Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Rights Round Up

Apparently, 'free speech' now requires that you post your cv on-line.

See, that's the problem with a political monoculture: there's no one around to tell liberals that their arguments don't make a lick of sense. Try this:
The public was entitled to know how police officers behaved and the newspaper's readers were entitled to come to their own conclusions about whether it was desirable for officers to communicate such matters publicly.
So the public is enitled to find out how police officers behave but it's not desirable for police officers to tell them. A-huh!

On the other hand, some people deserve their privacy.
Civil rights group Liberty is backing the relatives of two convicted killers who claim their human rights have been breached - after police used the criminals' faces in a poster campaign.

The number of shootings in Greater Manchester dropped by 92 per cent following the arrest of gangsters Colin Joyce and Lee Amos, so they were featured in a billboard which thanked the public for coming forward with evidence against them.

But members of the two men's families are now seeking compensation from the police, claiming they weren't warned about the posters in advance, or given a chance to object.
Hmmmm.... I guess we'll never know why people call Liberty a bunch of leftist kooks.

Needless to say, the moral absurdity of the case has no impact on its likelehood of success. No, siree, Jack! It turns out that the police will be required to show they considered the impact on the rest of these dysfunctional clans of psychopaths beforehand or else (although, in their defence, neither killer has been known to express 'strong opinions').

Still, we must not let the specific absurdity blind us to the more general one:
The relatives say they've suffered increased hostility as a result of the posters which graphically show how old Joyce and Amos would look by the time they were released from jail.
Good. The mark of a civilised society is that being a scumbag does bring consequences. True, it may be impossible to prove beyind reasonable doubt that the relatives are criminals themselves (so far) but then again, no one's talking about jailing or fining them. Nope, we're talking mild social stigma, or, as I like to think of it, treating low-life vermin like the sub-human filth that they are. When exactly did we decide that gangsta baby mammas had the fundemental human right to be treated as worthwhile members of the public?

This is another reason why the hipster's faux libertarianism doesn't work. These people claim to hate Big Government, but they absolutely despise the idea of communities regulating themselves through tactics such as shaming, social ostracism and the like. It's all too suggestive of squaresville morality for these rebel tigers. The trouble is abscent that moral framework all you're left with is government, and that can never be enough - which probably explains why they're so desperate to stop anyone talking about how their idiot ideas work in practice.

No comments: