Zac Goldsmith, David Cameron's green friend who wants to be a Conservative MP, has said:
If a crime is intended to prevent much larger crimes, I think many people would regard that as justified.
He was speaking as a defence witness at the trial of six Greenpeace activists charged with causing criminal damage to Kingsnorth power station.
I remember the Labour Party getting into trouble over the same principle, over whether it was right for councillors to defy the law on rate capping, or for MPs to refuse to pay the poll tax. Neil Kinnock, the then Leader of the Opposition, got it right, and said that it was not acceptable for MPs or people who aspired to be MPs to break the law or to advocate breaking the law.
Can David Cameron live up to that standard, or will he take refuge in the semantic defence that Goldsmith was merely saying what "many people" would regard as justified? Tom Watson, the Cabinet Office minister, is on the case.
Another aspect is the threat of Lib Dems to not comply with ID cards, should those become a reality.
If MPs are not willing to break stupid laws that their spineless colleagues don't have the guts to stand up to, then what are they for?
The law does, from time to time, make an ass of itself.
Posted by: Stephen | Thursday, 11 September 2008 at 01:32 AM
Of course laws must be broken at times--there is no perfect law and some made in haste today, by clowns in Westminster, for expediency's sake are forever being changed, because they were not thought through properly.
However, I'm suspicious of the likes of Zac Goldsmith--he seems like a lot of other guys with similar names, who are able to do somersaults with the law and words and have far too much power in the US and Britain. I hope he doesn't make Foreign Secretary, a few years down the line.
Posted by: Diogenes | Thursday, 11 September 2008 at 05:47 AM
Indeed a law maker can be a law breaker- just look at President Zardari.
Posted by: Shakeel Suleman | Thursday, 11 September 2008 at 07:27 AM
Can a law maker be a law breaker?
Alastair Campbell with "Brel Et Moi" on Radio 4 what is going on with BBC giving this man a show it beggars belief to me after all the trouble he caused
Posted by: Ms J Eccles..London | Thursday, 11 September 2008 at 08:47 AM
Law's are made by people, and like people are often imperfect or plain wrong.
Martin Luther King said 'One may well ask "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others ?". There are two types of laws, just and unjust. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.'
If you do not then you are "simply obeying orders", as the guards at Auschwitz would have said.
Posted by: Andrew | Thursday, 11 September 2008 at 10:32 AM
They painted “Gordon” on someone’s chimney. Wow.
Posted by: Rob dePlume | Thursday, 11 September 2008 at 12:24 PM
Quite right - just imagine what a world we'd be living in if politicians like, say, Nelson Mandela were willing to break the law in defence of a higher principle.
In any case, the Kingsnorth protestors did +not+ break the law, any more than would a fireman kicking down a door to put out a blaze - that was established at their trial. That's the principle Goldsmith is (apparently) defending, and it is entirely congruent with British law.
Posted by: Tim H | Thursday, 11 September 2008 at 03:08 PM
*Quite right - just imagine what a world we'd be living in if politicians like, say, Nelson Mandela were willing to break the law in defence of a higher principle.*
Well, Mandela is different from the individuals whose lawbreaking is now apparently sanctioned by juries - with respect to the fact that he and others like him could not VOTE simply on the basis of their SKIN COLOUR.
I don't think this proviso applies to any of those wrongfully acquitted in this case.
On the contrary, these individuals have decided that what THEY believe should prevail over what the people have democratically chosen.
I wonder how sanguine those wrongfully acquitted would be, if say, someone rejected their anti-democratic tactics and decided, in turn, to give them a taste of their own medicine, carrying out $70,000 in damage to their headquarters or safe-houses or whatever...
I think we know that the wrongfully acquitted would be screaming `terrorists' at those who had done them wrong.
These individuals are what they are: thugs, and that's that.
(Parenthetically, I am shocked that a CONSERVATIVE wannabe MP would be testifying in favour of these individuals)
Posted by: r.b. glennie | Monday, 15 September 2008 at 03:30 PM
You want to become a teacher, and as such you must be aware of the fact that to be properly accredited you will need a master’s degree.However, your schedule is such that you do not have the time or the money to get a master’s degree at your local college or university.About Online Master’s Degrees in Education you can visit at http://universitiesonline.biz/.
Posted by: distance learning university | Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 08:24 AM