[SlowRobotAhead]

>Oh yes the police had to arrest him.

Yea, I mean, a tenant of a just society is equal enforcement of the law.

>All of them could have walked away and said: "Fuck that law, I'm not enforcing it."

That's not a goal. That's a serious problem. Even if you think the law is unjust. You need to change the law, you can't just not enforce it.

You're arguing for something you would be horrified to have.

[lolc]

I'd be surprised if that law in Malaysia was applied in a way approaching equal treatment. But sure, let's talk in the abstract: Even if a thousand people have been hanged: If we can spare one, we must do so! One injustice must not beget another in the name of equality.

And yes selective enforcement is a problem. But I want the people in charge to not enforce that law at all: They must refuse to arrest, judge, or kill based on that law. Which is not selective enforcement. They don't choose whom to apply it to, they just don't apply it at all. Which means everybody is treated equally with regard to that law.

Our history is full of instances where a law was not enforced by those in charge. In some instances we say that not enforcing it was wrong (say, corruption) in others we say that they did right (say, race discrimination). This often set a precedent to changing the law.

Ideally it sure would have been nice if a bad law had never been enacted or if it had been abolished when it soured. But what if it didn't? I'm talking about that. Real societies where bad laws do real damage.