras which they then post on their own on Youtube or the like. They are not adding value to the process at all. They provide a venue and a delivering mechanism. Sometimes a talking head. But apart from that, nothing except a pretty girl to introduce it. This is presumably the model for the future.

So you’re happy to be ignorant about everything that doesn’t literally happen in front of your face. Fine. I’m not.

Good for you. Evidence seems to suggest that the majority of British people agree with me not with you. Besides, that is both a stupid description of what I said – people have always had opinions about what takes place beyond their eyes even before the media insisted on trying to shape it. It was just slow – but not the worse for it. Slow opinion, like slow food, is not bad. Better judgements are formed if people have time to think about it.

Besides, the violence in Syria is taking place in front of my face. I can go to Youtube and see it. What useful role does the deadwood media play in this? This is the model for the future. We will all live in that Global Village and every riot will take place in front of our faces. And we will not need the prejudices of the elite class to interpret it for us. A good thing all around.

I’m not arguing that they *deserve* it. I’m arguing that society and indeed human civilization as a whole benefit from access to information, especially when that information is gathered from somewhere where angry people are waving guns around.

I am sure in some way you may be right. But that information does not need special laws to protect a special class people who may or may not be actually in the pay of the narco-terrorists or whoever. If you’re not arguing they deserve it, you are wasting my time as I have never said society does not benefit from more information (although I could make a case if need be). I have simply said they do not deserve a special law. A claim you have continued to object to. So you can see my confusion.

An option you also ignored when arguing that “let everyone die” is better than “save some people”. But let’s look at it.

The words “let everyone die” have not passed my lips. Nor are they even remotely close to what I have said. Your back to your traditional strawman and misrepresentation are you?

The laws give extra support, presumably in the hope of helping journos protect themselves. Although if these specific laws are useless, fair enough: I’m much more interested in the general principle of nonviolence towards the press.

If they want to help journalists protect themselves they ought to lift some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. What extra support? Empowering the police does not help anyone defend themselves. By all means, let’s agree that criminals should not murder anyone. Rather than that they should not murder people like us. Well, people like you.

And again I do love the “iron fist” comes out the second criminals start to murder people from the chattering classes. As long as they murder working class people on sink estates, it is all coddling and forgiveness.

No, that’s a made-up version fabricated by LC’s resident Mr Grumpy.

Actually it is a very accurate description of what is being demanded.

False dicotomy.

In what sense?

Just as it would be as outrageous to only let white people practice medicine as it would to only let doctors practice medicine, yeah?

No, because White is a racial classification while doctor is, or ought to be, an indicator of knowledge. To practice medicine you need the latter not the former.

margin4error

so you don’t believe there is a fourth estate to civil society? You don’t believe a free press plays a part in democracy? Because if so, fair enough. But if not, how can you argue that journalists don’t play their part in establishing social stability, freedom and security for society at large?

No I don’t. Well that depends. There is an element in which newspapers play a role in civil society. Usually a malignant one. As they do in democracy. We would be better off without them. Journalists may. That does not mean they need or deserve special protection. Although I think they do not. After all, most media, without the controlling hand of a firm first generation owner like Murdoch, is Leftist and hence in favour of people who do not like social stability, freedom and security – and especially those who are inclined to use violence to destroy all three. That is why the media came out on Pol Pot’s side in the 1970s and why the Guardian warmly endorsed the Islamists before and after 9-11. If we have those three it is despite not because of the media.

SMFS,

what’s the matter with you? How can you object to efforts to protect the lives of journalists in Mexico? Obviously you have an axe to grind, but this thread is surely not the place to grind it.

@ 21 SMFS

“Yes and it is a damn good one in my opinion. Even if your mileage may vary.”

It’s awful. Refusing to change things because we’ve muddled along ok so far leads to a total lack of improvement. And I find it interesting that our resident doomsayer suddenly think we’re doing fine. Someone who thinks the UK is falling into chaos thinks MEXICO is doing fine. A convenient moment to change opinions, yeah?

“There is no evidence that people will miss newspapers.”

Except, you know, the demand for newspapers. And while a lot of them are indeed crap, the best ones are worth keeping – if only in online form, still using professional journos.

“Even if on-line sources will need journalists that does not mean they will need the deadwood media. What is more we are already seeing a shift to more citizen journalism. The BBC and CNN pretty much rely on people who are in Syria or Afghanistan or Iraq and are filming events on their own cameras which they then post on their own on Youtube or the like. They are not adding value to the process at all. They provide a venue and a delivering mechanism. Sometimes a talking head. But apart from that, nothing except a pretty girl to introduce it. This is presumably the model for the future.”

The BBC and presumably CNN have foreign correspondents. There’s a lot of value in having people who are paid to be journalists, and thus can spend all day doing it, who have a wide understanding of issues beyond their neighbourhood (not because other people are stupid but because they have jobs to do), and who are by convention seen as unacceptable targets.

“Good for you. Evidence seems to suggest that the majority of British people agree with me not with you.”

Allow me to enlighten you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_popularity

“Besides, that is both a stupid description of what I said – people have always had opinions about what takes place beyond their eyes even before the media insisted on trying to shape it. It was just slow – but not the worse for it. Slow opinion, like slow food, is not bad. Better judgements are formed if people have time to think about it.”

Ha ha, someone thought they could substitute “opinion” for “information” on the sly! Nice try but no cigar.

“Besides, the violence in Syria is taking place in front of my face. I can go to Youtube and see it. What useful role does the deadwood media play in this?”

See above.

“We will all live in that Global Village and every riot will take place in front of our faces. And we will not need the prejudices of the elite class to interpret it for us.”

Er, what? Are you under the impression that I’m specifically defending broadsheet opinion columnists or something? Because as we know, they’re always the first into warzones.

“I am sure in some way you may be right. But that information does not need special laws to protect a special class people who may or may not be actually in the pay of the narco-terrorists or whoever. If you’re not arguing they deserve it, you are wasting my time as I have never said society does not benefit from more information (although I could make a case if need be). I have simply said they do not deserve a special law. A claim you have continued to object to. So you can see my confusion.”

You are allegedly confused because you have ignored the distinction I already drew between “journalists are important people” and “journalism is an important business”.

To repeat for the intellectually dishonest: I am not saying that journos are special, extra-deserving people that we need to protect more than anyone else. I am saying that journalism is a special business which we need to protect, and one way of doing so is to establish conventions that say it’s wrong to shoot journalists. Giving extra protection to journalists as individuals is essentially a side-effect. Get it now? Done with the straw man?

“The words “let everyone die” have not passed my lips. Nor are they even remotely close to what I have said. Your back to your traditional strawman and misrepresentation are you?”

You attacked the idea that it’s better to save who you can than let everyone die. Using really, really shitty logic where you invented a conveniently picked list of scenarios where the people being saved always happened to be an advantaged group. Not sure how that can be “represented” any other way.

“If they want to help journalists protect themselves they ought to lift some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.”

Could help.

“What extra support? Empowering the police does not help anyone defend themselves.”

The OP’s vague. Judging by this the legislation just requires the government to bring in measures: http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/05/02/26–Mexico-seeks-to-protect-journalists-rights-activists-.html

So it’s not specified, but obvious options would include providing a police guard to journalists who are under threat, and putting money into witness protection.

“By all means, let’s agree that criminals should not murder anyone. Rather than that they should not murder people like us. Well, people like you

And again I do love the “iron fist” comes out the second criminals start to murder people from the chattering classes. As long as they murder working class people on sink estates, it is all coddling and forgiveness.”

Wow, you whine about straw men on my part then throw this grade-A horseshit at me? I’m surprised at you. Well, no I’m not.

Let me explain what you already know: agreeing that criminals should not murder people doesn’t stop murder, you have to actually enforce policy; I am not defending “people like me”, as I am not a journalist; I am not arguing for an “iron fist”, which as you’re using it in contrast to “coddling and forgiveness” I assume has to do with harshness of punishment, which I have not mentioned once; I’m not talking about class at all and you’re using it as a desperate attempt to avoid the actual issues.

“Actually it is a very accurate description of what is being demanded.”

From the POV of a perpetually angry fantasist, I’m sure it is.

[False dicotomy.] “In what sense?”

Because nobody is saying that Mexico should not enforce its existing laws, and doing so would not prevent it from inventing new laws. You don’t have to cancel all your existing laws whenever you make a new one. Aren’t we learning a lot today?

“No, because White is a racial classification while doctor is, or ought to be, an indicator of knowledge. To practice medicine you need the latter not the former.”

And white is a racial classification while journalist is, or ought to be, an indicator of talent and experience. To practice *good* journalism (and they don’t tend to send vapid celeb-chasers into warzones) you need the latter, not the former.

What does “no” mean in your above paragraph? Does it mean “yes”?