JNugent  wrote
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote [...]
> > I've done just that repeatedly in previous posts. I suggest you go
> > read them again.
>
> I've read them all. All you do is make veiled hints to the effect that
> illibrul laws can be ignored but laws supported by libruls are
> sacrosanct. If I've got that wrong, I apologise, but you haven't been
> very open with the exact methodology, have you?
>
> I appreciate that some of your hints are hinged around "conscience".
> But please try to be open about it - for instance, on what different
> "conscience" issues could (say) a supporter of the BNP credibly rely?
> If none at all, why ever not? Would it be because you must be right
> whereas he must be wrong, with no more to be said on it? The whole
> point is that not everyone's conscience tells them the same things as
> yours tells you.

Different people are always going to come to different conclusions.
That doesn't make invalidate every moral act. You yourself have said
that healthcare professionals should be allowed to refuse to be
involved in abortions on grounds of conscience without tackling the
problem you raise that everybody's conscience says different things.
If that doesn't invalidate your position re: healthcare professionals
and abortion, why does invalidate any other position based on
conscience?

Anyway, I have repeatedly offered external standards for ignoring
certain laws, e.g. laws that have fallen into disuse and the Human
Rights Acts.

> That's why an objective, value-judgement-free, method
> is needed for formulating a rule as to which laws can be broken on
> principle. And that can't be "One my party disagrees with" or "One the
> Human Rights judges wouldn't agree with" (both of which are the same thing).

Why is the decision of the courts not an objective, value-judgement-
free method?
--
Henry