On Nov 16, 5:10 pm, JNugent 
wrote:
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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. 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).

For some further examples to those given already, may I refer you to
Martin Luther King's 1963 "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", in which
King in turn refers back to St Augustine?
--
Henry