Laban is busy tracking the outrages of our Liberal Employment Service aka the Justice System. The latest outrage also includes a link to the latest dribblings of the web’s favourite judicial fascist. I mean, seriously, you could almost imagine that ‘bystander’ is actually a British version of Liberal Larry, if only this form of lunacy wasn’t all too familiar. Still, it does raise an interesting question.
Right about now, everyone knows that Conservatives are too extreme, too repellent, ever to gain power again, except which side of the political divide can state its policies on crime openly, and which needs to retreat between a smokescreen of blather ? To cite just one example, the Legal Aid budget has more zeros than the Shadow Cabinet, but Libs claim they don’t want to send scum to jail because it’s expensive. A-huh. Let’s work this one out: quarantining scum vs supplying bewigged vermin with their next Mercedes – it’s a toughey, but I think I’d rather see lawyers walking the streets rather than psychos. Und so weiter...
Liberal policy on crime is the very definition of the phrase ‘to state it clearly is to refute it’. Liberals maintain that actually they’re really, really tough on crime and, in fact, the only reason they support revolving-door justice, parole on-demand and the like is because they genuinely believe not jailing a criminal is actually much harsher than jailing one. Well, OK, we now have the perfect litmus test. Here we have yet another example of senseless savagery, let’s see if the Lib’s three-ring circus will be giving us a performance this time. Let’s see the newspaper columnists explaining that the media are hyping violence out of all proportion, the quangoqueens urging the Police to reach out to the community, the pious claims that the killers need understanding not condemnation.
No, wait...hang on – it’s a racial attack. The Liberal freak show can pack up and leave town. There will be no reaching out this time. That’s the part that sticks in the throat. Liberals constantly maintain that sentencing killers to five years in prison is ‘harsh but fair’, but when the deceased is a member of a PC victim group, they start sounding like Rory Bremner’s version of Michael Howard. If Liberals take racially-motivated murder seriously, then isn’t the corollary that they don’t take seriously most other murders ?
That’s the bottom line here. Liberals don’t flirt with vicious killers because they genuinely think probation is a worse punishment than hanging, they do it because it suits their agenda to stick two fingers up to traditional morality. Liberalism has been locked into a nihilistic death spiral for so long that its adherents lack any moral basis for evaluating any action other than whether or not it advances the cause of Liberalism. When true outrages happen, say a guy out walking his dog who getting beaten to death by a gang of thugs, the Liberal's natural response is an eye-rolling, sneering, detachment. To do otherwise would be to admit that Liberalism’s great experiment is a disaster, and that would never do. But when the victim can be recruited to the culture wars, why, all bets are off. That’s why we’ll hear a lot more about Anthony Walker and next to nothing about Michelle Wenden.
That’s what’s wrong with Liberal policy on law & order. These people have no conception of the law as the codification of the common morality. To them, the law is a means to bludgeon opponents, reward allies and push the Liberal agenda. Hence why Liberal jurisprudence is so commonly arbitrary and subjective. Of course, respect for the law is collapsing: there is no law, in so far as the concept means a settled body of legislation. Instead, we have a buffet counter of law from which Liberal judges pick and choose whichever interpretation best suits the Liberal agenda.
That’s what Conservatives should be saying: the alleged justice system is out of control, serving an agenda which the vast majority of people never voted for. Would this win over the support of the public ? Well, consider the lengths to which the Left goes to hide its true nature. They, at least, are under no illusions about who the real extremists are.
Right about now, everyone knows that Conservatives are too extreme, too repellent, ever to gain power again, except which side of the political divide can state its policies on crime openly, and which needs to retreat between a smokescreen of blather ? To cite just one example, the Legal Aid budget has more zeros than the Shadow Cabinet, but Libs claim they don’t want to send scum to jail because it’s expensive. A-huh. Let’s work this one out: quarantining scum vs supplying bewigged vermin with their next Mercedes – it’s a toughey, but I think I’d rather see lawyers walking the streets rather than psychos. Und so weiter...
Liberal policy on crime is the very definition of the phrase ‘to state it clearly is to refute it’. Liberals maintain that actually they’re really, really tough on crime and, in fact, the only reason they support revolving-door justice, parole on-demand and the like is because they genuinely believe not jailing a criminal is actually much harsher than jailing one. Well, OK, we now have the perfect litmus test. Here we have yet another example of senseless savagery, let’s see if the Lib’s three-ring circus will be giving us a performance this time. Let’s see the newspaper columnists explaining that the media are hyping violence out of all proportion, the quangoqueens urging the Police to reach out to the community, the pious claims that the killers need understanding not condemnation.
No, wait...hang on – it’s a racial attack. The Liberal freak show can pack up and leave town. There will be no reaching out this time. That’s the part that sticks in the throat. Liberals constantly maintain that sentencing killers to five years in prison is ‘harsh but fair’, but when the deceased is a member of a PC victim group, they start sounding like Rory Bremner’s version of Michael Howard. If Liberals take racially-motivated murder seriously, then isn’t the corollary that they don’t take seriously most other murders ?
That’s the bottom line here. Liberals don’t flirt with vicious killers because they genuinely think probation is a worse punishment than hanging, they do it because it suits their agenda to stick two fingers up to traditional morality. Liberalism has been locked into a nihilistic death spiral for so long that its adherents lack any moral basis for evaluating any action other than whether or not it advances the cause of Liberalism. When true outrages happen, say a guy out walking his dog who getting beaten to death by a gang of thugs, the Liberal's natural response is an eye-rolling, sneering, detachment. To do otherwise would be to admit that Liberalism’s great experiment is a disaster, and that would never do. But when the victim can be recruited to the culture wars, why, all bets are off. That’s why we’ll hear a lot more about Anthony Walker and next to nothing about Michelle Wenden.
That’s what’s wrong with Liberal policy on law & order. These people have no conception of the law as the codification of the common morality. To them, the law is a means to bludgeon opponents, reward allies and push the Liberal agenda. Hence why Liberal jurisprudence is so commonly arbitrary and subjective. Of course, respect for the law is collapsing: there is no law, in so far as the concept means a settled body of legislation. Instead, we have a buffet counter of law from which Liberal judges pick and choose whichever interpretation best suits the Liberal agenda.
That’s what Conservatives should be saying: the alleged justice system is out of control, serving an agenda which the vast majority of people never voted for. Would this win over the support of the public ? Well, consider the lengths to which the Left goes to hide its true nature. They, at least, are under no illusions about who the real extremists are.
No comments:
Post a Comment