"First, let's kill all the lawyers!"

The following is, I admit, a rather bad-tempered rant against some-one who stands for everything I loathe in the British establishment.  Superficially clever with a pretence of high-minded dis-interest from a man who having enjoyed all the privileges of a top education can only, in the words of my old mother, "Open his mouth and let his belly rumble!"  You had better read it first, here, and discover the wit and wisdom of John Gardener who is, believe it or not, the Oxford Professor of Jurisprudence, no less.  What is printed below is a comment, blasted off in rage by me, in the comments section of John B's 'Shot by both sides':

John Gardener, Oxford Professor of Jurisprudence, would have done well in my old game - the second-hand car trade - because he certainly knows how to tell 'em! However, as a professor of Jurisprudence, he's crap! I can't be bothered to go through all of his egregious exaggerations and sly innuendos, but here are a few.

He refers to the mistaken killing of the Brazilian as a "Mossad-style execution". My understanding is that Mossad would target *known* terrorists and deliberately kill them irrespective of whether or not they constituted a danger to those in the immediate vicinity. (In th eone case where they made a mistake the Mossad operatives did time in a Norwegian jail.) By inserting that piece of deliberate agit-prop, he casts a completely mis-leading colour over the whole preceedings that occurred in the shooting of the Brazilian - *before* any enquiry has reported on the facts.

Then he comes up with this piece of specious nonsense, and nonsense in the subject upon which he is supposed to be an expert: "Everyone is responsible for their own faulty actions, never mind the contribution of others". So there go 'mitigating circumstances', which almost every high profile miscreant pleads, according to virtually every case I read of in the prints - including, and especially, women who murder their husbands and then claim he was brutal to them. And the judges go for it!

As for the two books he refers to, if they do, indeed, plead the case for political violence *in a democracy*, then they should be banned and the writers jailed. Why should there be one law for, dare one say, Oxford Professors of Jurisprudence, and another for the dimwits of the BNP or the SWP or the Muslim Alliance or whatever?

God almighty, if that is an example of intellectual rigour from the legal profession it is no wonder our judges are such un-utterable rubbish. I certainly wouldn't buy a used 'Roller' from Professor Gardener.

Comments

[Jayanne]

Democracy and Disobedience has to be about non-violent civil disobedience. I find Honderich unreadable but would defend his right to say what he (apparently) did.

"Why should there be one law for, dare one say, Oxford Professors of Jurisprudence, and another for the dimwits of the BNP or the SWP or the Muslim Alliance or whatever?"

Good question. My provisional answer is that the incitement laws should apply equally to both.

[David Duff]

Thanks, 'Jayanne', both for your support, and for your warning concerning Honderich's writing style, although I must confess that he is fairly low-down on my reading list!

Also, responding to your comment allows me the opportunity to apologise for mis-spelling 'Prof.' Gardner's name throughout my post.