Mirkheim is not just a van Rijn novel or even just a van Rijn and trader team novel. Look at what happens.
In Chapter XIII, Grand Duchess Sandra Tamarin:
converses by phone with Irwin Milner, occupation commander;
remembers a public confrontation between Christa Broderick, leader of the Hermetian Liberation Front, and Peter Asmundsen, Follower of the Runeberg domain;
converses in person with Benoni Strang, the new High Commissioner for Hermes.
In Chapter XIV, Eric Tamarin:
converses by phone with Hanny Lennart, Commonwealth Special Assistant Minister of Extrasolar Relations;
converses in person with Nicholas van Rijn who has been listening to Lennart and must now listen again, behind his "...prawn-like stare..." (p. 198), while Eric outlines his plans for what should happen next.
When Travers and Followers listen to Broderick, there are:
"...police at the corners of the park. Evidently a disturbance was considered possible." (p. 187)
In my experience, public gatherings can pass off without disturbances. Recently in Lancaster, the police knew (a) that some of us were going to do something in the town centre but also (b) that they did not need to intervene. That is good policing: in the background, out of sight, except when needed. Summoned to a circus picketed by animal rights activists, a policeman recognized the activists and said, "It's you, is it? You know the rules. Don't obstruct. Don't trespass..." and went off and left them to it.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteAgree, that is what competent police forces do, intervening as little as possible and only when those rules are violated.
Animal rights? What bull twaddle!
Hope this uploads.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteIf it is wrong to harm an animal, then the animal has a right not to be harmed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteNo, only people, human or non-human, can have rights. We only have an obligation not to be needlessly cruel.
Hope this uploads.
Ad astra! Sean
Terminological.
ReplyDelete"Animal Rights" can call themselves "Anti-Cruelty" and carry on as before.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteNo, not merely terminological. Only rational, intelligent, self aware beings can have rights. Not an ant, frog, rat, or cow.
Hope this uploads.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteWhy only self-conscious beings? That is a mere statement. Many people make a different statement.
It is wrong to starve a cow. Therefore, a cow has right not to be starved. But why is the wording worth arguing about?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteBecause it matters who or what can have "rights." And what are the things you need to look for to determine who can have rights. And animals do not have rights.
Hope this uploads.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteIt matters who or what have "rights." Conscious beings do. It is wrong to torture a cat so the cat has a right not to be tortured.
"..what are the things you need to look for to determine who can have rights." Any being that is conscious and therefore can suffer.
"And animals do not have rights." That is a mere repetition of the original statement. I can repeat "All conscious beings obviously have a right not to be made to suffer." We can continue to repeat contradictory propositions indefinitely.
Paul.
Actually, I think of rights as a matter of propinquity. My blood kin and personal friends have lots of rights, members of my tribe have some, and for the rest the further away they are the fewer they have. I'd chose my cat's life over some random strangers'.
ReplyDelete