View Single Post
Old 26-12-2008, 10:02 AM   #7
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boots View Post
Mmmm OK Would it not also putting the judge on the spot by questioning his Honour? ie Your honour.

How would it be construed as a third party reference?

.
Whose honour is being questioned?
Certainly not the judges!
He isn't the one who has been invited to answer an accusation!
So it is 100% about YOUR honour; which when you speak of it, is "my honour".

When you utter the words "your honour", you are externalising it ... you are disassociating from it. Given that a corporate body cannot speak - only a man can - is the man referencing "your honour" on behalf of the dead entity? By acknowledging "your honour", is the man further adjoining to the person by speaking for him?

You speak of respect for the Magistrate; on what basis has this respect been given?
The judge is a man; an equal.
In all that he has shown you, he has no respect for you.
He refers to you by "Mr" or other corporate labels.
He does not see a man standing before him; he sees a fictitious, non-sentient, profit centre for the sham.
Respect is earnt and should be mutual.
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman

Last edited by yozhik; 26-12-2008 at 10:07 AM.
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote