[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Right Blend [@rightblend](/creator/twitter/rightblend) on x 37.3K followers Created: 2025-07-24 18:50:36 UTC 35/ It just lost my notes. Summary: moral blameworthiness in Coutts was said to be less for aiders and abettors than principals. Tamara -- what she did do -- come and stay in ottawa -- didnt do -- leave and encourage others to do. Its a shame for Tamara that people may have come when she said to come to ottawa but not when she said peaceful and lawful over and over and over again. Coutts lasted X weeks [they were confused of this earlier]. The judge said remorse was non-existent in Coutts. Contrary to submissions here where Tamara worked to reduce impact of others' means. In second case, Soranos, animal rights. Broke into. Unlawful plan. Thought to override the law in Soranos, where sought to change law here. Calculated action in contrast to Ms Lich who found herself in the middle of a protest that on your honour's Carter finding did not start as planned to do anything illegal. Had to weigh with desire to protest and what your honour has made her aware of how some were protesting. Very different from a planned, deliberate, calculated action to break the law. The decision found they planned to invade the space and achieve political ends. They felt justified breaking the law for moral reason. Para XX. I say stands in stark contrast to Ms Lich whose plan was lawful, peaceful, safe. Whose messaging was lawful, peaceful, safe which leads to two statements of principal emanating from that case: the idea that breaking the law for moral reasons is not justified and must be deterred. It's not what Ms Lich was found to be doing here in her words and action at all. XXXXX engagements  [Post Link](https://x.com/rightblend/status/1948455795873489078)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Right Blend @rightblend on x 37.3K followers
Created: 2025-07-24 18:50:36 UTC
35/ It just lost my notes. Summary: moral blameworthiness in Coutts was said to be less for aiders and abettors than principals. Tamara -- what she did do -- come and stay in ottawa -- didnt do -- leave and encourage others to do. Its a shame for Tamara that people may have come when she said to come to ottawa but not when she said peaceful and lawful over and over and over again.
Coutts lasted X weeks [they were confused of this earlier]. The judge said remorse was non-existent in Coutts. Contrary to submissions here where Tamara worked to reduce impact of others' means.
In second case, Soranos, animal rights. Broke into. Unlawful plan. Thought to override the law in Soranos, where sought to change law here. Calculated action in contrast to Ms Lich who found herself in the middle of a protest that on your honour's Carter finding did not start as planned to do anything illegal. Had to weigh with desire to protest and what your honour has made her aware of how some were protesting. Very different from a planned, deliberate, calculated action to break the law.
The decision found they planned to invade the space and achieve political ends. They felt justified breaking the law for moral reason. Para XX. I say stands in stark contrast to Ms Lich whose plan was lawful, peaceful, safe. Whose messaging was lawful, peaceful, safe which leads to two statements of principal emanating from that case: the idea that breaking the law for moral reasons is not justified and must be deterred. It's not what Ms Lich was found to be doing here in her words and action at all.
XXXXX engagements
