Proceedings of the Court of Decency
Session 2008/09 CoD 22
Reality vs. Hitchens
Virtually an open and shut case, Reality vs. Hitchens is in fact the textbook example of the Conficamus (lit. "Fuck - It") principle in Decent Law.
The case hinged upon the following statement, published by the defendant Christopher Hitchens in defence of a certain ongoing military disaster ostentatiously supported by him -
"Surely it is those who opposed every step of this emancipation, rather than those who advocated it, who should be asked to explain and justify themselves."
Justice Geras, presiding, made short work of his verdict -
"There are things (those contending the statement) could say - he must know that. I mean, honest things, reasonable things. But so many of those who opposed the Iraq war have given voice, and for so much of the time, to the denial that there could have been any good reasons on the other side that his drawing attention to good news is very much to the point."
Analysis - Justice Geras does not mince words - in his judgement that "(Hitchens) must know that (there are honest and reasonable responses)" he clearly acknowledges that the defendant Hitchens is legally Plenus Stercoris (Lit. "Full of - shit").
Justice Geras then deftly dismisses the defendant's transgression by noting that, since some nasty people have previously called him (Geras) some unpleasant names, the Conficamus principle is invoked - the defendant's contention must therefore be utterly valid. All charges are summarily dismissed with no case to answer, all costs to be paid by Reality.
Interestingly this is, by this court reporter's estimation, roughly the 14,732nd occasion on which the defendant Hitchens has been found to be legally Plenus Stercoris, and the 14,284th time that a Decent Judge has dismissed all charges with a declaration of Conficamus.
n.b. Please note that Justice Geras' reference to "Good news" should not be taken to imply the existence of any actual, meaningful "Good news". In this instance, the "news" is "good" in the same sense that stepping in a large, fresh dog egg with a penny in it is "Good news" - your shoe is still covered in dog dirt, and what precisely are you going to do with a penny?
Full text of the judgement here.
5 comments:
I believe a number of other countries in the region are also enjoying enormous budget surpluses due to the sky-high price of oil. What a bonanza for the world!
"But so many of those who opposed the Iraq war have given voice, and for so much of the time, to the denial that there could have been any good reasons on the other side"
Geras has made this point a number of times since he retreated from the position that the war was marvellous and its opponents were objective pro-fascists.
I don't think it has much basis in fact. Opponents of the war acknowledge that there could have been good reasons to support it. They just believe that those reasons were clearly outweighed by the better reasons to oppose it. This belief has been proven right by events.
What perhaps really upsets Geras is that the war's opponents were frequently as strident and partisan in their opposition as he was in his support, and they were right on the issue. It's like a sporting contest he can't bear to admit he has lost. He certainly has never paid very much attention to events on the ground in Iraq, except as a means of making political points about the domestic 'liberal-left'.
Chuckle all you want, Stoppers, but I believe Professor Norm has identified one of the most horrible aspects of the Iraq clusterfuck - the incivility, the endless, endless incivility.
Justice Geras appears to have forgotten Freud's maxim of Catillus Ruptus: once you've given a certain number of fallacious or contradictory justifications for something you're obviously making it up, so you cannot complain if people ignore you if you eventually say something that makes more sense.
Yes, but that ignores a far more important principle that this is the internet and nobody gives a fuck what makes sense and what does not.
Post a Comment