4 ms·

You’re deliberately ignoring an honest explanation.

RHSeeger 3y ago
But does the answer actually say what the law states, or does the law state what the (ignoring) response is describing. What was intended by a law and what the law actually says can vary wildly; and calling that out, when the law gives far greater power than it was intended to, is both reasonable and important.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The law says you just have to say the magic words, then you get full power. If you slip up and admit you were doing it for another reason, you might get a slap on the wrist.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
You are correct. But in historical practice, we see that laws get misused. Powers, however legitimate, get abused. Restrictions gets stretched, and then stretched to the breaking point, and then obliterated. So, while they deliberately ignored an honest explanation, they also had a legitimate point.
mecsred 3y ago
No, they're pointing out the ways that explanation is dishonest. You cannot look at the political landscape and tell anyone in good conscience that officials will use an honest interpretation of the law.
- vintermann 3y ago
  And again, that's not at all a theoretical exercise here. No one sincerely thinks Craig Murray might be a terrorist. Those who would say such a thing are in fact not sincere. They just say it as a political loyalty statement, or to psych themselves up to abuse him/gloat in his abuse.
atoav 3y ago
With every law that is as... vague.. as this, I always ask myself one question: "If the Nazis would rise to power, how badly could they abuse it by doing only slight changes to how it's interpreted?" Here the answer is: Pretty bad Your laws don't have to survive a well meaning democratic government. They have to survive one that is cunning, evil and tries to actively abolish the Rule of Law and democracy. This is a bad law.
- gorjusborg 3y ago
  That this level of wisdom is buried layers deep in an HN post is a bit of a shame. Spot on.
- fooker 3y ago
  An evil government is not going to obey the laws anyway, so might as well make the well meaning government more effective to prevent the other one.
  - atoav 3y ago
    Historically there are not many instances of this happening tho, unless we are speaking of truly absolute majorities that follow already dictatoric governments. Evil governments have it very easy if the laws they encounter when they get into office are ones that are practical for evil governments. Even the actual Nazis had to fake a reason for why they need to abolish democracy ("Reichstagsbrand"). The reason why they could do that were laws. Laws that might have looked okay in democratic times. When you have a healthy, strong democracy your division of powers and opposition should be able to hold off a evil government for enough time voters can vote them out again. That is a core idea of democracy and the reason why there are the different branches. Now your governments can create/modify/remove laws in a way that weakens that division between the branches and makes it easier for evil government to remove their opposition, influence the justice system and command the military to break their oaths etc. Our task during non-evil governments is to avoid accidentally weakening those defenses.
    - fooker 3y ago

But does the answer actually say what the law states, or does the law state what the (ignoring) response is describing. What was intended by a law and what the law actually says can vary wildly; and calling that out, when the law gives far greater power than it was intended to, is both reasonable and important.

bombcar 3y ago
The law says you just have to say the magic words, then you get full power. If you slip up and admit you were doing it for another reason, you might get a slap on the wrist.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

You are correct. But in historical practice, we see that laws get misused. Powers, however legitimate, get abused. Restrictions gets stretched, and then stretched to the breaking point, and then obliterated. So, while they deliberately ignored an honest explanation, they also had a legitimate point.

mecsred 3y ago

No, they're pointing out the ways that explanation is dishonest. You cannot look at the political landscape and tell anyone in good conscience that officials will use an honest interpretation of the law.

vintermann 3y ago
And again, that's not at all a theoretical exercise here. No one sincerely thinks Craig Murray might be a terrorist. Those who would say such a thing are in fact not sincere. They just say it as a political loyalty statement, or to psych themselves up to abuse him/gloat in his abuse.

atoav 3y ago

With every law that is as... vague.. as this, I always ask myself one question: "If the Nazis would rise to power, how badly could they abuse it by doing only slight changes to how it's interpreted?" Here the answer is: Pretty bad Your laws don't have to survive a well meaning democratic government. They have to survive one that is cunning, evil and tries to actively abolish the Rule of Law and democracy. This is a bad law.

gorjusborg 3y ago
That this level of wisdom is buried layers deep in an HN post is a bit of a shame. Spot on.
fooker 3y ago
An evil government is not going to obey the laws anyway, so might as well make the well meaning government more effective to prevent the other one.
- atoav 3y ago
  Historically there are not many instances of this happening tho, unless we are speaking of truly absolute majorities that follow already dictatoric governments. Evil governments have it very easy if the laws they encounter when they get into office are ones that are practical for evil governments. Even the actual Nazis had to fake a reason for why they need to abolish democracy ("Reichstagsbrand"). The reason why they could do that were laws. Laws that might have looked okay in democratic times. When you have a healthy, strong democracy your division of powers and opposition should be able to hold off a evil government for enough time voters can vote them out again. That is a core idea of democracy and the reason why there are the different branches. Now your governments can create/modify/remove laws in a way that weakens that division between the branches and makes it easier for evil government to remove their opposition, influence the justice system and command the military to break their oaths etc. Our task during non-evil governments is to avoid accidentally weakening those defenses.
  - fooker 3y ago