Only just thought of this, so it's undeveloped... Perhaps an unconscious intuition that power is shifting from the democratic to the legal-technocratic domain lies behind a lot of stubborn and counter-factual denialism. So that you can only oppose measures designed to, say, reduce atmospheric carbon etc by denying that anything is actually happening. In a healthier culture we might agree on the issues that are arising but more productively discuss what might be done about them. Covid & climate are great examples of this dynamic. Summary: our lords and masters are ultimately responsible for 'disinformation' as the only perceived option to resist diktat.
An excellent essay. Two frustrating naiveties that persist on the conservative side of the political aisle in our pluralist electoral democracies are:
1) that politicians are still 'in charge' of how we are governed (and so you'll get what you vote for) whereas in truth - and as you say - politicians are to a large extent "trailing in the distance, trying to somehow keep up."
2) that Liberalism's bedrock 'rule of law' overseen by an impeccably impartial judiciary is still intact.
A stunningly insightful illustration of why the law can be, and increasingly often is, shown to be an ass.
With the creation of the European Court of Justice and the subjugation of laws created by the British Parliament, following acceptance of GB’s application to join what is now the EU, the concept that politicians create the law and judges interpret it was smashed into smithereens.
The Blair governments creation of a UK Supreme Court - in order to bring UK judiciary processes in line with the EU - was another hammer in search of a nail. Brexit should, of course, have been the momentum to revert to the supremacy of the parliamentary legislative process and the role of the judiciary as mere interpreters. Regrettably, having tasted power, the UK Supreme Court is, understandably, reluctant to let it go and that, in turn, has influenced the lower echelons of the judicial process.
Having said that, it is all too evident, that the abilities of modern parliamentarians to create sensible/workable legislation has been lost, due in great part, to the rubber stamping process of EU rules and regulations which took precedent, prior to our formal departure.
The political process no longer serves the best interests of the electorate. What process is now enforced is what serves, what David has described in an earlier article, as the ‘global governance set’ whose strings are pulled by the global central banking elite/cabal and that, of course, is where the climate change lobby derives its power/influence.
Can you recommend a litigator to represent my case in Canada for not keeping the local waterways warm enough for me and my family in the spring, autumn, and winter?
So the claimants are in effect trying to turn the system they see as there to uphold their rights into one that will become utterly rigid and even more part of the system they are complaining about? To the point that it will all nullify itself and implode into meaninglessness. Life is soooo confusing these days!
Just finished reading an article which introduced me to ‘Chesterton’s fence’ :-
“There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
If only those involved with the legislative system took the above into account !!
Arguably the legal system is one way of mapping reality into acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Courts have taken to adding helpful notes and symbols to the map. Forgetting or choosing to ignore that the map is not the terrain.
The IPPC and UNEP were set up to bolster the Limits to Growth-and-must-reduce-population-sizes perspective held by some wealthy people in the late 1970s. This anti-human persepctive persistsin the 'green blob' and has been adopted by investors in the so-called Energy Transition. My attitude has been acquired by studying the history and politics of the decarbonization campaign and the science.
Until someone provides evidence that carbon dioxide emissions by humanity actually increases global atmosphperic temperatures, these cases should be botched. Apart from computer models which are not evidence, there is no evidence. After 280 parts per million of CO2, CO2 cannot absorb any more infrared radiation. We are at 420 ppm - so emissions have never had any effect and more emissions will not have any effect. Also there were ice ages when CO2 was at 1000s ppm.
The judiciary,at least here in Britain, appear to have adopted the prevailing Left/Lib/Green agenda, albeit not without challenge- see jc link above.
But claims for compensation could surely result in a financial free -for-all, as multitudes of claims appear before the courts, many entirely without justification or merit:
This last example is a grotesque exemplar of the sense of entitlement now adopted by those who just a few years ago, would no doubt have been referred to a team of psychiatrists for assessment; no longer as the rights cavalcade gathers ever more steam.
Only just thought of this, so it's undeveloped... Perhaps an unconscious intuition that power is shifting from the democratic to the legal-technocratic domain lies behind a lot of stubborn and counter-factual denialism. So that you can only oppose measures designed to, say, reduce atmospheric carbon etc by denying that anything is actually happening. In a healthier culture we might agree on the issues that are arising but more productively discuss what might be done about them. Covid & climate are great examples of this dynamic. Summary: our lords and masters are ultimately responsible for 'disinformation' as the only perceived option to resist diktat.
An excellent essay. Two frustrating naiveties that persist on the conservative side of the political aisle in our pluralist electoral democracies are:
1) that politicians are still 'in charge' of how we are governed (and so you'll get what you vote for) whereas in truth - and as you say - politicians are to a large extent "trailing in the distance, trying to somehow keep up."
2) that Liberalism's bedrock 'rule of law' overseen by an impeccably impartial judiciary is still intact.
These are recurrent themes in my own'stack.
A stunningly insightful illustration of why the law can be, and increasingly often is, shown to be an ass.
With the creation of the European Court of Justice and the subjugation of laws created by the British Parliament, following acceptance of GB’s application to join what is now the EU, the concept that politicians create the law and judges interpret it was smashed into smithereens.
The Blair governments creation of a UK Supreme Court - in order to bring UK judiciary processes in line with the EU - was another hammer in search of a nail. Brexit should, of course, have been the momentum to revert to the supremacy of the parliamentary legislative process and the role of the judiciary as mere interpreters. Regrettably, having tasted power, the UK Supreme Court is, understandably, reluctant to let it go and that, in turn, has influenced the lower echelons of the judicial process.
Having said that, it is all too evident, that the abilities of modern parliamentarians to create sensible/workable legislation has been lost, due in great part, to the rubber stamping process of EU rules and regulations which took precedent, prior to our formal departure.
The political process no longer serves the best interests of the electorate. What process is now enforced is what serves, what David has described in an earlier article, as the ‘global governance set’ whose strings are pulled by the global central banking elite/cabal and that, of course, is where the climate change lobby derives its power/influence.
Can you recommend a litigator to represent my case in Canada for not keeping the local waterways warm enough for me and my family in the spring, autumn, and winter?
So the claimants are in effect trying to turn the system they see as there to uphold their rights into one that will become utterly rigid and even more part of the system they are complaining about? To the point that it will all nullify itself and implode into meaninglessness. Life is soooo confusing these days!
A second thought !!
Just finished reading an article which introduced me to ‘Chesterton’s fence’ :-
“There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
If only those involved with the legislative system took the above into account !!
Arguably the legal system is one way of mapping reality into acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Courts have taken to adding helpful notes and symbols to the map. Forgetting or choosing to ignore that the map is not the terrain.
The IPPC and UNEP were set up to bolster the Limits to Growth-and-must-reduce-population-sizes perspective held by some wealthy people in the late 1970s. This anti-human persepctive persistsin the 'green blob' and has been adopted by investors in the so-called Energy Transition. My attitude has been acquired by studying the history and politics of the decarbonization campaign and the science.
Until someone provides evidence that carbon dioxide emissions by humanity actually increases global atmosphperic temperatures, these cases should be botched. Apart from computer models which are not evidence, there is no evidence. After 280 parts per million of CO2, CO2 cannot absorb any more infrared radiation. We are at 420 ppm - so emissions have never had any effect and more emissions will not have any effect. Also there were ice ages when CO2 was at 1000s ppm.
Lawfare and the encroachment of judicial activism, but there is much to challenge about the climate change agenda:
https://vimeo.com/924719370?share=copy
This film is recommended and has already been subject to attempts to cancel it .
Secondly, judges are on the move in other areas :
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/more-than-600-british-jurists-call-for-suspension-of-arms-sales-to-israel-after-strike-kills-3-u-k-aid-workers
But, a legal riposte has been issued:
https://www.thejc.com/news/top-lawyers-argue-uk-is-not-obliged-to-halt-arms-sales-to-israel-dokceeuz
The judiciary,at least here in Britain, appear to have adopted the prevailing Left/Lib/Green agenda, albeit not without challenge- see jc link above.
But claims for compensation could surely result in a financial free -for-all, as multitudes of claims appear before the courts, many entirely without justification or merit:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/04/04/having-a-mangina-is-not-a-human-right/
This last example is a grotesque exemplar of the sense of entitlement now adopted by those who just a few years ago, would no doubt have been referred to a team of psychiatrists for assessment; no longer as the rights cavalcade gathers ever more steam.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/09/switzerland-climate-policy-violated-human-rights-strasbourg-court-rules/
A sign of things to come : climate change now set to usher in more legally sanctioned intrusions-all for the best of course.