Featured Discussions - Architects of a New Dawn2024-03-29T05:35:12Zhttp://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/forum/topic/list?feed=yes&xn_auth=no&featured=1Impeccable Activismtag:architectsofanewdawn.ning.com,2011-07-23:2227378:Topic:2816612011-07-23T00:03:03.230ZRon Tocknellhttp://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/profile/RonTocknell
<p>It is not enough to protest about what is <em>wrong</em>. We must also begin to build what is <em>right</em>. This is the objective of Impeccable Activism. it fulfills two vital functions: The 'Impeccable' part is in the action it takes and that is to provide a service or to create something that enhances life in some way. The action must be impeccable in that nothing in the action can cause loss or harm to anyone and that it must be wholly beneficial so that everyone who is impacted by the…</p>
<p>It is not enough to protest about what is <em>wrong</em>. We must also begin to build what is <em>right</em>. This is the objective of Impeccable Activism. it fulfills two vital functions: The 'Impeccable' part is in the action it takes and that is to provide a service or to create something that enhances life in some way. The action must be impeccable in that nothing in the action can cause loss or harm to anyone and that it must be wholly beneficial so that everyone who is impacted by the action benefits. The 'Activist' part is that it must breach some law or statute. This is important because, in addition to providing an undeniable benefit, it must highlight the areas in which <em>Law</em> conflicts with <em>Right</em>.</p>
<p>An example of perfect Impeccable Activism took place in Orlando, Florida in June, when a number of the group <em>Food Not Bombs</em> were arrested for feeding the poor in a park <em>without a permit</em>. Orlando has a statute forbidding anyone to feed groups of more than 25 without a permit, which can only be issued twice a year.</p>
<p>No one can deny that feeding the poor is good and is the right thing to do. No one was negatively impacted by this action. The only argument against it is that it was against the law. This is the perfect platform to bring a proposal to the table: the introduction of a clause that would permeate the whole legal system without having to change a single law. I am calling it the <em>Rule of Impeccability</em> (but a less clumsy title would be welcome) and it works like this: when the law conflicts with what is clearly and unambiguously <em>Right</em>, the law must give way.</p>
<p>The objective of law is to uphold what is right. Law, by its very nature, is complex because it has to try to accommodate every conceivable scenario. But this is an impossible aspiration and there are numerous occasions in which laws that were designed to uphold what is right in many situations come into conflict with what is clearly and unambiguously right in others. The President of the USA must swear allegiance to God and this clause would hold that office to that allegiance. Having thus sworn such an allegiance, the president cannot deny that laws are made by man but Right and Wrong are defined by God. Personally, I think we all have an instinctive knowledge of what is right and wrong without bringing God into the equation but it will be a long time before a self-confessed atheist could ever hope to become President of the USA as an allegiance to God is written into the job description.</p>
<p>That taken into consideration, to allow man-made laws to take precedence over the values of Right and Wrong as defined by God is to betray that allegiance. Yeah yeah... I know... presidents betray their allegiance to God three times before breakfast every morning but always manage to put a spin on it. This, however, pins the State to that allegiance. How often have you heard the phrase: "It aint right and it aint fair... but it's the <em>law</em>"? I am challenging that assertion. A law that conflicts with what is clearly right is unfit for purpose. When the law is no longer based on the concept of right and wrong, we are going down a very dark path indeed.</p>
<p>The Rule of Impeccability would mean that each legal ruling in which there is ambiguity over whether the outcome of an alleged offense is positive or negative, it must be measured against a reasonable perception of what is right, regardless of the letter of the law. If it is found that the outcome of the offense is positive and that there are no victims (ie; no one is caused any loss or harm), to take punitive legal action would be clearly wrong. In such an instance, the law must give way to <em>Right</em>.</p>
<p>Law is inflexible and it must be so to prevent abuses. But it cannot be <em>infinitely</em> inflexible because the law is also prone to being wrong. The law can remain inflexible in every aspect except when it comes into conflict with what is clearly and unambiguously right. In this instance and only in this instance, the law must give way.</p>
<p>The beauty of this clause is that it is so simple. It's just plain common sense... something the law has lacked for a long time. It also has a moral logic that is impossible to dismantle. No one can justify an argument against a clause that can only serve to ensure that the right outcome is achieved because it only comes into play when the law is in conflict with the right outcome. As it stands right now, innocent people who have caused no loss or harm and have only done what is undeniably right are penalised simply because there is a law that must be brought into force. By the same token, real criminals have escaped justice on a technicality because of the letter of the law. This universal clause would address that.</p>
<p>Cases like the Orlando case need to publicly make this point and utilise the press and media interest to put the discussion on the table. I did contact the group but, obviously, it's for them to decide. In the meantime, anyone who is prepared to be arrested might like to consider some wholly beneficial acts that cause no loss or harm but just happen to come into conflict with the letter of the law and use the press to put the discussion into public awareness. I have a couple of projects which I am discussing with friends... so, if I don't immediately respond to replies to this post, you'll know where I am.</p>
<p>We need to introduce <em>reason</em> into law.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> Thank you Carlos!tag:architectsofanewdawn.ning.com,2009-01-15:2227378:Topic:79582009-01-15T00:29:54.816ZAaron McCarroll Gallegoshttp://architectsofanewdawn.ning.com/profile/AaronMcCarrollGallegos
What a beautiful expression of the spirit you've been sharing through your music all of these years. Paz.
What a beautiful expression of the spirit you've been sharing through your music all of these years. Paz.