And it was clear that the judge was annoyed that Parker was willing to stand up for principle and not cooperate with a plea-bargain.Article 8 is clearly clairvoyant. Apparently they have the ability to read people's minds (since they can easily read the judge's mind in this case). I guess they have totally dismissed the notion that the judge was annoyed because of the media circus that Article 8, Camenker & Parker created over this whole thing.
Parker is adamant that he has not done anything wrong and is willing to direct his attorneys to contest the charge rather than give in to pressure to plea-bargain.Yet trespassing is what he did. The Boston Herald reported:
So the police call it trespassing and he & his lawyers call it civil disobedience, I think it's up to the judge to decide. Besides, if he is such a brave soul, speaking out for the little people, why doesn't he take everything that comes with civil disobedience? He could have left the school when the police came, but he chose not to (instead he called people on his mobile phone) He could have left the police station that night but he wanted to stay in jail (why would someone WANT to stay in jail?) From the Boston Globe:Parker refused to leave the grounds and was charged with trespassing.
Trespassing, said his attorney, is a bogus charge since it was an act of civil disobedience."
He is a man of principle," attorney Jeffrey Denner said of Parker.
Parker, who refused to bail himself out of jail Wednesday night, said he spent the night in custody to prove a point.Note to Mr. Parker: Take your kid out of public school if you don't like what they teach or move to another state. I'm sure the people in the south didn't like their children next to the colored children neither. You are in good company sir!
The next session before a judge is August 2th @ 9:00 am. Try to catch it, it could be a hoot!
1 comment:
Trespassing, said his attorney, is a bogus charge since it was an act of civil disobedience.
That's unspeakably stupid. It's analogous to saying "Charging me with speeding is bogus, because I was driving way over the speed limit." Duh....
"Civil disobedience," by definition, means breaking the law. If it ain't against the law, it ain't civil disobedience.
Practitioners of civil disobedience generally argue that the law they're breaking, or at least some government policy connected to it, is unjust. But it takes real ignorance to claim that civil disobedience is a defense to a criminal charge.
People engaging in real, honest civil disobedience don't deny that what they're doing is against the law.
Post a Comment