Entry 2337, on 2024-04-17 at 12:57:57 (Rating 4, Politics)
The law is a difficult subject to evaluate fairly. We undoubtedly need laws to control how people interact in society, yet there are so many cases where laws are unfair, unproductive, or impractical.
The expression "the law's an ass" is well known, and there are a couple of aspects of it I should mention. First, the word "ass" here refers to a donkey rather than anything else, because donkeys are reputed to be obstinate and inflexible. And second, the expression became popular after being used by English author Charles Dickens, but can be traced back further to at least the 1600s, so it isn't new.
There are several examples of problems with the law which recently caused me to want to write this post. First, the UK Post Office Scandal, which has been prominent recently thanks to a TV program about it. Second, the anti hate speech laws recently passed in Scotland which are very controversial. And third, the use of legal cases against Donald Trump, which some people claim is an attempt to sabotage his chances of becoming president again.
So let's look at these three examples...
The Post Office case originated in the 1990s when a new computer system was introduced and errors it created in payment records were blamed on the people who owned, and worked in, the small businesses which were doing postal work as contractors.
Many people were prosecuted, imprisoned, and some committed suicide as a result of the pressure. It was clear all along that the computer system had faults and was being remotely manipulated, yet the Post Office continued to blame the postmasters for the errors.
Some attempts by those accused to defend themsleves resulted in lengthy court cases and often the defence just ran out of money before they could prove anything thanks to delaying tactics and just a vastly greater amount of (taxpayer) money being available to the large organisation.
So it was sort of a case where "the best justice money can buy" applied. The winner was not the person with the best case, but who had the most money and could afford the best lawyers for the longest time.
Note that things have now been resolved in the accused people's favour, but only after 30 years and where many have died, been locked in prison, or killed themselves because of the stress.
How did the law look in this situation? Comparing it to an ass would be generous!
In Scotland new so-called anti hate speech laws have recently been passed. It is illegal, with the penalty being a potential prison sentence, to use speech to diminish the status of certain "disadvantaged" groups. For example, you cannot call a trans "woman" who is biologically a man, a man, even if you think there is a good case to say that is true.
The law allows anonymous reports and people are encouraged to report their family members (even children to report their parents) who might say the wrong thing, even in private conversations.
Anyone who thinks this is OK needs to read Nineteen Eighty Four and see where this extreme authoritarian attitude leads. Note that it is a leftist government implementing stuff which even a far right fascist one might have hesitated to enact in the past!
Harry Potter author, JK Rowling has said she will voluntarily make the same comment as what was said by anyone else who had been persecuted by this law, forcing the police to arrest her as well, and causing a huge backlash since she has the financial ability to fight it. So far this has not been necessary, because this law just doesn't work.
That new law isn't just unenforceable, it is genuinely evil. Any law where a person expresses a politically unpopular opinion in their own home, gets reported by their own children, and ends up in prison is far worse than an ass, it's an abomination!
Finally, we come to the cases being taken against Donald Trump. This one is likely to be even more controversial because Trump is a divisive figure. People who don't like him will no doubt think he deserves to be locked up, but those who support him will most likely see the charges as being politically motivated and completely bogus.
In this case the truth is probably somewhere in between. We know the US legal system interferes with elections, after the FBI tried but failed to influence the 2016 election in favour of Clinton but Trump still won. There can be little doubt that these charges are politically motivated, yet I would be surprised if there wasn't some element of truth in some of them.
The timing is "unfortunate" if you are a Trump supporter even though we are assured the fact that they all arose just at the beginning of the presidential election cycle is coincidental. That seems unlikely.
So the law is being used in this case to disrupt the democratic process of the most powerful nation on Earth. Anyone who didn't have concerns about the fairness and robustness of the legal system up until now should be genuinely alarmed at this point.
Apparently the law is being used as a political weapon. Again, calling the law an ass in this instance is really far less than the criticism it really deserves.
I don't think any less of a person if I hear they have broken a law. Many laws deserve to be broken, and the "criminal" would be better described as a hero. Of course, I have presented some of the worst cases where the law fails and there are plenty of times when it works absolutely fine, so many people who break laws are justifiably prosecuted. I just look at it on a case by case basis.
In summary, is the law an ass? Well no, it's not. Often it is an excellent tool to control society, but other times, it is far worse than that. If it was just an ass, I would be relatively happy!
I have always resented linking this lovely animal with such negative attributes (stupidity, insufferable stubbornness, etc.). It's hate speech. If it weren't for the right of free speech I'd legislate against it. Re the Post Office affair, I think the British law as such may have been ok (I'm not an expert), but the way it was applied and allowed to be applied is questionable.
Scottish gender law probably will turn out to be unenforcable, not just because it is ridiculous. But it may point out for all to see that gender classifications will have to be revised and made more nuanced; e.g. distinguishing between genome and visible gender. The old cosmic male female division will not do any more.
Comment 2 (7637) by OJB on 2024-04-18 at 15:04:50:
LOL. Hate speech calling donkeys stubborn. Nice one (you are joking, yes?)
In the British PO case: yes, from my understanding the law was fine, it is how it can be manipulated by clever lawyers being paid a heap of cash which was the problem. So I'm criticising the law as it is practically implemented, rather than the principles, in that case.
The Scottish law is ridiculous, but not totally unenforceable. I'm sure it is already stifling free speech in some cases. I'm not really talking about gender issues here (that's a different topic), it's just that they are a common source of problems with free speech at this point. it is the laws which I'm criticising whatever issue they are applied to.
Comment 3 (7638) by Anonymous on 2024-04-23 at 12:10:39:
Comment 4 (7639) by OJB on 2024-04-23 at 21:02:10:
Love the Scottish accent, hate the campaign! (see what I did there?) How pathetic. Who is this aimed at? 5 year olds? BTW, the site above has a pay wall, but just search for "Police Scotland's Hate Monster Campaign" and you will be able to see a video of the campaign, plus some commentary (most of it negative).
Comment 5 (7640) by Anonymous on 2024-04-24 at 14:09:13:
Funny you should ask if it's aimed at 5 year olds... maybe, The law will take care of censoring the adults, the monster will take care of the kids. Only half joking.
Comment 6 (7641) by OJB on 2024-04-24 at 18:05:35:
Well yes, maybe they are aiming at children. One of the most pernicious aspects of woke culture is how it targets young people. That has always been a way of forcing a new ideology (religious, political social) on the population. Get them when they're young.
Aristotle said it first: "give me a child until he is seven and I'll show you the man", but it has been used by many others since, and is the nastiest trick used by many churches.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE