Then CMD says "burglars leave their human rights at the front door." That'll get him some votes.
The Daily Mail loves this. So do I, because I know what he means. But what he said is not what he means. I sincerely hope so, anyway.
What he means, I hope and pray, is that when a burglar breaks in, or lets himself in, to your house/car/office/shed/boat/sleeping bag, and you decide that you're not terribly happy with this and your polite request to Mr Burglar to leave the premises fails to achieve the desired result, then you can smack him in the gob without the luvvy darling Blairspawn legal system coming down on you like a ton of shite.
That would be right and proper, in my book. And the book of everyone I know apart from a bloke called Dominic who was brought up a generation behind me and therefore doesn't understand reality, as I keep having to explain to him.
What would not be right, nor proper, in my book (and again, that of everyone I know, but this time including Dominic), is to take away human rights. You can justify taking away freedom, you can justify a bop on the nose and, if someone threatens your kids, a stout scaffold pole to the back of the head. But a human is a human. Humans have rights. Even if they're chavs, blaggers, burglars, thieves or genocidal maniacs, such as that chap who's recently been grilled at the Chilcot Inquiry. They have rights.
Dear Dave, please take just a little bit of care choosing your words. Humans are humans. They have rights. Always. Such as the right to go and have a fag in a heated, substantially enclosed place.
2 comments:
"Humans are humans" is, of course, tautologically true but that is not to the point. Individual humans behave differently from others, so your contention is valid only statistically. A person who is prepared to go to the length of killing someone who threatens his/her family must have some intuitive level of perceived threat which will trigger that response: below that threat level, the response may be less extreme. So, what is the figure? As a Bayesian, I would set the prior probability of extremely malicious intent at something like 10%. That is, if I perceived a threat to my family that was, in my estimation, 10%, or more, likely to cause them harm, I would feel justified in destroying that threat completely.
Humans are humans. Yes, indeed: but where is the natural law that exempts them from catastrophe if they make a foolish choice?
@Edgar thank you for your comment. At least I know someone reads the rubbish I write.
There is no natural law, as you suggest [there isn't].
But they still have rights, as humans. That doesn't preclude someone beating them round the bonce with a scaffold pole though, if they behave in a menacing/threatening manner.
I have been burgled, three times. Sadly by different burglars, so they haven't had the 3 and out applied.
I find that just completely sick, incidentally. Do it twice, no problem. Bollocks.
Post a Comment