Innocence

Every word communicates a lot, but 'innocence' conveys more than most. Let's...

unpack our 'innocence', shall we?

Innocence

Loaded words say... sometimes more than we mean, sometimes less. But 'innocence'... that is more than 'a lot'.

*

From the mouth of the accused of wrongdoing, a plea of 'innocence' says 'I am wronged.' Whether true or untrue, a claim of 'innocence' spits with indignation 'This farce is a violation, an offense, an assault!' Never mind facts or evidence, to affirm one's 'innocence' is to insist 'The rule of law be damned for I am no lawless menace.'

But, of course, many charged with wrongdoing are not innocent; such that many contemn criminal behavior rightfully called.

*

From the mouth of a non-combatant, a cry of 'innocence' says 'I am not your enemy.' Whether true or untrue, an appeal to be spared the ravage of wrath begs 'This conflict against the civilian, the aid volunteer, the loved is not what militaries are for!' Never mind facts or evidence, to protest the destruction of one's people and one's place is to demand 'The rules of war be damned for I am no savage against peace.'

But, of course, there is no seat at the table for dissenters of armed hostility, no? For the campaign of annihilation welcomes not the campaign of diplomatic resolution.

*

In the case of the former, the innocent are harmed by the specious legitimacy of representation. It deceives bystanders and victims alike with a distortion of merit.

In the case of the latter, the innocent are harmed by the brittle assumption of association. So a whole population is condemned by a veneer of justification.

Notwithstanding the alternative:

The accused in the former could be 'innocent' and the combatant in the latter could be 'innocent', right?

*

Sure. As if that's it. The question and the answer of 'innocence'. Never mind the rest of us. The human beings on the other sides of the question.

Who are we?

*

When a defending party is just. When there is no cause to believe such body false or wicked. We who favor such person, do not see ourselves as 'unjust'.

Likewise, when an opposing party is fair. When there is no cause to believe such body wanton or cruel. We who favor such person, do not see ourselves as 'unfair'.

But we also know every body has devoted supporters. Including defending parties that are unjust and opposing parties that are are unfair. These loyalists see themselves as 'innocent'. Whether true or untrue. Never mind facts or evidence.

Because, of course, fealty.

*

I wonder then... don't you? If 'innocence' purports anything at all. Except and insofar as it rationalizes and excuses

who we sympathize; who we believe; who we extend succor and mercy; who we judge worthy of humane dignity.

Because we mean 'we deserve everything' as if the absence of 'innocence' means 'you deserve nothing'. 

Notwithstanding, all who don a halo of false 'innocence' to

plea for the same goodwill for their cries are not crocodile tears; claim the same trust for their appeals are not self-serving fabulations; affirm the same humanity for their protests are not games that cheat to win.

Because we say false 'innocence' is as good as real.

Such that it's not what 'innocence' says or means that is 'a lot'; it is what 'innocence' gets. Honestly or dishonestly. Rightfully or wrongfully. That is everything.

Nota Bene

The examples above are illustrative and not exhaustive.

NB

(i) When, for example, an accused assaults a person on the other side of a line in the sand... isn't the justification for such assault because the 'innocent' party isn't the assaulted? As if 'innocence' is the right to assault a person who is not.

(ii) When, for example, a believer in beliefs attacks a person who disbelieves... isn't the moral defense for such attack because the 'innocent' party isn't the attacked? As if 'innocence' is the right to attack a person demonized.

(iii) When, for example, a testimony is perjury... isn't the legal merit of forswearing an oath because the 'innocent' party is the liar? As if 'innocence' is the right to violate trust. 

(iv) When, for example, a cause promises to empower the aggrieved and an ambition promises to avenge the enraged... isn't the endorsement of such campaign because the 'innocent' party is the candidate who represents basics and @ssholes? As if 'innocence' is the right to say 'I don't care' and mean it. 

etc.

Because stopping at nothing to get everything is how false 'innocence' rolls. 

M

*

Author's Note

Consent of the governed

gained by false 'innocence' as the cornerstone or 'moral imperative' of a raft of laws and actions and policies and judicial opinions that undermine plural democracy is

neither the handiwork nor inalienable endowment of a... 'creator'.

M