Monday, February 07, 2005

Mr Justice Humpty Dumpty

Liberals often claim Conservatives are prejudiced. This is their attempt to pass off their complete inability to learn from experience as an asset. The goldfish-like collective memory of the Liberals causes all sorts of trouble - take the Parole Board, for example - yet it does have the advantage that Liberals trying to con the public into accepting their latest piece of moonbattery frequently forget the presence of a large elephant in the room. Which bring me neatly onto the question of self-defence.

Last week, the Government announced a bold new policy on self-defence, namely keeping everything the same. Apparently, we're all deluded. Actually, the law is just fine as is, it's just us lager-swilling imbeciles who don't understand it. The Government loves the idea of people defending themselves. Really.

Call me cynical, but the fact that they chose to announce this policy as meaning that people could kill burglars suggests that the leopard hasn't exactly put in for a whole new set of spots. That's what we want, of course. We want to kill burglars, and put their heads on spikes. Every person who ever spoke out against the current laws is a slavering sadist with an uncontrollable bloodlust. Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy, but Liberals, here's a tip: if you're trying to bamboozle people into thinking that you're taking their concerns seriously, you may want to avoid stereotyping them as a bunch of Hannibal Lecters.

As it happens, the supposed revelation that it's lawful to kill a burglar is absurd. The L3 remind us that it's legal to kill intruders providing you're using 'reasonable force' - well, yeah: by definition, if it's ruled as 'reasonable' then it's legal. The point is that what's 'reasonable' is so loosely defined it can mean almost anything - and what it means with the current legal establishment is that 'reasonable force' is a virtual oxymoron. That's what the public wants - not the right to rack up huge bodycounts, just the right to defend themselves free of the risk of a bunch of activist twerps spending 18 months to 'prove' that they acted unreasonably.

As long as the law is drawn up so loosely, then it offers opportunity for an agenda-driven legal establishment to push the party line. For proof of that, look at all the pots and pans thrown at those who do defend themselves. From the blank cheque given to the initial investigation, to the elastic definition of admissible evidence, all bets are off. Ever taken drugs, met a BNP member or been in naughty chat rooms ? Defend yourself against a criminal and this'll all be brought out in court. But now these people want us to trust them.

As it happens, we have the perfect litmus test available to determine how serious these people are. When first the subject of changing the law was broached., the CPS helpfully released figures showing that there were very few actual prosecutions of householders for defending themselves. Take that, Conservatives! Only problem was that the figures were completely bogus. Never mind Civil Service impartiality, isn't there a problem with prosecutors who make up evidence ? Apparently not.

That's the key point. Even while they're on their best behaviour they can't stop lying. They claim there's no institutional bias against self-defence even while producing bogus figures designed to weaken the case for a change in the law favouring those who defend themselves. Just as long as these people are allowed the latitude inherent in 'reasonable force' then they will continue to use the law to punish those who defend themselves. Of course, that's a good reason to change the law, but what of the wider issues ?

The way the legal establishment has connived to deprive members of the public of their basic right to protect themselves is symptomatic of a wider phenomena. The old joke says that the Left is quite happy for things to be settled democratically, providing only twelve people get to vote. We can make whatever changes we want to the law, but as long as it is left in the hands of an unrepresentative group of agenda-driven hacks the best we can hope for is a delaying action. As with much else in Britain, we are faced with a Gramscian assault the nature of which the Conservative Party shows no sign of comprehending.

No comments: