Original:
Man who drove into cyclists outside parliament jailed for life
Apart from the very young and infirm, every single person on the planet is potentially deadly. The only thing standing between each one of us and deadly violence is the thoughts coursing through our minds at each moment. How many thoughts does each one of us have in a day? How many billions of lives have passed that never came close to realizing deadly violence against another? In all of those lives countless thoughts. Fortunately, a very tiny proportion, if not all 'good', are, at least, not deadly.
Two major contributing factors for violent thoughts are a climate of fear and a credible threat. Two criteria that State's have a track record for exacerbating.
Violent thoughts are almost always connected to defending something even if that may not be tangible (honor, pride, nation etc.). Unprovoked, mindless violence for no defensive reason at all is most often connected to mental illness and cannot reasonably be treated any differently to how we might consider a dangerous, unpredictable, wild animal (so that category is not under consideration here).
The problem is the human that believes he/she needs to defend themselves against something and there is disagreement about what that 'something' is. Is it a 'legitimate' defense? The State, with it's contorted logic, can convince itself that the use of deadly force to secure it's plunder is legitimate because, for example, that plunder is used to 'defend the nation' etc.
The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791
The distinguishing feature of 'legitimacy' - violent extortion.
It all depends on what we are taught to consider 'legitimate'. One vehicle for instructing us all on what is/is not legitimate is the hallowed institutions of the Law. In the title article there is a difference between how the defense and the judge view the evidence:
Defense:
'The lack of evidence [linking to terrorism] is not a proper basis for drawing a conclusion there is evidence of a terrorist connection.'
Judge:
'You replicated the acts of others who undoubtedly have acted with terrorist motives'.
Is replicating acts the basis for connecting a defendant with an 'illegitimate' motive?
I used my mobile phone today. I expect a terrorist somewhere in the World has done the same. I replicated his acts and he has undoubtedly acted with terrorist motives. Am I now a terrorist? Perhaps we all are? How convenient.
How about if I unloaded a gun into a uniformed policeman? That would replicate the act of a terrorist. Have I 'undoubtedly' therefore acted with terrorist motives?
What if that policeman had broken into my flat and was about to shoot me? What if I was known to have written an 'illegitimate' blog because it questions the legitimacy of the State? There is plenty of evidence for that. It might all depend on what we imagine is actually going on.
It seems the 'legitimate' are allowed to imagine things where the 'illegitimate' are not, because 'conspiracy theories' are always wrong - right?
In the climate of fear we live under how many would concur with this judge and make that all too easy leap of faith away from the evidence and into a massive extension of State power? All for our own 'good' of course.
For clarity, I don't mind if this bizarre individual receives a harsh punishment, ultimately, for his ridiculous, dangerous behavior. An armed citizen could have shot him if really necessary. But the real danger is not abortions like this chap, no matter how depressingly frequently they arise, but rather how such behavior is interpreted and manifested among the sane and 'legitimate', to undermine the freedoms of the rest of us, which is essential in countering the climate of fear the State attempts to foster for it's own ends.
Would this headline have been possible without free speech?
Being opposed to the manifestation of the law as expressed by the State does not imply opposition to the fundamental principles of the law such as the necessity for evidence. I suggest we not allow 'odd' cases like this one to blur the distinctions, especially when the blurring is done by a 'legitimate' representative of the State.