People who use violence to further their views are not lefties of peaceniks, no matter how they couch their justification. They are reactionaries.
And anyone who defends the Waihopai attackers is in no position to condemn the idiots who firebomb abortion clinics.
You're either for the rule of law, or you're for people taking the law into their own hands to defend what they genuinely perceive to be immensely important human values.
And anyone who is on the side of the firebombers is dead wrong.
If bloggers at the Standard or other people who think of themselves as progressive think the left in New Zealand is ever going to get elected by advocating firebombing, civil disobedience and attacks on anyone you disagree with, they are helping to destroy the left's chance of returning to power.
2 comments:
Thousands of dead Iraqis don't count?
I don't usually comment, but there is no moral distinction between someone;'s concern for thousands of dead Iraqis and an anti-abortionist's concern for terminated pregnancies. The legal issue is whether you should be able to take into your own hands a response to 'save lives' (remember this is the subjective view of the accused.)
The legal point is whether there was an honest belief they were acting to save lives. But Also, there is no evidence the Waihopai three saved any lives at all. There is no evidence that Waihopai has anything to do with Iraq. It's unlikely it does because an aerial in NZ isn't gong to pick up much from Iraq. It is almost certainly being used to spy on Asia, not the middle east.
What's more, the attacks may well have cost lives. If they have helped Al Qaeda continue to mount murderous attacks, and helped the Taliban to kill in Afghanistan, then they have caused harm, not reduced suffering. Neither I, nor you, nor they, have any idea what the result has been. Simply asserting it saved lives doesn't make it so.
Post a Comment