₦airaland Forum

basilico:
Tina Peters had released a report of the audit. She is going for 9 years fir acting to stop fraud

https://tinapeters.us/

* The absence of secure hash algorithm (.sha) files for each digital ballot image makes the authenticity of each digital ballot image, and the ballotlevel record for those ballots, impossible to verify.

** The true total vote count in Mesa County, Colorado cannot be accurately calculated for the 2020 General Election or the 2021 Grand Junction Municipal Election from records in the databases of the county’s voting system

Putins Russia is better than America. There you know Putin will get 99% of the vote unlike Kamala's America where you go for 9 years for exposing 2020 electoral fraud


cc budaatum

Secure Hash Algorithm kwa? You guys just throw around terms you have no clue about. Secure Hash Algorithm is the cryptographic function used in blockchain technology to secure the integrity of the blockchain. Bitcoin uses SHA-256 as its cryptographic function. Using blockchain technology for recording votes will be a very cumbersome affair.

bemeruca:
Homicide is an act in which a person causes the death of another person.
ba·by (noun)
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born:

Do you have to play semantics?

A fetus is not regarded as a person

A baby needs to be born to qualify as a baby.

I don't still understand what you are arguing about.

bemeruca:
I did not see the word abortion

https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/fort-lauderdale-man-arrested-for-killing-unborn-baby-after-beating-pregnant-woman-with-baseball-bat/

the mother of the child does not have the power to decide when something is homicide or not.

On Friday, the Broward Sheriff's Office stated that homicide detectives had arrested 34-year-old Emmanuel Prevaly on the charge of killing an unborn child by injury to the mother.

I honestly don't understand what you guys are still arguing about. This is first and foremost a report by a reporter on the case. It is not a charge sheet detailing the crimes the criminal is being charged with. Then secondly, the report emphasised Killing of an unborn child . It never used the word murder or homicide. It never used the word baby. An unborn child was killed.

raumdeuter:
Exactly. I am with you on that. You want the lawful murder of human fetus. Some people think the murder of fetus should be unlawful

I think killing of mass shooters should be lawful, some states dont agree

You are using the correct term now, murder of a fetus and not murder of a baby.

bemeruca:
So does an unborn child have the right to life? if it is Double Homicide then the question has been answered. lawful or not.

It's the mother that gives it the Homicide status, without the mother it is simply termed abortion. If a person kills a baby without killing the mother it could never be termed single Homicide or murder.

bemeruca:
I hear you... How do you unlawfully kill a Lice or a Zygote?
Homicide is an act in which a person causes the death of another person.

not Zygote to Fetus or lice or a Tick.

A baby is killed lawfully but why are people trying to tell us it is not a baby that is being killed and try to tell us it is a fetus or a zygote?

It is not a baby until it is born. That's why we start counting its existence on this earth aka its birthday on the day it left its mother's womb, where prematurely or on full term or even extra term. That's why a pregnant woman says I am expecting a baby or I am going to have a baby.
No way a fetus can be termed a baby.

IjeBos:
Cut the Bullshit. Your argument was predicated on religion from the jump. It's an easy argument to recognize.
Is disingenuous not to be honest on the basis of your argument. You're being too clever by half.
It wasn't a surprise that one of your first "philosophical" arguments mentioned religion that Budaatum called out.
I think it's shady and manipulative the way you went about this whole thing.

Exactly. Their argument against abortions is purely religious, but the cloaked it in "philosophical" arguments.
This nebulous human intrinsic value is one of such arguments.
For example, when chairman Mao Zedong came to power in 1949, he encouraged large families and outlawed abortion and the use of contraception, urging women to produce offspring who would boost the workforce and the ranks of the People's Liberation Army. This policy caused the Chinese population to double from 500million to 1 billion in 30 years. When Deng Xiaoping took over the reins in 1978, he realises that to achieve economic growth, he had to control the population, and therefore restrict the population to 1.2 billion within the next 20 years. He hereby instituted the 1 child policy. This resulted hundreds of millions of abortions and forced sterilisation of both men and women. China achieved all its goals but has now created a new problem - aging population with no young ones to take over. They have reversed the one child policy once more. Without the one child policy, China's population would be closer to 2 billion by now. Intrinsic Human Values indeed.

bemeruca:
Iran is not as capable. Israel can easily cripple them. Their navy and other military assets with key infrastructure can be taken out. The Mossad knows where everything are... It's just the time to strike they are waiting for. See how they were patient with hezbollah and still entrenched in the terrorists organization. Once they get the go ahead, key stuff will start to explode

MOSSAD knows everything and entrenched in Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations, October 7 happened with MOSSAD not having a clue. Can you explain the irony?

kkins25:
I'm not considering that context.

Interesting. I can see lawyers exploiting these "sex instincts" to defend rapists. I wouldn't go there.

Lawyers can't exploit "sex instincts" to defend rape same way lawyers can't exploit "hunger instincts" to defend stealing food. Although some societies insist women must cover up from head to toe to avoid rape because they are of the belief that men cannot control their sex instincts.

I'm actually not pro-life. That's because I somewhat hold a nihilistic view of life in general. I also value life based on how it relates to me or my values. For example, If I were to press a lever that would save 5 Atheists, but doing so would lead to the demise of 1 million Muslims, I'd push the "save the Atheist" lever. You see. Pro-abortionists would call me a murderer but, I'm simply spinning their arguments against them. some people value the fetus just like I value Atheists.

I never really understood the rational of valuing a fetus more than the woman that is to suffer the pains and consequences of birthing, and then caring and raising the child. Anti abortionists have no stake whatsoever in the child outside primordial religious/moral sentiments. They are just like Muslims preventing others from eating just because they are fasting.

I'm not particularly arguing against abortion, I'm just trying to point out that the arguments for abortion, aside from that of rape and minors, aren't a solid one. Or, rather, not convincing.

Rape and minors are just minor reasons for abortion, the vast majority of abortions are by sexually active consenting women who got pregnant either through carelessness or failed family planning.

Can you answer this though, If an unborn child is not your "child" yet, why do all states agree to check for viability before even agreeing to contemplate carrying out an abortion on a 24-week-old fetus? Why not abort an 8-month-old fetus? why not just wait until delivery and then unalive the baby? We can go on and on about the metaphysics.

States have no business checking the viability of a fetus much less contemplate carrying out an abortion at any time in the pregnancy. That decision is to be left for the intending parents.

I have a cousin that had tried for decades to have conceive a child for her husband that had been married for 17 years. When she got pregnant at about 45 years of age, the doctor after scanning informed my cousin that the baby would suffer some sort of deformity and recommended abortion. She vehemently refused and insisted on birthing the child. The baby, a girl was born with slight deformity and autism. She and her husband provided the best medical care for the girl. Today the girl just celebrated her 30 year birthday.
States or governments deciding for a woman or a couple to abort their baby or not is an over reach, to me it's tyranny.

For example, see this act:




It's just semantics. So, there's no objective inherent value of human life. Maybe tomorrow, some people may want the right to unalive their fresh out of the womb child. who knows? At that time, today's pro-choice will be the pro-life. hahahaha.. Society!!

According to the legal definition of a person, the fetus become a person the moment it leaves the womb. Any unaliving then is regarded as murder.

What converted me to a strong pro choice advocate was when I saw a newborn floating on the lagos lagoon beside behind NPA on V/I. The baby was obviously birthed that morning and just thrown into the lagos lagoon. Thar memory traumatised me till date. I would rather the fetus be aborted early in the pregnancy than murder a fully born baby in the most gruesome manner. There are lots of examples of mothers dumping new born I'm dustbins and even soakaway. I believe the baby and mother need not go through these trauma.

tundegan:
Wike is a man of integrity.

He will not shy away from saying the truth because of political correctness.

Integrity my foot.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EWdOAW6kQA?si=6a-amPaLx3WeTzvR

Wike talks from all sides of his mouth.

Xavier5:
Then she should use birth control. End of discussion.
#Xavier

If birth control fails nko? Birth control is not 100% effective.
If the woman was used and dumped, sexuality exploited or abused nko?
If the girl is too young and at the risk of VVF nko?
Even married couples who don't want any more children often opt for abortion.
There are a 101 reasons why sexually active woman might accidentally get pregnant and not prepared to birth and care for a baby.
How do you think the Chinese strictly enforce the one child policy for over 30 years?

budaatum:
Really? I saw a couple flirting in the park, and a couple are kissing at the busstop. Is that public sexuality enough for you, or must they show their sex bits to qualify?

My mistake, you know I be typical African man. We Africans are not fond of public display of affection not to talk of sexuality. Why the Europeans have the need to start kissing and handling each other in public areas in the presence of passers-by including children is a mystery to me.

kkins25:
Not if the supposed guests are my own children, which I had to engage i coitus to create out of my will.

The supposed guests are not yet your own children, you are yet to meet them physically. I might not have engage in coitus out of my free will, my coitus might have been a result of rape, inebriation by alcohol or drugs, or share raw uncontrollable sex instincts taking control. Its not every time a woman engage in coitus that she will to get pregnant.

Sure. But even if society turns a blind eye, nature will carry out its course. It's not society forcing her to, It's good-old mother nature.

I don't understand. You mean nature is forcing a woman to have sex and then getting pregnant through hormones?

Of course. However, the autonomy of the individual cannot supersede that of society. After all, as much of an introvert as I am, when I left Christianity, it was hell. And I'm able to survive because I found society in my nairalander folks and those online. Without society, the individual becomes insane.

Agreed, but the imposition of millions of unwanted children is detrimental to society as a whole. Its leads to gradual erosion of the fabrics of society. This was why Rome imposed monogamous marriage where both parents are to raise their children upon its empire.

LordReed:
Wait you think LGBTQ people are having sex in public?

No. They are displaying their sexuality in public. You don't see heterosexuals displaying their sexuality in public.

LordReed:
The real question is if there was some universally known intrinsic human value why would the Nazis have killed so many Jews. Because there isn't is why. All value is subjective. And to answer your particular question, the Nazis didn't see it as murder, the Allies did, once again showing that it is a legal matter that expresses the subjectivity.

Exactly! The irony is that the European killed far more negros in the capturing, transportation across the Atlantic and enslavement over a 300 year period than the Jews suffered under 3 or so years under the Nazis. But of course the intrinsic human value of negros is less than that of Caucasians.

Is capital punishment murder? Is killing of enemy combatants in battle murder? Is killing in self defense murder? In killing someone accidentally murder? The answer to all these questions is NO because murder has a narrow definition that does not encompass all forms of killing.

Definition of murder depends on circumstances, era and the person doing the murdering.

Kill one man, and you're a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you're a conqueror. Kill them all, and you're a God. - Jean Rostand.

What conclusion did I make?





Point out where I said the fetus isn't a human life and hence has not the right to live except some superior power say so.

The fetus does not have the right to use the resources and body of another human without permission. Nobody has that right.

Nope in my view I subjectively value some humans over others, just like you value your mother's life over mine. And when it comes to choosing you will choose according to your subjective value.

Also point out where I used the words superior and inferior.



Like I already said the fetus has no right to use the woman's body without consent. It's her life the fetus has to depend on, it literally has to live off of her blood. Do you think somebody should have the right to just come take your blood without your consent?

That's what's pro life supporters fail to acknowledge - that the woman who owns her body have rights too. She is not just a vessel to satisfy the moral ego of conservatives.

If you can find a way to preserve a fetus that is between 0-5 months old outside of the woman's body that would be great. Till then the owner of the body should have the right to agree or disagree with growing something inside her.

As I suggested, more research should be done on human cloning and vitro fertilisation with external incubation of fetus in order to satisfy the need of conservatives to populate the planet with parentless children.

basilico:
Group think. If you are a liberal these are the tenets you must believe in and advocate for
LGBTQ
Abortion
etc etc

As a liberal, I don't believe in and certainly won't advocate for LGBTQ. Having said that, I believe sex is a private affair and what two consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom is non of my business. My problem is when they do it in public.

Xavier5:
But the sperm, bacteria, plant cells are not living human organisms. The question is not if the fetus is living, but if it's a human life... or in this case, a living human life.



The argument is not whether it has attained sentience, but if it's a living human organism. If it is, then who gives any one the right to kill a human life? If it is, and if human life irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, viability, socio-economic status, or stage of development, have intrinsic value (thanks to the universal intrinsic knowing of the value of human life), then who gives anyone the right to kill a human life with intrinsic value?

Also, according to your definition of personhood, new born babies and people on life support, aren't persons since they aren't viable enough to live independently. So in other words, we can take the life out of them. I'm so loving this view 😂😏😌

Calling a human life an unwanted object is the equivalence of Nazis and slave owners referring to Jews and blacks as Vermin and animals. Dehumanizing a human life is always the first step to committing crime against it or them. Talk about neo Nazism 😏



As far as the child will be well taken care of by parents or government child care systems, then why not? So what does that have to do with the fact that a human life... in this context, living human life is being killed.



#Xavier

The video below is from Kano, a highly Conservative state, where abortion obviously is illegal. The streets are littered with young boys and girls begging for food

https://youtube.com/shorts/_nEG-66dJZY?si=jklOe5ivbFHgX6pT

To me this is far more dehumanising than abortion.

bemeruca:
can you have sex with a woman if she does not agree to it?
it is the responsibility of the woman to choose a responsible man to have sex with.
it is more of her responsibility to make sure they use proper measures to avoid getting pregnant

Let me state the fact once again, sex is hardwired into out DNA through instinct. So that your preaching that "it is the responsibility of the woman to choose a responsible man to have sex with" does not necessarily work in the real world. An ovulating woman has heightened sexual urges because her hormones are fighting. How do I know? Because I am married, and I have practical experience. Nature made it that way in order to force survival of the specie.
Does that mean humans should be forking like dogs? Of course no. But we must learn how to manage the sex instinct and its consequences responsibility. Hiding our heads in the sands only makes the matter worse.

the lie that you care more for the baby when it is born is laughable for a baby you wanted to kill in the first place.
we know conservatives are more charitable, they run more Orphanage. making up lies or propaganda does not help.

A liberal can be pro-life

All you wrote up there are lies. Liberals are far more charitable than Conservatives. Liberals hate to see sufferings in the world and strive to make the world a better place, particularly for children.

bemeruca:
abortion only makes sense when you dehumanize a developing human like this. see the length you went through to dehumanize a human.

Between you and I who dehumanize a human? Me that hate to see babies brought into the world to parents who are not ready to love and care for them and so allow them suffer, or you that watch them suffer without having a prick of conscience.

When a woman is pregnant, she says we are going to have a baby to people or her husband, not a fetus or a zygote. it is only when they want to abort they use terms like fetus or zygote.

I know you are quite Proficient in English Language, so what does the term "we are going to have a baby" connote? Does that mean we already have a baby?

bemeruca:
A woman does not want a fetus in her body but she puts it there. even as Wirinet dehumanizes the human that dies in every abortion. I think there is enough time to decide when abortion should be done but if you go by the liberal lens of these guys, one can say if you are a liberal, you cannot object to a woman aborting her kid before it is born.

It's not the woman that puts the fetus in her body. it's as a result of sex, an instinct hard wired into our DNA through instinct.

I don't dehumanise human that dies in every abortion. I just see it as a non viable person. It was aborted because the woman does not want to carry, birth and care for a baby. The irony of this pro - anti abortion debate is that it is we pro abortionists that care most for the baby once it's born. We believe a baby should have the best care from the parents and society to live a meaningful life. Meanwhile, the concerns of anti abortionists stop at birth. It is depressing for me to see millions of parentless children roaming our streets.

one can even say forcing a man to pay child support or alimony is not liberal since it will be against his liberty

I believe parents thar have children they can't cater for should be jailed, particularly those that abandon children to the streets. These children turn out to be menace to society and end up destroying or degrading the whole society.

Xavier5:
So is a fetus with brain activity and heartbeat (which begins at 6 weeks) not considered living?

A sperm is living, a day old zygote is living, a 6 weeks old fetus is living, in fact every cell, bacteria and plant is living.

But I see you avoided a perspective to this, According to science, a pre six weeks fetus is considered a human life... at its earliest stage because of its possession of human genetic and the capacity to, with time, evolve into sentience and state of living. Which now begs the question, if it's a human life or human entity, who gave any one the right to kill and stop its development?

A zygote a few hours old has complete set of 46 chromosomes.

Yes a 6 weeks old fetus can be considered human, bit it is not yet a person. A person must be capable of independent existence.
An unwanted fetus growing inside a woman is an parasite according to the woman. She has no emotional attachment to it. She wishes to remove it from her body as soon as possible.
So you see it's a matter of perspectives, the main issue is that it's the woman that suffers the pain and consequences of having an unwanted object in her body. You on the other hand suffer no consequences, only personal moral or religious wellbeing/satisfaction.

But let's focus on your definition, so is a fetus which posseses heartbeat and brain activity (which begins from six weeks), not considered living?
#Xavier

Once again no one says it's not living, only not regarded as a person capable of independent existence.

Now let me ask you: would you support the creation of human embryo incubator that would allow fertilisation and incubation of a fertilised human egg from conception to fully developed babies without the need of a woman?

Xavier5:
Read my write-ups on this thread that precede this, starting from my first response to LordReed. I explained what intrinsic human value is, and why I hold such view. I'm not going to be repeating myself.



What makes an organism a human life? Let's start from there.



#Xavier

A living organism with complete set of human (homo sapiens) DNA.

IjeBos:
Republicans are at it again.
Republicans in W. Virginia want to pass a resolution that says:


I don't think this will pass as it they would be scared to pass it. As, if they give themselves this tool, they would have to not certify the election, if Trump in any way says it was stolen or reap the wrath of MAGA's in their deep Republican state. No winning there.

So its no longer the electoral body and the courts that will determine the legality elections in the US but partisan party officials. Interesting.....
So what happens if the elections are not certified because the Attorney General, the secretary of state and legislature think there is fraud? Hand over the electoral votes to the other candidate?

bemeruca:
You watch idiots speak questions begin to arise.

wirinet thinks you cannot be a liberal and oppose Abortion.

Maybe my own definition of liberalism is at variance with yours, but according to me my simple definition of liberalism is "live and let live", meaning don't force your opinions, values and beliefs on others.

raumdeuter:
I am conservative and I am pro-abortion.

To me conservatism connotes holding on to and upholding traditional, cultural and religious values (and often imposing those values on others).
Abortion seems to be against religious and traditional values.

budaatum:
Did you read where I said hot is 0⁰c in humptydumpty land? Please go back and read Ijebos responses in that conversation, as they rightly apply here.

Knowledge is not belief. (I have depluralised it on purpose). And the only reason you think otherwise is religion, which synonymises both words.



You see the bold? I've been letting you get away with it, but the truth is it is nonsense and meaningless, as there is no universe that intrinsically knows anything, and nor do we humans all universally know the same things. And while you might not admit it, I am fully aware that it's a camouflage for some imaginary God.

Succinctly put.

Xavier5:
Therein lies the problem. I don't share this version of liberalism. I've made known, in details, my version of liberalism which is based on the fundamental value of intrinsic human value, on which other values such as human rights, equality and liberty are based on. And because of my version of liberalism, I'm pro-life. And because of my version of liberalism, I'm hugely pro liberty, especially with one's body, but when a human life is being threatened or hurt, then I oppose. Which begs the question, is a fetus a human life?

I've come across people that share my version of liberalism, and I've come across those that share yours.

But, as I've earlier said, if your definition of liberalism is the dominant definition of liberalism in this thread, then I can't associate with it, I prefer to be seen as an independent in this thread.

This discussion has already been done, and I don't want to go into that rollercoaster, but I just feel I should let you know... if it matters.

#Xavier

Sorry I have not read your version of liberalism, been quite busy and just browse nairaland from time to time. Your definition of liberalism being "based on the fundamental value of intrinsic human value, on which other values such as human rights, equality and liberty" is quite vague and confusing. What exactly is intrinsic human value, and is it set in stone for all ages and cultures or is fluid between societies and times?

Now my confusion as to the brand of your liberalism is how you can be hugely pro liberty with one's body and at the same time anti liberty when a woman doesn't want a fetus in her body, because you place the rights of the fetus over that of the woman. A fetus is not a person, it is the process of making a person. A fetus particularly in the early stages is just a bunch of cell developing into a person. Getting sperm and egg together nowadays is not big deal, it could be done outside the woman's body. If we need to populate the earth with 8 more billion people, it could be easily achieved by harvesting eggs and sperms and building human incubators. Sex need not be involved.
It is moral ethics that prevents scientists from developing human cloning and human fetal incubators.

Xavier5:
He can't explain how, base on liberal values, Xavier is not a liberal, but rather choose to believe such simply because it makes him feel good

Also, he's not interested in the topic of abortion, and which liberal value made Xavier pro-life, but rather, is more interested in branding Xavier "not a liberal". This is funny as hell 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Well, if that makes you be at peace, then good. You have my blessings 😊😊😊😊😊


To my fellow liberals that might be curious on why I chose such stand on the issue of abortion. I'm open to discussion. Liberal to liberal, let's engage, as we appeal to our liberal values on the issue 😎

And one more thing to all who care to know, I personally think pro-life and pro-choice are not conservative and liberal ideologies, I feel we are just the one making them so for political reasons. In my interactions with people, I've come across pro-choice conservatives and pro-life liberals, the latter I happen to be a part of... proudly 😎

But as I earlier said, if any liberal here wants to engage me on the topic, I'm open to that discussion, after all, reasoning is a liberal value 🙃🙃🙃




#Xavier

You can't be liberal and at the same time be anti-abortion. Liberalism to means freedom of beliefs, actions and my body, as long as it does not infringement on the rights of other persons or injurious to the long term wellbeing of society.

professorPABX:
NBA is talking nonsense. I agreed with you 100%. NBA became fractionalized, political and irrelevant to national politics beginning from Jonathan era. All the human rights lawyers along their axis, very popular SAN Lawyers defended Jonathan government ridiculously. One of them defended Yahaya Bello against EFCC on print and electronic media recently.
The election of Paul Usoro, Olumide Akpata and this present Osigwe are purely political.

When Afe Babalola and his kinsman Wole Olanipekun from Ekiti both very experienced Lawyers were fined for challenging Supreme Court judgement in Bayelsa few years ago I know something happened in the background. People said Mary Odili acted against IMO Supreme Court judgement. It is not surprising that NBA can ask Police to provide security for an election the Court had restricted INEC from participating . Is there no difference between maintenance of order and security as encapsulated in the constitution and defending illegality.

In 2015, Presidential election was postponed on Security Reason. Events have been suspended or postponed based on Security report . It is the duty of Police and DSS to determine the security situation of an environment. It is the duty of the Court to give judgement and the duty of Law Enforcement agencies to enforce court judgement.

It was not the courts or the police that suspended the 2015 elections. It was INEC itself that rescheduled the elections based on advice by the government. The courts and police don't have any role in determining when elections are to be held.

Are you guys insinuating that INEC can determine a date for general elections and a high court judge can then declare the elections cannot hold on the said date, and then the police would prevent the elections from holding?

BondRiv:
The police won't support that illegal election in disobedience to the court. This present NBA leadership is desperate to create the impression that they are working. Better focus on tackling the issue of seal and stamp.

The police is not in any position to support any election - legal or illegal. They are only to provide security to elections or any other situation that requires security. There are ample provisions within the law to determine the legality or otherwise of election after they have been held.

blowjohn:
Ok I get ur point.
So I ask, who do we blame for the confusion or error(in decision) ? The court or the police.

I say the court. U?

The court and the police. Both seem to be working in concert to prevent Rivers State Election commission appointed by the governor from conducting local government elections.
It is unconstitutional for the courts to order the police not to perform their constitutional duty of providing security and its unconstitutional for the police to obey an unconstitutional court to obey an unconstitutional order.
The courts cannot order the police to commit an murder and the police cannot commit murder based on a court order.

blowjohn:
Again, if there is a break down of law and order, of cos the proper thing to do is to reach out to the police either by calling or going to the station.

Even if it's a birthday party and something goes wrong, it's to call the police.


But this court order is very specific ( the L.G.A elections)

Once again the courts have no say where and when elections are held. The courts cannot set date and time for federal, state or local government elections. It can only litigate about the legality of elections after they have been held.

It's like setting the date of your birthday or wedding, and the courts ordering the police not to provide security at the venue. You might have asked for police protection because your enemies have insisted that you must not celebrate your birthday on a certain date, and that they would cause mayhem if you do.

blowjohn:
that the police would refrain from providing security during the elections, citing compliance with a Federal High Court order.


This means that police will do their work of providing normal security in the state, but will not dispatch officers to take part( of course security wise in the election)


The NBA are using sense to make it sound like the court said police should stop work.

Are elections done everyday? Are elections not a special process that usually demand police presence?


So the police is saying that court has told them not to take part in it. The police never said they would neglect their normal duties of general security.


Whether the courts were right or not is not the issue here.


Be like say english hard for many people.

It's not about elections per se, its about providing security if and when there is a breakdown of law and order. So what the court is saying is that if there was a crime being commited or there is break down of law and order during the elections, the police should not step in and make arrests.
Even if its a birthday party and there is a possibly of a breakdown of law and order, the police should just be onlookers and not interfere.