The New “Conservative” Contempt for Law
Am I a victim of False Memory Syndrome here, or was there actually a time when the adjective “conservative” implied “respect for the law”? By that I mean more than simply refraining from killing people and robbing and stuff – I mean a respect for the idea of “the law” and its institutions.
This seems to have been replaced by a kind of knee-jerk, hair-trigger tantrum that erupts when a court decision – whether from a judge or a jury – happens to disagree with what our conservative friends think SHOULD happen.
Conrad Black is acquitted of some charges and convicted of others by a jury: and somehow this is turned into a monstrous act of personal vengeance by the covetous, jealous masses against the innocent, suffering Lord Black. No-one seems to actually deny that Conrad did, in fact, do the stuff he’s been found guilty of doing. And the jury heard a lot more evidence than we did. But somehow this is all the jury’s fault, and the charges were blown out of proportion, and yadda yadda yadda.
Mr. Bush overturns a jury verdict to shield a friend and associate against the consequences of his criminal behaviour. No-one seems to actually deny that Libby did, in fact, do the stuff that he’s been found guilty of. And the jury heard a lot more evidence than we did. But somehow, the decision of the jurors is being portrayed as partisan attack on a heroic but embattled President, and the charges were blown out of proportion, and yadda yadda yadda.
Let my point out something obvious about the way our system works. Every criminal gets the best defense they can get – and both Black and Libby had the best defense team they could afford. The juries are meticulously screened by both sides, and are as close to unbiased as several hundred years of legal procedure can make them.
The Black and Libby verdicts mean that the best defense teams available did NOT prevail against the weight of evidence. That’s it. That’s all. Fans of Bush and Black can shriek to their heart’s content; and of course, they have to – what other options are open to an ideologue than rage and denial? But at the end of the day, high priced legal help lost to the interpretation of evidence by a group of people hand-picked and approved by BOTH sides for their objectivity.
Our legal system doesn’t always yield truth, and it doesn’t always yield justice, and no man-made system ever will. But the fact is, the system works pretty well, most of the time. And in the case of Lord Black, whining of our URQ friends notwithstanding, it seems to have worked.
Sigh Oh, well. If nothing else, it certainly underscores the great divide between true conservatism and the current cesspool of resentful, shallow, self-interested ideologues who’ve kidnapped a once-honourable word.
Well done. A hat-tip for you over at my place. I’m collecting just such egregious instances of kneepad commentary as Dr. Roy and The Politic have provided.
Thanks, Doc. By pure coincidence, as you wrote that, I was adding a comment to your excellent piece as well.
Well, now. Hey now. Given the sheer numbers of black kids in the states and aboriginal kids in Canada serving time relative to the rate of charges vs. the white population, I’d say the system is flawed and often doesn’t produce justice for significant percentages of the population. And what with SCOTUS deciding that women’s lives but not health are worthy of protection, now if you’re suffering toxemia in the States you can be allowed to suffer serious and permanent dain bramage in order to give birth to corpses.
On the other hand, non-marginalized communities that can afford fancy-pants defense teams? They are who the law is built for and on. When CEOs are convicted, they are hoisted by their own petards. (And abortion of various sorts has always been available to the rich, so I’m not terribly worried about Nicole Richie becoming victim to toxemia, nor her doctor going down for baby-murder in the case that she gets near fatally sick and he chooses to save her brain.)
I haven’t seen twenty-five years of systematic analysis that might suggest that rich white CEOs are suffering overmuch legal discrimination.
However, I defend the right to have knee-jerk suspicions of the system. They’re just going to have to back it up with some aim to universal principles of justice as opposed to individual cases where someone feels hard done by. That’s not happening. Because the right IS all about the individual.
Black is a convicted felon who showed contempt for Canada and contempt for the law. He deserves absolutely no support from Canadians. Canadians are among the stockholders who were ripped off by Black.
I cannot understand why any Canadian would support this criminal.
Monarchy lovers should be aghast at the shame his Lordship has brought to the peerage.
Big business lovers should be aghast at the disrepute and suspicion Black has brought to top level CEO’s everywhere.
Canadian patriots should be aghast at the way Black denounced his Canadian citizenship when it suited his personal ambitions.
How can patriotic Canadian conservative monarchists have any respect for a man who has done so much to discredit their cause?
The Cons are always sayin’ they ain’t afraid to call a spade a spade. Howcum they’re afraid to call a crook a crook?
JB
A criminal? My goodness no, if you read the National Post you’ll find he’s just a hurt and bewildered soul who outgrew his country
Aww, poor Conrad. He was angry and it was OUR fault, it makes so much sense now!
Whoever said he outgrew his country hasn’t been keeping track of Canadian statistics on obesity, obviously.
Sorry, Conrad, but I work for a public company and have ridiculous amounts of papertrails/makework to do thanks to the Enrons of the world, so have no sympathy.
Sauce for the goose, buckaroo.
I haven’t paid much attention to the trial and am frankly glad it’s over as the topic was getting mindnumbingly boring to me.
Oh, God, me too. The moment I posted on it I wondered why I was I was feeding the beast. Sigh. Mea Culpa, Candace, and kudos for being the one blogger in the western hemisphere for avoiding the temptation. You’re a better man than me.
(I just realized that might sound sarcastic. Believe me, C., it’s not.)
Thanks, B, but I try to post about things I either (a) care about or (b) know about. I haven’t cared enough about this whole thing to come up with anything worth writing, let alone reading. I am, however, amazed at the angst across the right side of the sphere over this.
The idiot was caught on tape removing evidence (seen by prosecutors or not). When I first saw that, it brought to mind an old Cheers scene, when Kristie Alley’s character realized she’d been duped by her fiance into revealing corporate secrets and cried out “I am too stupid to live!” (Note that this is not a remark intended to suggest, recommend or support any violent act!)
Incompetents always support/defend other incompetents – this is the Fifth Principle of Incompetence, once again verified.