THE following is from a UK news report 2 days ago...... An Extinction Rebellion protester has been cleared of criminal damage for spray-painting a council building after successfully arguing she was acting to defend her property. Angela Ditchfield was arrested after defacing the headquarters of Cambridgeshire County Council during a protest last December painting two XR symbols onto the building. However, Friday the 41-year-old was found not guilty at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court as the bench said she was acting "on the spur of moment to protect land and homes". Ms Ditchfield, from King's Hedges Cambridge, argued she had a legal excuse to commit the vandalism as she believed there was an immediate threat to her property from climate disaster, a defence that can be used in minor cases of criminal damage. The defence is usually envisaged for scenarios where someone breaks a window or door to get into a burning building. Did the court make the right decision?
Just an example of the way courts can interpret the words in laws to justify whatever they want to do. While a very literal reading of that law could viably be interpreted that way, that was obviously not what the law was intended to mean. As I was reading this, I thought she might have been protesting about the local government going to imminently destroy her property, but even that was not the case. This "climate change threatens my property" is just ridiculous.
In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, the court made the wrong decision on this particular matter. The weather does not pose such an immediate risk to the private property of one individual, that it justifies vandalizing the property of another individual. What next? Can one neighbor legally murder another neighbor for barbecuing with charcoal, arguing that their act of barbecuing was furthering the hypothetical damage caused by climate change?
