Doing What Is Right Versus What Is Legal, Is There A Dfference?


I have been mulling it over in my head for some time now trying to figure out what has happened to the people of the world and why it is that we are all doing the things that we know are wrong to do and I think that I have figured out one of the problems. Of course like everything I write about in this blog it is only my  opinion and  although others may agree with it, or disagree with it, I reserve the right to have it.  I keep hearing the phrase from our leaders that what they do is,”Legal”, not right, or just, but,”Legal” and there in lies the problem for me and I will attempt to tell you why.

The law can be changed and influenced by  those who influence, or  that hold the  power of the day, but doing right can never be wrong and doing wrong can never be made right.  What America did  by creating Guantanamo Bay for example and everything that happened over there and as a result of it, no matter what the argument, or whatever explanation is given for why it needed to be, can never make it a right thing. By the constant twisting and manipulating of the law by the people in power of the USA at the time, Bush, Chaney and a people bent on revenge, it was made legal where it was illegal the day before.

Barack Obama never says that the hunting of Osama Bun Laden, the putting an open contract for the murder of this man, his subsequent  killing and the tossing of his body into the sea is, was right, or just, he simply says that it was all legal.  The problem with that of course is that every one knows that it was not the right thing to do then and it is not the right thing to do now. It has changed how the world sees things and does things and has tipped the scales in favor of legal versus right and wrong. The wars and never-ending suffering is the price the world is paying for doing the wrong thing, because it is legal and as long as we continue down this course doing the wrong things because they have been made legal, the wrong will always come back to bite us in the butt.

Tony Blair is having the problem now because he was only concerned with the legalities of his actions.  I listened and watched as he went before the tribunal that was trying to ascertain why he did the things he did to back up President Bush and it was after listening to him and the exchange that it dawned on me that he had lost his sense of right and wrong. Tony Blair had convinced himself that making something legal to do, actually made it the right thing to do as well and finally he was being asked to say if he thought he did the right thing and he was momentarily stunned.  There was no real threat of attack and he had lied to get a legal remedy to a wrong decision and now he was realizing that sooner or later the truth will surface and the legalities will not matter if the premises and the basis of the law was founded on a lie.

Mr. Blair was constantly stating that he wanted to work within the United Nations rules and get a legal basis to go to war, something on paper, but when Bush  and him could not get the United Nation‘s approval and the United States  was going to go it alone, that he felt compelled enter into the war against terrorism and so for better or worse he dragged his country screaming and kicking into the war against terrorism.  He altered the laws of his country twisting them calling it a matter of national security and took extra measures that were not his to take, but granted to him under time of great threat, to his country‘s safety under the threat of imminent danger and this as we are finding out was not true.

 What he was stating to his country was a lie to get him a legal leg to stand on as Bush had done in America. The law in both countries was clear and so was international law and just about everyone in the world told them both it was wrong and although they managed to twist the laws and words to make it seem right, when put to the test by Tony Blairs peers he is shown to have done wrong, because there can be no other finding.  Doing the right thing does not have to be explained in law to be right, but doing the legal thing does not have to be doing the right thing at all.

Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, groups like the KKK and any other group that promotes fear and hatred and kills indiscriminately to accomplish a goal can create laws and they do to suit their agenda. They all have rules and laws that they live by, hell Hitler was the leader of his country and he made the laws, but it did not make him right, because doing wrong can never be made right by changing the law and making it legal.  America had laws that made it legal to have slaves, to make Blacks eat in different sections of restaurants, sleep in different hotels and ride at the back of the bus and it was all legal, but it was not right. The forced relocation of our native people in both Canada and the United States and their almost total annihilation was not right, but it was certainly made legal by the governments of the day. What Canada did to the Black citizens of Africville a small Black independent community in Nova Scotia when they plowed down their homes and community, was not right, but the government made it legal. Most of the bad things in the world both in the past and the present have been done and are being justified by making them legal, because they can never pass the test of being right, because doing wrong can never be made into doing right, by simply changing the law.

Canada for a long time would only get involved in the Middle East issue if the intervention was diplomatic. It realized the unwillingness of both sides to come to a peaceful fair negotiated settlement and therefore refused to take one side over the other.

Pushed to the Left and Loving It: Revisiting Harper’s Bid For the

When Jean Chretien visited Israel and said that the land and the water that was taken by Israel must be given back no matter how much Israel thought they had the legal right to hold onto it, he was not liked, what he said was not popular, but it was right then and it is right now and I respected his understanding of right and wrong.   When he refused the call to war after 9/11 unless the United Nations sanctioned the mission, he was again making a right and wrong choice and did not waver when Bush made his,”If you’re not with us then you are against us speech” and I thought he made the right decision. He in my opinion was one of the last world leaders that cared about doing what is right in the world. This was not the right that people think comes by making something legal, but by the right that lets you sleep at night knowing that you have been fair, open and honest. The right that makes others praise your courage and your willingness to do the right thing and stand up to the bully in the play ground and say no it is wrong and I will not participate in hurting some one else wrongfully no matter how legal you make it.

Now the State of Israel has become an apartheid state and everyone goes crazy when this statement is made, but I say if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, then it has to be a duck. I mean is that a wall, or is that my lying eyes?  Saying it ain’t so when it is will not make change a thing. The government saying it is not a right thing to say, will not make it so and for all of you who would say differently, tell me what the difference is between the actions of South Africa back then and the State of Israel right now.  Then tell me with a straight face that Israel does not fit into the definition of an apartheid State.  Do not give me reasons why it is okay for them to do it, just tell me honestly that the dictionary definition of apartheid, does not describe their actions. To me the denial is just another example of trying to make a wrong a right by rewriting the rules and in this case the dictionary.

The province of Quebec in Canada if not very careful could find itself falling under this definition for its treatment of its english speaking minority and of its non francophone immigrants. Quebec sees nothing wrong in its actions and does not bother to deny it. In fact they go on record as saying that they want to wipe the English language and anything other than the French culture out of Quebec forever. They too  have rewritten history and the law to accomplish their goals of separation and isolation of the English. Changing the law will not make what they are doing right though it will only make it legal, like when they forcefully relocated the First Nation Peoples of this province.

Definition of Apartheid:

1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.

2.A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

The world will to fight wars and know no peace as long as this debate goes on. Greed,  lust for power  is not only affecting the west it is in all of the world leaders.  Sticking it to the west in high oil prices, may make rich Sheiks, but it does little in the long run to enrich the people of those oil rich nations lives, or encourage world sympathy to helping you in the things that you do need, but it is your legal right to ask whatever price you wish for your oil. Can you eat it, can you drink it, can you cure your peoples diseases with it, can you get the technology you need to improve yourselves with it and the answer is of course not, because no one that you are gouging will sell it to you.   So yes you are within your legal rights, but your people are dying and suffering, because what you do is wrong.

Greedy leaders will always seek a way around what is right by the creation of new laws that allow them to bypass laws already in place that stop it from doing what they know to be wrong. If man followed the basic rules of right and wrong that are universally accepted all other law would be not necessary.  I would like to believe that out of all of this turmoil and unrest that a great leader will emerge that will have the courage to stand up for what is right for all people and eliminate the need to make laws that are supposed to make the action right.  If this does not happen the world as we know it will be no more and we could conceivably wipe ourselves off the face of it. Then all the laws and all the rights and wrongs will no longer matter, because we will be gone and in our absence a new species of life might be given the chance to do the right thing as the dominant creature on the planet Earth.

The federal government of Canada has been telling Tamil refugee claimants to pay tens of thousands of dollars to the smugglers who brought them here — or Canada won’t let them out of jail.

Government lawyers argue that it’s a way to ensure the migrants won’t be influenced by smugglers when they’re let go. But critics say the tactic funnels money to smugglers the government is trying to hurt.

I say this is just another example of the powers that be, changing the laws to make what is wrong into right and failing badly.

Program Information – Stark Raven: Sri Lankan Refugees Detained in

My mother told me once a little saying and if I remember it correctly it went something like this, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”.

Advertisements

About archemdis

I try to say what is on my mind and not hurt others, but some things need to be said whether they hurt or not and I do just that. I try to listen as well as talk, but my opinion is just that mine. You need not take it as your own, just respect the fact that I am entitled to it, as you are yours. I do read all comments, but will only answer, or allow to be displayed those which adress me by name, refer to the post by name in the comment, or that have been sent through the proper channels. In this manner I can tell whether the comment was meant for me and that it is not just spam.
This entry was posted in abuse, abuse of power, Banking, Canada, Child torture and child soldiers, Crime On The Rise, feeling rejected, feelings of hurt and hatred, genocide, Government, Israel, Palestinian Threats, Prejudice, Schools and Learning Places, stereotyping, Terrorism, The Church, The work force, Uncategorized, United States of America, Water Wars and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Doing What Is Right Versus What Is Legal, Is There A Dfference?

  1. Great review! You actually covered some nice things in this post. I came across it by using Google and I’ve got to admit that I already subscribed to the site, it’s very great 🙂

    • archemdis says:

      Thank you for your comment and I hope that you will join in the fight that we all must share to do what is right not just what is made legal!

  2. Titfortat says:

    Speaking of right and wrong. It is Jean Chretien not John Chretien. 😉

    • archemdis says:

      Thanks, you are so right, thanks for showing me the error of my ways. I will change that imediately. Have a great day!

  3. pino says:

    Greedy leaders will always seek a way around what is right by the creation of new laws that allow them to bypass laws already in place that stop it from doing what they know to be wrong. If man followed the basic rules of right and wrong that are universally accepted all other law would be not necessary.

    I agree that laws do not necessarily reflect right and wrong. In fact, in many cases, laws are, as you pointed out, are written to “justify” an ugly action.

    I’m still mulling over whether or not I feel the whole Bin Laden thing falls into that category. However, while I do, will you take a second to consider this:

    I have a sick aunt. She doesn’t make a lot of money and requires significant medical care to see her through this. I’m unable to pay for those bills completely, she’ll need more money than I have to pay.

    I know it’s against the law to walk to my neighbor’s house, knock on his door and then rob him of his money in order that she receives proper medical care. But should that be illegal?

    I’m sure it won’t be difficult to see where I’m going with this. If it’s neither legal nor moral for me to rob my neighbor in order that my aunt may live, how is it legal and moral that my government can do the same?

    • archemdis says:

      All I can say is that maybe 2 wrongs do not make a right. Have a great evening!

  4. Pingback: Doing What Is Right Versus What Is Legal, Is There A Dfference? (via Archemdis’s Blog) « Beneath the Tin Foil Hat

  5. Wonderful post. You hit the proverbial nail directly on the head. I would like to repost this too if you wouldn’t mind.

  6. Pingback: What is Legal Versus What is Right (By Archemdis) « The D.I.D Zone

  7. D.I.D. says:

    This is a great article!

    In fact, I like it so much I hope that you do not mind if I leave a track-back on my blog to it. (I won’t do it until and unless you give the OK)

    Laws are supposed to be based on what is right, but what is right is often a source of debate and is often based largely on the abstract human concept of “morality”, which varries from nation to nation and even from person to person. But when laws are used to ‘justify’ evil, morality begins to fall apart.

Comments are closed.