On Nov 15, 8:09 pm, JNugent 
wrote:
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>You said (earlier):
> >>>>"Your argument treats all laws as being the same."
> >>>>You said that as though it was a bad thing.
> >>>>So I asked you to propose a method for distinguishing them. You have
> >>>>not provided one, because you can't. No-one can, except on the basis
> >>>>of personal preference.
> >>>The Human Rights Act sets out an objective set of criteria by which to
> >>>distinguish between laws. Numerous ethicists through history have set
> >>>forth external criteria to distinguish between laws. As a very
> >>>different example, there are those laws that remain on the statute
> >>>books but which are never enforced or kept, providing another way of
> >>>distinguishing between laws that isn't simply about personal
> >>>preference.
> >>>But I'm just repeating myself here. *head* *wall* *head* *wall* *head*
> >>>*wall* *head* *wall* *head* *wall* *head* *wall* *head* *wall* *head*
> >>>*wall* *head* *wall* *head* *wall*
> >>Well, at last!
> >>So Clogg will, in your view, be justified in breaking the ID cards law
> >>(if we ever get one) as long as the courts strike it down as in breach
> >>of the ECHR. Fat chance of that since every other European state has
> >>an ID cards system, eh?
> > That's not what I said or implied. I'm still waiting for you to
> > concede that we can distinguish between laws. Then we can get on to
> > discuss Nick Clegg's situation.
>
> I don't accept that "we" can distinguish between laws without a way of
> doing it.
>
> Can you suggest one that is valid?
>
> By "valid", I mean valid not only for you in your particular set of
> political, social and economic preferences, but equally valid for
> anyone else with all their preferences, even if you didn't agree with
> them?

I've done just that repeatedly in previous posts. I suggest you go
read them again.

> This is the sticking point. I accept that I must obey the law on
> principle (even if I sometimes fail to do so). Part of the reason for
> that is that I expect others to obey the law (even if they don't like it).

I understand that is a central part of the democratic contract, but I
think it fair to recognise it has its limits.
--
Henry