Not in my name
For some reason, possibly because I am surprisingly dim, it never really dawned on me that England had any laws, apart from obvious practical ones about not parking on zebra crossings, and not taking other people's stuff without their permission. I suppose I have a fairly pragmatic view of the role of the state in enforcing behaviours, namely that it shouldn't, unless people are being a nuisance to others, in which case it should arrange for them to be sent to their bedrooms, partly so that they can reflect on the error of their ways, but mostly just to stop them inconveniencing everyone else.
This may seem a child-like approach to the problem of crime, but I guess I see crime, and anti-social behaviour in general, mostly as people just being childish, and selfish. It doesn't take a great deal of brain to realise how a society works, and to calculate the relative advantages of being part of one, as opposed to to not being part of one, and decide to moderate one's actions, for one's own benefit, accordingly. Obviously some people never grow up, or have very small and underdeveloped brains, so consequently they never get to the point of being able to understand why they can't have some shiny thing that has captured their attention, or do exactly as they please, but to all intents and purposes these people are just like children, and need to be treated in the same way.
Most parents, as I see it, reach some sort of accommodation with their offspring. I must admit at this point that I don't actually have any children of my own, but on the other hand I have personal experience of being a child, and I have seen lots of people who do have them. Essentially, parents let children be, unless they are actually interfering with other people going about their business. Then they pick them up and put them somewhere else, where they can't do any harm. This is a sensible approach, it seems to me. Children hurt no-one with their babbling, nonsensical though it might sound to adults. Babbling is what children do, they can't help it. On the other hand jumping around and breaking things is a definite nuisance, and requires that the child be separated from breakable things, until it calms down. It is, however, not an indication that the child is evil, or possessed by the devil, and it does not require that the child be ritually slaughtered.
Meanwhile, my government appears to be agreeing that a clearly deranged man in Baghdad be hanged until he is dead, despite the fact that he is now safely locked in his bedroom, and furthermore is suggesting, after the failure of its recent attempt to prosecute the BNP for inciting religious hatred, that the law be changed to make it an offence to suggest that Islam is 'a wicked, vicious faith'. Now I am sure that Saddam Hussein has been a tremendous nuisance, and killed lots of people, but at the end of the day he is just a rather stupid man, who like a child sees nothing wrong in what he has done, and I am not comfortable with the idea that he is going to be killed, on purpose. I also, to be honest, see no reason why you should make it a crime to say something, no matter how stupid it might be. It is, after all, just like the babbling of children, to be tolerantly ignored by grown-ups.
This may seem a child-like approach to the problem of crime, but I guess I see crime, and anti-social behaviour in general, mostly as people just being childish, and selfish. It doesn't take a great deal of brain to realise how a society works, and to calculate the relative advantages of being part of one, as opposed to to not being part of one, and decide to moderate one's actions, for one's own benefit, accordingly. Obviously some people never grow up, or have very small and underdeveloped brains, so consequently they never get to the point of being able to understand why they can't have some shiny thing that has captured their attention, or do exactly as they please, but to all intents and purposes these people are just like children, and need to be treated in the same way.
Most parents, as I see it, reach some sort of accommodation with their offspring. I must admit at this point that I don't actually have any children of my own, but on the other hand I have personal experience of being a child, and I have seen lots of people who do have them. Essentially, parents let children be, unless they are actually interfering with other people going about their business. Then they pick them up and put them somewhere else, where they can't do any harm. This is a sensible approach, it seems to me. Children hurt no-one with their babbling, nonsensical though it might sound to adults. Babbling is what children do, they can't help it. On the other hand jumping around and breaking things is a definite nuisance, and requires that the child be separated from breakable things, until it calms down. It is, however, not an indication that the child is evil, or possessed by the devil, and it does not require that the child be ritually slaughtered.
Meanwhile, my government appears to be agreeing that a clearly deranged man in Baghdad be hanged until he is dead, despite the fact that he is now safely locked in his bedroom, and furthermore is suggesting, after the failure of its recent attempt to prosecute the BNP for inciting religious hatred, that the law be changed to make it an offence to suggest that Islam is 'a wicked, vicious faith'. Now I am sure that Saddam Hussein has been a tremendous nuisance, and killed lots of people, but at the end of the day he is just a rather stupid man, who like a child sees nothing wrong in what he has done, and I am not comfortable with the idea that he is going to be killed, on purpose. I also, to be honest, see no reason why you should make it a crime to say something, no matter how stupid it might be. It is, after all, just like the babbling of children, to be tolerantly ignored by grown-ups.