Two different sets of laws--one for "ordinary people", another for the elites. What could go wrong?
One of the simplest, clearest indicators of the long-term viability of a society is, does it apply the law equally to all its citizens.
This simple criterion is absolutely critical because if "ordinary citizens" are forced to obey all laws, while another class of citizens--let's call them "elites"--are allowed to violate laws without penalty, eventually those who are punished for violating the law begin to notice.
When that happens, two things follow: First, those who are forced to obey laws conclude--correctly--that the System is rigged against them. They become cynical, then resentful, then stop supporting the system that treats them as second-class citizens. They begin to stop supporting the elites.
The second adverse result takes longer to begin, but eventually the penalized class decides they've had enough of that double-standard bullshit, and start settling accounts with the elites in a more obvious, kinetic fashion.
For the last decade or so, citizens of the United States have watched as the highest officers of the FBI and Department of "Justice" have violated the law to attack and punish their political rivals. Yet no one is ever prosecuted, let alone jailed. They violate the law with total, utter impunty and insolence.
And increasingly, "ordinary people"--the people who are fined or imprisoned if they break any of the 30,000-plus laws--are starting to notice.
But with this as background, rarely does a government explicitly codify the "two sets of laws" double-standard--because that makes it far more obvious than just not prosecuting "elites" who break the law. Example: So-called liberal politicians routinely decide what's good for you, and pass laws forcing you to do or not do whatever they've decided. In Australia, the federal government recognized that people who rode bicycles sometimes fell off and suffered brain damage, so true to liberal dogma, they passed a LAW that imposed a fine of $344 for anyone caught riding a bike without a helmet.
Well...Muzlims and Sikhs didn't like that, so they pressured the government to exempt them from the law, on the grounds that their customary head-gear wasn't compatible with a helmet. And as you already guessed, the government backed down.
It didn't repeal the law forcing ordinary citizens to wear helmets, mind you. Instead it re-wrote the law to specifically exempt Muslims and Sikhs.
Now: either helmet wearing should be mandatory for everyone, or it shouldn't be forced on anyone. But Australia has decided to make "two different sets of laws" its official policy.
Of course this is a matter of little import. What's important is the principle. And if you think this isn't coming to the U.S. at high speed, you haven't been paying attention.
Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7914629/New-helmet-laws-Australias-Sikhs-Muslims.html
This simple criterion is absolutely critical because if "ordinary citizens" are forced to obey all laws, while another class of citizens--let's call them "elites"--are allowed to violate laws without penalty, eventually those who are punished for violating the law begin to notice.
When that happens, two things follow: First, those who are forced to obey laws conclude--correctly--that the System is rigged against them. They become cynical, then resentful, then stop supporting the system that treats them as second-class citizens. They begin to stop supporting the elites.
The second adverse result takes longer to begin, but eventually the penalized class decides they've had enough of that double-standard bullshit, and start settling accounts with the elites in a more obvious, kinetic fashion.
For the last decade or so, citizens of the United States have watched as the highest officers of the FBI and Department of "Justice" have violated the law to attack and punish their political rivals. Yet no one is ever prosecuted, let alone jailed. They violate the law with total, utter impunty and insolence.
And increasingly, "ordinary people"--the people who are fined or imprisoned if they break any of the 30,000-plus laws--are starting to notice.
But with this as background, rarely does a government explicitly codify the "two sets of laws" double-standard--because that makes it far more obvious than just not prosecuting "elites" who break the law. Example: So-called liberal politicians routinely decide what's good for you, and pass laws forcing you to do or not do whatever they've decided. In Australia, the federal government recognized that people who rode bicycles sometimes fell off and suffered brain damage, so true to liberal dogma, they passed a LAW that imposed a fine of $344 for anyone caught riding a bike without a helmet.
Well...Muzlims and Sikhs didn't like that, so they pressured the government to exempt them from the law, on the grounds that their customary head-gear wasn't compatible with a helmet. And as you already guessed, the government backed down.
It didn't repeal the law forcing ordinary citizens to wear helmets, mind you. Instead it re-wrote the law to specifically exempt Muslims and Sikhs.
Now: either helmet wearing should be mandatory for everyone, or it shouldn't be forced on anyone. But Australia has decided to make "two different sets of laws" its official policy.
Of course this is a matter of little import. What's important is the principle. And if you think this isn't coming to the U.S. at high speed, you haven't been paying attention.
Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7914629/New-helmet-laws-Australias-Sikhs-Muslims.html
posted by SF at
1:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home