Closet Door Vs Curtain

Justice cons math? Brief commentary on the decision of Court of Justice

A off the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of European Communities of 1 March 2011 seems to condemn the difference in salary between men and women in matters of insurance.

The insurance contract is a contract based on discoveries in mathematical statistics. Actuaries are mathematicians who perform statistical calculations and, thereby, assess the risks based often (but not only) of the future party (the insured). The insurance contract is dependent on the mathematical reason.

The basic criteria that discriminate, especially in personal insurance, mathematical calculations are not themselves mathematics. Therefore the question is can we take any criteria to assess risk? It seems that the age factor does pose (for now) no problems. It is obvious that it is more likely to die at age 80 to 20. Hence the risk of death is greater than 80 years and his confidence will therefore cost more. It may be that the risk is so great that it becomes uninsurable (case of too great age, for example).

But is it the same criterion sex? Statistically, women are more cautious driving and cause fewer accidents. Women live longer than men. Women are less often, less often in prison. Women make unpaid services as when they are pregnant and thus ensure the renewal of the population, with special difficulties in pregnancy without some cons.

If women cause fewer accidents, the cost of their liability insurance will be less. However as they live longer the cost of annuities is higher for women than for men. Under the Health Insurance they consume more medical services, but some of this consumption is due to service their own and they only go to the general population.

Services Europe want to abolish the criterion of sex based actuarial calculations (relating to actuarial calculations).

It is undisputed that the aim pursued by Directive 2004/113 in the insurance services sector is, as reflected in Article 5, paragraph 1, the application of the rule of premiums Unisex and benefits. The eighteenth recital to the directive explicitly states that in order to ensure equal treatment between women and men, the use of sex as an actuarial factor should not lead to differences in policyholders' premiums and benefits. The nineteenth recital in the directive means the option given to Member States not to apply the rule of unisex premiums and benefits as a "derogation". Thus, the Directive 2004/113 is based on the premise that, for purposes of applying the principle of equal treatment of women and men enshrined in Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter, the respective situations of women and men with regard to premiums and insurance benefits incurred by them are comparable.

Clearly the factor "sex" is forbidden actuarial calculations, it is only tolerated for a time. Therefore it is obvious that the factor "age" factor "disease" and all other criteria of discrimination are threatened. The directive does not even distinguish between the personal insurance and damage insurance!

Therefore the principle of equality could destroy an entire economic sector is the insurance principle of corrosion of insurance based on risk assessment therefore discrimination to ensure that risk is a function, among others, sex, age, health status, so the specifics of the individual. We may even think that this path any termination of the contract based on too many claims (though some types of contracts, including life insurance contract, are unaware of any renewal claims)

The principle equality and corrodes the whole law of insurance. It also attacks the freedom of science.

In fact, equal rights coexists with the fundamental principle of contractual freedom. It is anomalous that insurers can not discriminate based on statistical criteria they have set free because it is their freedom of contract. We are in the field of private law (1).

The drafters of aberrant Insurance (Directive 2004/113) have been meditating in Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (Section 17 provides that there is no freedom against freedom, it is the transcript of the Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of 1948.)

(1) Anything else is the problem of social justice must ensure that women are not discriminated against because of unpaid services rendered to society, but it must be borne by society rather by individuals. The insurance, in that it is a private activity, is governed by other criteria.

Celling Fan Conection

balance of trade with the Forum "Catholic"


all started with a post where I defended the memory of Paul IV. Indeed, the Forum said "Catholic" did not hesitate to publish a translation of a bubble of falsified this pope to move it for anti-Semitic.

This falsification welcomes anti-Catholics who claim Wikipedia as proof that the Church taught that Jews were cursed. And it pleased the anti-Semites who delight in saying that the Church has changed and that the popes of old anti-Semitic were well and preached that Jews were cursed by God because of the Passion.

I demonstrated that it was slander and forgery. And it is used by opposing camps apparently justifies the position of neither the one nor the other.

Immediately I was attacked by a few posters and especially "mullion" that I was "funny" (so I did smile of pity). He deflects the debate on human rights, unanimously condemned this Forum "Catholic", at least in the thread in question (I can not physically read everything).

"mullion" took over one of my old posts where I was indignant that "Blamont" do say things horribly unfair to Moses. I put "Blamont" challenge give biblical references. ("Blamont" claimed that Moses was asked to kill "too dry" [what abominable term] a daughter raped). I'm still waiting references, or rather I did expect more, because the assertion Blamont was indeed a defamation of the memory of Moses.

"(...) in the Old Testament it is stated that a girl who is raped in a way so that nobody heard her cries, must be liquidated as her rapist. So dry. " said the delicate "Blamont. To add "no one can justify his crimes by those of others," thus treating the supporters of Moses criminals.

Mullion and therefore had the ambition to present myself as a forger.

balance of this exchange, if we set aside my personal case: the Forum says "Catholic" continues to publish that Moses "indicated" that a rape victim must be "liquidated" "too dry" if we did not hear his cries (but without giving any biblical reference). Human rights, yet defended by Benedict XVI, still condemned. It remains undisputed, except that the error was anti-Semitic Pope Paul IV and taught that Jews were cursed by God.

All this under the eye off of "moderation".

It is confirmed that this forum is not very Catholic as the vector of defamation of the Church and Judaism, defamation which are common to the far right and far left.

It also confirms that this forum not very Catholic (to put it another way, this "forum fishy") fighting against religious freedom (that is to say against the freedom on which it is based), against freedom of opinion and expression (that is to say, against allowing it to exist).

I am delighted to have clarified the situation.

Funny New Baby Congratulations Message

All the law and the law for the simple hearts

. "75 But this commandment seems to be linked to love of neighbor, but not also to the love of God, the Lord also told us that there are two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. "Indeed if one had said anything you want done to yourself, do it yourself, the two commandments were found enclosed in a single formula, since it would have hastened to say that everyone wanting to be loved by God and men, and given the order to do what we want to see done to oneself, one is obliged to love God and neighbor. But as the Lord says expressly: "So whatever you would that men should do unto you, let them also," it seems that it simply means: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself. "However we must note that Christ (313) here adds:" For it is the law and the prophets, "while referring to the two commandments that he has not said simply attaching them to the law and the prophets, but "all the law and the prophets (1)," that is to say, all the prophecies. And as he does not use that term here, "all," he obviously reserves instead of the other command, command the love of God. For now it is what concerns those whose hearts are simple, and as it is feared that we had a double heart with respect to those whose heart may be hidden, c ' is to say against my men, that's why it was necessary to give this command. For there is almost nobody who wants to have a double heart. Or it can happen that a man gives something to a man with a simple heart, if not exclude any view of profit time and does not act with that intention disinterested long enough that we explained above when we talk about the simple eye. "

jeusmarie From the website:

http://jesusmarie.free.fr/augustin_sermon_montagne_explication.html

It follows from the text of St. Augustine the first formulation that "the law and the prophets" and not "all the law and the prophets" that this formulation is made for simple hearts. Because otherwise, those who have to be loved and men need to be told the two commands to show the love that men must be totally disinterested.

The first formulation is complete and indeed sets the commentator Fillion, the second has stepped in to prevent any interpretation concerned. This is the thesis of St. Augustine.

But I also said elsewhere that the rights of God and men's rights were not contradictory, but formed a very well expressed in the first formula made for simple hearts, which according St. Augustine grows to avoid serving interpretation in the second formula decomposing precept in two parts.