Law as a political weapon
Courts destroying democracy.
The law has always been used by governing authorities, as a means of exerting their right to govern and enforcing their laws on opponents, but in the 21st Century this is being turned on its head and being taken to absolutely absurd levels, as a means of destroying democratic rule.
The advent of lawyers prepared to make claims for emotional damage, mental hurt and other non physical and unprovable injuries, has reached levels that threaten democracy itself. A situation where the police and civil authorities can be taken to court and the law used against them, because someone felt threatened; is lunacy, yet it is happening.
A government elected by the majority in free and fair secret ballots, has a right to govern, yet their ability to do so is being destroyed by the law courts who uphold claims by opponents who feel threatened by that governance.
It is noticeable that no mention is made of the majority feeling threatened, by the courts refusal to allow the majority to be governed as they chose. The courts are selecting which group of claimants to support and which to deny. This is the job of the ballot box, not unelected professional lawyers.
It must be almost impossible to actually prove, with 100% accuracy, that some one has hurt feelings or genuinely damaging fear, due to another persons actions or especially words. It is even more ridiculous to use the law to say one person, (A) is to be punished because they caused fear to another, (B) while the counter claim that (B) was a threat to (A) is rejected. Everything relies on a persons claim of their own thoughts and feelings. There can not be any evidential proof. Even the subsequent actions of either party, are not evidence of actual damage to that person, the actions can be deliberately contrived or they could be based on a false understanding of the situation and event. Why is the claim that an individual who is part of a large group, that they felt threatened by a law enforcement agent, upheld, while that agent's claim to be threatened by the group, is denied? In any case why is the feeling of being threatened, a matter for the law courts? People pay to go on “roller coaster” rides, the more they are scared the better they like it. Are they to later sue the owner of the ride because they were threatened? People pay to watch horror movies, the more realistic, the more scares, the better they like it; are the law courts to impose penalties on the makers of the films? because those who chose to watch, are scared? If anyone does not like feeling threatened, they have the option of not getting involved in the situation. Going on a protest march is a choice, knowing that protest can result in argument and confrontation, does not take much effort to understand.
Modern visual media records are not reliable evidence, they can be manipulated, they can be distorted by accident, deliberation or unconscious selectivity. They can be edited, before being offered as evidence.
People can convince themselves, or be convinced by others, that what was said and done is as they describe; even when this not the real truth. People tell lies, people can be guided by lawyers to make their case and win the court battle. People can become convinced, a long time after an event, that they have suffered so many problems since then, because of that event. There is no evidence that they would have avoided these problems if the event had not happened. It is so easy to get a psychiatrist to support the opinion of their client, especially when payments of damages possible. The psychiatrist is offering their opinion as evidence. Opinion is not evidence of truth.
This trend in using the law to prevent a governing body from exercising their right to govern, is going to destroy democracy. If it is not curbed, no accountable political body will be allowed to make and enforce the laws they are elected to make and enforce. What then? Unaccountable forces will take control. Democracy will end. Governance that is above the law, not accountable in any way to the law, will rule. Simply because this is the only system where control will be possible.
This should not happen but it will, unless the law courts come to understand that they have a duty to the majority and to elected governance by the majority. This duty overrides the adherence to the letter of a the law, the judges have responsibility to the majority of the population, not to their legal friends.
The enforcement of the law by courts, must return to being based on actual evidence. Evidence that can be proven to be accurate; not just a claim by an involved party.