To a liberal – especially a climate change activist http://www.climatesciencenews.com/– there is no such thing as the rule of law when it comes to saving the planet. In fact, when the planet is at stake, then anything goes.
That's the only way to explain how a jury in one of the country's most liberal, environmentally-conscious sectors of the country, could vote to acquit obvious lawbreakers whose defense was, in essence, acting out of "climate necessity."
As noted by The Daily Beast, Seattle-area jurors in Snohomish County, Wash., found a group called the "Delta 5" not guilty of obstruction for purposefully blockading an area oil facility in 2014. The website noted further:
"The protest and the acquittal were notable as part of a growing wave of anti-oil-gas-and-coal citizen actions that has swept the country in the past few years, and the courtroom in Snohomish County was treated to a master class on why principled lawbreaking is just the tonic needed to cure our government's woeful inaction on warming."
Wait, what? We don't even know if man is causing 'climate change'
The defense? "Climate necessity" – the first use of that term to justify an illegal action in the history of the country. The argument goes that the defendants should not have been held responsible for their obvious violation of the law because, after all, they were only doing what they could to ensure that the planet survives – the rights and privileges of the oil company to freely operate a legal business http://liberty.news/ without impediment, notwithstanding.
Oh, the "defense" – such as it is – has been tried before, but it had not made it past a judge ... until now. (Of note: The DB reports that a group of enviro-protestors used the defense successfully in England in 2008.)
Next up is Cortlandt, New York. The "Montrose 9" are on trial for disorderly conduct, following the forced shut-down of a construction site along the Algonquin gas pipeline in Westchester County, in November. These people, like those in Washington, have purposefully and proudly broken the law because they have bought into the Left-wing hype that man and, specifically, America, through its industrialization and use of gas and oil, is destroying the planet (hint: there is no proof of this, mind you, but it's liberalism, so intentions count). The next hearing for these alleged lawbreakers is Feb. 3. If they make it past the judge, theirs will become the second trial in two weeks to air the "climate necessity" defense http://globalwarming.fetch.news/.
While some may applaud the concept of jury nullification http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23929-jury-nullification-why-every-american-needs-to-learn-this-taboo-verdict – and agreed, it can be very tempting – it should never be applied to a political ideology or an unproven concept.
Even if man-caused climate change was real (and it's not), there are processes for getting laws passed and making the necessary legislative and policy changes to save the world.
As noted in The DB's report, a number of the accused in each of the two cases voiced frustration with a government and system of lawmaking that appears unresponsive and stodgy. That makes sense; their pet cause has been given the appropriate short shrift in the policy-making arena, and that has upset them, even to the point of breaking the law.
Excused lawlessness breeds more lawlessness
There's actually been a lot of this acceptance of lawbreaking, both in the state of Washington and in the Obama White House http://obama.fetch.news/. Washington is one of two states, Colorado being the other, where citizens approved ballot measures "legalizing" the sale and use of recreational marijuana. Say what you will about pot, it remains against federal law to use it recreationally.
However, there has been silence from the Obama administration's Justice Department – the president once said he has "bigger fish to fry" – and that is telling, given that he has had no trouble going after states whose citizens have passed ballot measures tightening immigration law and banning gay marriage.
But it also sets a poor example – one that is obviously spreading. When lawlessness is rewarded, it breeds more lawlessness.
Just because you have decided that your pet cause is "worthy" enough to act upon, doesn't give you the right to break laws.
If you're someone who agrees with what just happened in Snohomish County, Wash., just remember this: Eventually someone will break a law that you do care about, and that you will want to see them punished for. Imagine your anger and disappointment if the jury decides to let them walk.
Sources:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23929-jury-nullification-why-every-american-needs-to-learn-this-taboo-verdict
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/25/can-breaking-the-law-be-a-legal-defense.html
Read more
No comments:
Post a Comment