Privacy violated, should there be charges laid?

Ah, delusion. It's such a soothing substitute for reality.

Thing is, I don't actually dissagree with Chester in principle.   If that's what happened, then those who leaked that information should face prosecution and penalties.

I'm very much law and order.  In those terms, I'm more Edmund Burke than Tommy Paine, I suppose.   People that rob others or break into houses aren't Robin Hoods, you know.  They are stealing much more often than not, from people who face the same dissadvantages as they do but abide by the rules and work hard against long odds.    These kinds of criminals are class traitors, and if they run afoul of Harper's get tough on crime crusade, don't expect me to cry a river over their lazy asses.  Looks good on you, asshole.

Where I imagine the Chesters of the world and I part company is that I think the law should be applied equally, that no one is above the law.  That in terms of the law, no one is better than me, and I'm no better than anyone else.

The Chesters, if I guess right, have a deep down inferiority complex, where they believe their upper class betters should have free reign to invade the privacy of, say, prospective jurors, or steal from the E.I. fund, or drive drunk and posses cocaine, or have an illegal hand gun.

They are a flavour of class traitor too.   

j.m. wrote:

[edit] I shouldn't just bait, but this is annoying considering what just happened on the ottawa bank firebombing thread. I don't like the double standards and that is probably because I find the moralizing to be thick these days.

Can we reflect on the tactics of the union?

Sure. If the union burns down the workers' homes while they're away, I will condemn them just as I condemned the assholes who torched the bank and escaped in their luxurymobile.

See? Single standard.

Until then, this thread is anti-union baiting and unworthy of a serious response.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Thing is, I don't actually dissagree with Chester in principle.   If that's what happened, then those who leaked that information should face prosecution and penalties.

 

.....

Where I imagine the Chesters of the world and I part company is that I think the law should be applied equally, that no one is above the law.  That in terms of the law, no one is better than me, and I'm no better than anyone else.

 

The Chesters, if I guess right, have a deep down inferiority complex, where they believe their upper class betters should have free reign to invade the privacy of, say, prospective jurors, or steal from the E.I. fund, or drive drunk and posses cocaine, or have an illegal hand gun.

They are a flavour of class traitor too.   

 

I think there is an interesting critique circulating about the (un)lawfulness of tactics in these forums. I particularly agree with the latter sentiments, that critiques of the unlawfulness of the actors challenging injustices often fail to acknowledge the atrocities committed by more powerful groups/the upper class/the political class.

I am becoming increasingly sensitive to how the actions of progressive actors are perceived within and outside progressive movements. Afterall, we do share a world and co-produce it day in and day out with other people, and they are indirectly actors shaping our causes, and moreover, potential allies.

Unionist wrote:

j.m. wrote:

[edit] I shouldn't just bait, but this is annoying considering what just happened on the ottawa bank firebombing thread. I don't like the double standards and that is probably because I find the moralizing to be thick these days.

Can we reflect on the tactics of the union?

Sure. If the union burns down the workers' homes while they're away, I will condemn them just as I condemned the assholes who torched the bank and escaped in their luxurymobile.

See? Single standard.

Until then, this thread is anti-union baiting and unworthy of a serious response.

This is becoming dogmatic. I understand the context in which unions must operate: it is limiting, hostile and punitive. But you justify breaking the law in one case and condemn it in the other. So, if you use the law as the yard stick, you are creating a double standard.

j.m. wrote:

 

This is becoming dogmatic. I understand the context in which unions must operate: it is limiting, hostile and punitive. But you justify breaking the law in one case and condemn it in the other. So, if you use the law as the yard stick, you are creating a double standard.

Your capacity to read is obviously in need of remedial work.

You think I attacked the arsonist assholes because they broke a "law"!!??

You don't think we break unjust laws every day when fighting in the cause of justice and peace and equality!?

You missed my statement that we would do "far worse" when the time came?

Let me say this clearly:

I believe in civil disobedience.

I break laws.

I have organized illegal strikes.

I have violated picket line injunctions duly imposed by courts of law.

I have done things in confrontations with police which are borderline. I have in fact been charged for some of them.

If the union had stolen a list of addresses and used them to further their campaign, I'd say: [b][i]BRAVO, well done!![/i][/b] - because this society and its laws does everything to inhibit workers from being unionized.

But your assholes - the SUV party crowd - they broke the law of the people. For that, they stand condemned.

What happened to our bylaw that banned humourless types from posting here?

Okay, j.m., let me tell you something:

I think you are a progressive person, and part of the progressive movement.

Happy?

Let me tell you something else:

When you accuse those who condemn asshole arsonists of splitting the "left", expect an argument.

And come well-armed to these debates. With wit and wisdom.