first “extraordinary emergency” defence in the magistrates’
got magistrates’ court tomorrow morn, friday 6 february 2015, and as the title of this post suggests, i’m running a new line of defence.
i have to run a new argument now the human rights argument has been thoroughly quashed and “the lawyers” won’t help me take it any further (expect a post about that very soon — which will probably include a “detailed analysis” of my general feelings of intense love and hate for the educated small-l liberal professionals)
so the new “common law” defense (which basically just gives me a pretext to bang on about what i want to bang on about without the magistrate being able to tell me to shut up immediately) is “sudden and extraordinary emergency”, meaning: “a person is not guilty of an offence in respect of conduct that is carried out in circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency.”
the extraordinary emergency i am running with is climate change — because as hunger, disease, war, and all kinds of human rights abuses are undoubtedly an emergency, they can hardly be said to be extraordinary — and none of the other problems i’m concerned with have the same tendency to threaten the entire existence of humanity like climate change does (except maybe nuclear war, but that is such a daggy 70’s concern anyway, i mean who cares that we’ve got enough nukes to blow the entire world up 10 times over in this day and age?).
a friend read my submissions this afternoon and told me they were “condescending”, so rather than check my tone, which is nothing if not understated and polite in it’s restrained condescension, i decided to post my submissions tonight in case i’m in the cells tomorrow — and here they are: micallef v magee
i mean is it really right to pretend our “wise elders” that have destroyed our future for a big t.v. and a beer fridge (and who continue to stand in the way of progress) are somehow worthy of the utmost respect and ritualistic kowtowing? they are behaving like a bunch of dumb-shit drongos, all because they want to be ideologically comfortable until they expire from some sedentary-indulgence disease, which conveniently for them, will be just around the time the shit really hits the fan — should we not be pissed at them? should we not question their intelligence and integrity?
i’m not after any kind of “success” except of that of standing my ground and making my point — my whole legal strategy from here on in could probably be summarised as losing with style, maybe a little humour.