Lovely Wuverly Fluffy Compassionate Conservatism

David Cameron is walking a tight rope between shedding the “nasty party” image while still holding on to the nasty bastards who only vote Tory for that reason.

So it shouldn’t be too surprising that lovely wuverly fluffy compassionate Conservative David Cameron said something so boneheaded on burglary in the wake of the jailing and subsequent release of Munir Hussein.

The moment a burglar steps over your threshold, and invades your property, with all the threat that gives to you, your family and your livelihood, I think they leave their human rights outside

At the time Sunny Hundal argued that he thought the law stood fine as it was but sympathised with Conservative attempts to strengthen it in favour of householders who have their house broken into. Ultimately he supported his friend’s mantra ‘If you don’t want your ass kicked then don’t break into my house.’

Luckily for Mr Hundal, his friend and all of us there is no human right which prevents your arse getting kicked if you break into someone’s house.

Now whether or not there is a human right to not be tortured is a not matter for debate. The idea that you can forsake this right for entering someone’s house is not on the table either. We would in theory give legal privilege to the sort of vile crimes Claude described last week, and no civilised society should do that.

Human rights are not conditional and this is why your arse is not sacred and it is why talk of having them “left outside” is so ridiculous. But bless those devoted Tweeters that try to stay on message – they only end up slipping to Reductio ad absurdum.

Perhaps it is cruel to focus on Nadine Dorries – perhaps she is a fish and the barrel is rational debate – but she is a well supported and popular MP and this is the shallow level on which she wants to discuss law and order.

How the Tories maintain their grip on that issue is beyond me.


6 thoughts on “Lovely Wuverly Fluffy Compassionate Conservatism

  1. Seems relatively simple, no? If a burglar enters your house, you can kick his ass and/or subdue him – but once he is subdued, and is no longer capable of leaving under his own steam, the householder may not carry on beating his ass.

    In other words, once the householder has the upper hand and, by coercion, is preventing the burglar from leaving until the authorities arrive, he must cease to violate further the burglar’s rights.

    Why this obvious solution continues to elude politicians, I’m not sure. After all, kicking the burglar’s ass is not meant to be retributive – it is meant to prevent him causing harm or stealing stuff. As soon as the burglar is incapable of causing harm or stealing stuff, the householder’s work is done. Further action is the responsibility of the police and courts.

    1. Absolutely agree. Its more or less already in the law. You can take proportionate action (i.e kick the burglars arse), but if you do act disproportionately (really kick his arse) because of the fog of fury you might be in, you’re given a little leeway.

      Do what Munir Hussein did and it becomes difficult to describe his actions as proportionate, and difficult to write them off as anything other than calculated. Understandable, but still a matter for the courts.

      The law seems to stand reasonably well as it is. Not perfect, but I don’t think any of the main parties are in a position to change it for the better at the moment.

  2. “David Cameron is walking a tight rope between shedding the “nasty party” image while still holding on to the nasty bastards who only vote Tory for that reason.”

    Best opening paragraph on a blog of 2010 so far.

Comments are closed.