Nobody should be above the law

With many thanks to theLwerd for taking this debate I would like to respond as follows: My opponent wrote; "But suppose she had accidentally misplaced a novel under her crown..." "Misplaced"? Yeah, that's what they all say isn't it? No, as a society we should adopt a zero tolerance policy with regard to shoplifting and no exceptions should be made for miscreant monarchs, even if their arrest and subsequent trial it does cause a bit of a hullaballoo. Then my opponent wrote: "Your resolution is flawed..." My resolution is not flawed. With the exception of the Queen and one or two other unelected tyrants, everybody DOES have to obey ALL laws, in ALL countries. I must say, I was moved by my opponent's story of the young war hero returning home fresh from the heat of battle and heading straight for the nearest pub in order to get off his face. Readers may feel that the lad deserves a few pints - after all, if he is old enough to fight and die for his country he should be old enough to buy a beer. But laws are there for good reasons, even though they may not be immediately apparent. Say, for example, a British bloke was in that pub in America and he was chatting up some gorgeous philosophy student and she was really impressed with his stories about all the Manchester United fans he beat up last season when our gallant soldier walked in, ordered his drink, got served with a nod and a wink and started mouthing off about how he put his life on the line to escort a pregnant woman to hospital while coming under heavy fire. All of the sudden, the Englishman's yarn about how he kicked a bloke's head in for wearing a replica Cristiano Ronaldo top would seem less impressive than the G.I.'s tale and perhaps the stunning philosophy student's head would be turned. That's why the law in the US says don't sell booze to under-21's - so older blokes get a chance to pull birds without having to worry about cocky young squaddies coming in and muscling in on the girls. Now about the Queen's personal taste in mind-altering substances - we know that she drinks Carslberg Lager (1), which is also much favoured by tramps because it is cheap and strong, so there is no reason not to suppose that she doesn't smoke cannabis as well. In fact, she probably deals it. I mean if the police saw a black man wearing bespoke designer gear, dripping in bling, driving around in a stretched Bentley with no licence plates (2) they'd stop him, drag him out of the car and search him for drugs. But because she's the Queen, she can drive around London distributing contraband substances without any worry of getting a tug from the rozzers. Now, that's not fair, is it? TheLWerd suggested that the Queen would get her hands chopped off if she was caught nicking secondhand paperback romances from Honest Ali's Thrift Shop on Jumeirah Road in Dubai and quite right too. She may be above the law in the United Kingdom, but not in the United Arab Emirates. Then my opponent wrote: "...(if) someone (sped) to the hospital in order to save (a) life, surely their heroism would not warrant a hefty ticket..." The thing about this analogy is that we cannot allow individuals, not even the Queen, to break the law just because they believe it is "necessary". What if that medical emergency that the driver thought was a heart attack turned out to be no more than a case of indigestion but in speeding to the hospital he caused a bus full of orphans to swerve into the path of a truck carrying puppies, kittens and cute little bunny rabbits and the ensuing collision resulted in absolute carnage? My opponent quoted the NJ laws, below, and said they were "ridiculous". She might think so but those laws are there for good reasons, as I will explain: "pumping your own gas" – if motorists did this then thousands of filling station attendants would be put out of their jobs; "frowning at a police officer" – all of us (including the Queen) should show our respect and affection for law enforcement officials by smiling at them at all times; "for a man to knit during fishing season" – quite right too, knitting is women's work; "slurp your soup" – it is most desirable that table manners should come under the jurisdiction of the law. Why should a respectable diner have to sit next to some slob who guzzles down their soup like some sort of savage? Finally, my opponent states that absolute rulers such as ruthless dictators, evil tyrants and the Queen breaking the law with impunity "would not necessarily be wrong or immoral" suggests a somewhat lenient approach attitude towards crime and punishment in general that voters may or may not agree with. Thank you. 1 -http://www.royalwarrant.org... 2 - http://www.classics.com...