Talk:1955 Constitution of Ethiopia

Ethiopia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article is false

"However, provisions in the constitution that guaranteed personal freedoms and liberties, including freedom of assembly, movement, and speech, and the due process of law, were so far removed from the realities of Ethiopian life that no group or individual sought to act upon them publicly."

This assertion, like much of the rest of this piece, is not just point-of-view, but patently false. I have seen, in a Law Library, entire volumes of Ethiopian Law cases from the country's Supreme Court during this period, where all manner of groups and individuals sought to test these limits. This was all published in English, by the way. There was one case I recall that involved the Freedom of Religion clause and had something to do with a Hindu's right not to eat beef. I am afraid I am going to have to mark this as NPOV and recommend it be sent back for better research. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section you criticize is drawn from a Library of Congress publication -- hardly a source which intentionally falsifies information. Wikipedia reflects the opinions of secondary sources, & if there is any imbalance in this article it is because there are far more authorities who are critical of this document than share your opinion. For example, another authority, Bahru Zewde, considers this document an instrument which consolidated Haile Selassie's absolutism & added language touching on personal freedoms & liberties as "inserted largely for sake of form." If you have sources which disagree with these interpretations, please add them; but to use language like "patently false" & "sent back for better research" is uncalled for. -- llywrch (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It IS patently false. The statement I cited is patently false. "However, provisions in the constitution that guaranteed personal freedoms and liberties, including freedom of assembly, movement, and speech, and the due process of law, were so far removed from the realities of Ethiopian life that no group or individual sought to act upon them publicly." That statement is patently false. There are scores of cases of groups AND individuals in Ethiopian case law under this Constitution, who sought to act on the provisions publicly. Go to a good law library and you can even find the cases published in English. Whoever wrote that "no group or individual sought to act on them publicly" is either a total ignoramus, or intentionally falsifying, but in either case a buffoon, and I don't care WHICH government paid him to say it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals to authority like "US Library of Congress" are a fallacy also, one might as well appeal to Italian 1930s or Cuban 1970s propaganda about Ethiopia "because after all, they are disinterested, without agenda, and would never lie to us about Ethiopia". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]