Vir Cantium

I'm right, you know …

Fair Game

So, it seems that causing thousands of pounds worth of criminal damage is OK, so long as you’re passionate enough about it.

Adherents to the religion of man-made climate change have been acquitted after they used the defence that

“they had a ‘lawful excuse’ – because they were acting to protect property around the world “in immediate need of protection” from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal.”

Incredible. Just as the story behind the statistics of the hockey stick is emerging, and global temperatures stubbornly refuse to do what the IPCC predicted, a bunch of vandals from Greenpeace get away with criminal damage based on a theory that would quite possibly not stand up in a court were it to be tested on its own.

What of the precedent that this could set, if not in legal terms then as encouragement to other yobs? Destroying “gas guzzlers” on the grounds of combating climate change? Sabotaging airliners? How about all those cows in that field over there – go on lads, strike a blow for the environment and militant veganism in one go.

Sadly, this has probably been coming for a while. For too long, breaking the law to support a heartfelt cause has been implicitly excused as “direct action” by parts of the media and elsewhere, especially when it comes to the environment. Trespass, criminal damage and even violence have been, in these perverse times of moral relativism, considered near-legitimate forms of protest whether its a by-pass or a power station.

It is, I hope, still a central tenet of conservatism that you do not try to change the law by breaking it (at least in a free democracy). I trust the Conservative candidate for Richmond Park Zac Goldsmith will therefore be distancing himself from the actions of the Greenpeace yobs.

Oh.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Fair Game

  1. Joss September 12, 2008 at 4:44 pm

    “you do not try to change the law by breaking it (at least in a free democracy)”

    If no-one had ever taken a principled stand against unjust or outdated laws we’d still have slavery and women wouldn’ t have the vote, to state the bleeding obvious. And this was a principled stand, and was understood as such by the jury, who once the facts had been explained to them trusted the motivations of the Greenpeace guys far more than either the government or EON.

    Maybe that was because they had nothing personally to gain, and risked prison for purely altruistic motives – hats of to them I say!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: