Thursday, January 01, 2004

Pounding Headache

Few sights are better than a pol having his stunt blow up in his face. Stevie's poll is done and dusted and the Great British Public have slapped him with a wet fish labelled 'give us the right to self-defence back'. Of course, the Bill's got no chance of becoming law but it will be provide useful service as a barometer of what the elite really think.

For proof of that, check out this comment from 'leading criminal barrister John Cooper':

The law as it stands at the moment, despite its critics, is functioning.

Presumably he commutes to work from his home galaxy.

If you are in your house and you are attacked by someone or threatened by someone, you can use proportionate force.

How can you break into someone's house at 3 AM and not be threatening them ? And proportionate to what anyway ? The need to defend loved ones against professional criminals, or the need to push the agenda of some twisted moral equivalence-advocating wannabe social engineers who think the concept of 'guilt' is some Victorian hangover ? Given that this guy can claim the law is fine as is, it doesn't inspire confidence in the lawocrats ability to judge reality accurately.

We do not live in the wild west. This legislation that is proposed effectively may well turn us into that.

Ah yes, the wild west. What would liberals do without that bogeyman ? Wonder what liberals would say if every medical malpractice case provoked conservatives to talk about witch doctors, bongo drums and the like ? Would they ignore it or would they claim we were all racist bigots for continually harking back to historically inaccurate stereotypes of Africans ?

Crude appeals to prejudice aside, the point is absurd. The proposed legislation covers people defending their homes, that's all. Time was when 'anarchy' meant fighting in the streets, now our bewigged betters define anarchy as people staying home protecting their loved ones. Could there be a better example of the warped moral values that now dominate our legal system ?

No doubt some lawyers genuinely believe that a young women, raped and tortured for hours before being killed, is morally superior to a woman standing over a rapist's body with no injury worse than slight wrist strain from carving his windpipe out. For the rest, however, the motivation is far more cynical. Hence, the reliance on scare tactics rather than dealing with the actual question of home defence - they'd rather we didn't investigate their position too closely.

All through history self-defence has been a right. Only in modern Britain has it become a privilege. They, the elite, will tell us when we can defend our families. We can't done anything ourselves, except stay dumb, dependant and finally dead.

Self-defence is a perfect barometer of where people stand on the rights of the individual Vs the state. If you believe that the state is entitled to tell a citizen that he can't defend himself in his own home, then you'll pretty much swallow anything Big Government brings you, just the way liberals like their victims. If you don't, then you've made a vital mental step. You've already accepted that there are some rights the state can't take away from the citizen, call them God-given, inalienable, whatever, but they simply exist - they are not conferred on you by a benevolent government, and just because a particular group of deviants has managed to get a majority in Parliament or the Judiciary, they can't take them away from you. In short, you've already become a bit of a right-wing extremist.

No comments: