Is it indefensible for a lawmaker to support unlawful behaviour? [With Poll]

“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so” – Thomas Jefferson (probably liked an egg for breakfast)

“You don’t know the power of the beige side.”

And how could we possibly have forgotten Senator Leia Organa

So is Zed a Vader, a Palpatine, or a Moff Tarkin?

We have legislatures – yes, even silly little ones like the ACT Legislative Assembly – to make laws, and to oversight delegated legislation made under their power. A legislature makes, or considers making, a new law where (a) there is no existing statutory framework and one is considered to be necessary or (b) there is a political/executive opinion that an existing statute needs to be changed or updated or repealed. Inevitably, the second of these means that sometimes, some members of the legislature advocate against an existing legal norm. In some cases, this means they are asserting that an action that is unlawful under an existing framework should, in some circumstances, become lawful. In some cases, it might be vice versa, It’s part of their job.
The more difficult issues are to determine whether the unlawful action (for which a lawful status is sought) is one that would occur whether or not it was lawful, whether disobedience to an existing law is an available (moral, proportionate, considered) form of protest against that law and whether and to what extent the interests of parties other than the state may be affected by the unlawful action.

Where’s the “moronic” option?

IrishPete said :

Dunno – were any South African MPs quietly supportive of, or failed to condemn, Nelson Mandela? From memory he was imprisoned for property damage – no-one was hurt or died as a direct result of his actions. IP

Well he didn’t specifically plant any bombs, in the same way that Abu Bakar Basyir or Sheik Khalid Mohammed didn’t plant any bombs.

But he certainly approved plans for bombings in the same way they did. For example, the Church Street bombing in Pretoria. In his book “Long Walk to Freedom” he quite clearly says that he approved and signed off on that attack.

Also, after his release, and after deKlerk announced the free and fair elections, the bombings and attacks went on. Mandela, when asked, refused to order a stop to them even though they had basically won at that stage.

Mysteryman said :

“Charles I and gave birth to what we think of as Westminster Democracy, slavery abolitionists both in the UK and the USA, Germans who opposed genocide, and South Africans who stood up against apartheid”

Were those in your examples supporting unlawful behaviour, or were they campaigning for a change to lawful (at the time) behaviour?

To the issue at hand – I don’t think Zed should be wasting his time with this crap. He’d profit (and we might too) from spending more of his time coming up with sensible and practical policies. Instead he’s name-calling and dobbing, and generally wasting time (which he may or may not be recording properly).

Dunno – were any South African MPs quietly supportive of, or failed to condemn, Nelson Mandela? From memory he was imprisoned for property damage – no-one was hurt or died as a direct result of his actions.

IP

Duffbowl said :

Not Australian examples, but from within the Westminster system. More than one elected MP, as well as members of city, town and rural councils, supported the Irish Republican Army during the Independence War.

Oh dear, there seem to be some misconceptions in here… (unless you are genuinely referring to the war of about 1919 to 1921).

IP

Gungahlin Al said :

Jethro said :

Most weren’t political leaders.

You don’t have to be elected to be a political leader…

Campbell Newman!

I didn’t quite catch the bit where Shane supported the Pace egg farm vandals. Did I miss something, somewhere?

Hmmm… By Zed’s powerful and incisive (and quite proper and not ill-founded at all) argument, every lawmaker should be on the record, to condemn publicly every crime committed anywhere in their jurisdiction at all times during their period in office. (And that goes double if you have “past links” with the very class of people committing the crime – because we all know that guilt by association, however contrived the association may be, does not go away by itself. Time cannot reverse this crime.)

For example, Zed was once a teenager himself, or has had past links to them, I’m given to believe, even if he has been an adult all his adult life. It might have been a few years ago now, but it’s all pretty shady if you ask me, these past links. And I hear tell that on Saturday, almost a dozen teenagers were rounded up by police for public drunkedness at Skyfire. Where was Zed, when it came time to condemn these teenagers publicly, immediately and unequivocally??? Absolutely silent. By his own logic, through his manifest silence, he appears to be wholeheartedly supporting public teenage drunkedness! So many crimes. So many past links. So many missing condemnations.

If I didn’t know better, I’d be thinking that the whole Ron McLeod audit thingy has gotten Zed all twitchy and restless. Perhaps Shane will be able to put his (and our) mind at ease by the end of this month with an update on how that’s all proceeding, that is, if he can find time between all those necessary immediate and unequivocal public condemnations he’s expected to be issuing.