<span>a promise not to attempt suicide is NOT a promise to reestablish
contact if a suicidal person repeats his/her intents/attempts to commit
suicide. They can do it again.</span>
Answer:
Assembly election is the election for state legislative assembly (Bidhansabha).The elected members are called MLA(Member of legislative assembly).Leader of the winning party becomes the chief minister of that state. Every area in this country falls under two political boundaries. One is assembly seat whose winner will go to the state legislative assembly as a MLA, another is parliamentary seat whose winner will go to the country's parliament as an MP.
Answer:
The Supreme Court <em>c. has reduced its protections of symbolic speech dramatically, and recently has ruled against flag burning as a form of protected symbolic speech</em>.
Explanation:
<em>Symbolic speech</em> includes actions and visual aid designed to deliver specific messages regarding certain matter to the people who view products of symbolic speech. For example, political posters with caricatures constitute a symbolic speech.
As a result of United States v. O’Brien case (1968), the Supreme Court have <u>decided that symbolic speech has to be more regulated, because it involves actions but not only verbal expressions, such as burning a flag</u>.
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
