The unpredictability is also corrosive of economic activity, or anything else requiring coordinated action over time. It is a powerful disincentive to invest time and money in any enterprise, if the environment you are operating in is chaotic and you have little prospect of realising your goals. Complex industrial society needs boring and predictable, not chaotic self-actualisation and political whim.
I’m very much on the sceptical side of most Covid arguments but I’m not at all surprised this man was struck off. You can’t depart that far from medical orthodoxy and expect to remain inside the profession. There should be room for a wide range of opinions but microchips for goodness sakes!
This is why I need to write a follow-up piece, clearly, as there is a lot to this. (I don't mean there is a lot to the idea that the vaccine was about delivering microchips, but about how far the law should go in protecting views that are, let's call a spade a spade, a bit crankish.)
Mr Adil has found out that our system of law, particularly at the high court is ‘so unclear and unpredictable’ as you say. Katie Hopkins did a recent video talking about the Lawrence Fox case talking specifically about this issue in the high court. With our current activist judges I think any public figure, or even the Government, going against the narrative will be unlikely to get a favourable hearing (I was thinking of some of the recent immigration decisions). I am not sure they are even actively setting out the harm these individuals, it’s just their belief system finds their views and actions intolerable. This situation applies to much of the world and you just need to realise these people are not there to give you justice.
I haven't read the judgment in the Lawrence Fox case or paid too much attention to it. The problem is less judicial activism - though there are activist judges - but more unconscious bias. This is a hard problem to remedy.
The ones that leap to mind are the extremes - France during the Terror, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. In both those circumstances the authorities specifically declared that courts would not enforce law, but revolutionary principle, with the result being chaos in the very worst sense.
The unpredictability is also corrosive of economic activity, or anything else requiring coordinated action over time. It is a powerful disincentive to invest time and money in any enterprise, if the environment you are operating in is chaotic and you have little prospect of realising your goals. Complex industrial society needs boring and predictable, not chaotic self-actualisation and political whim.
I’m very much on the sceptical side of most Covid arguments but I’m not at all surprised this man was struck off. You can’t depart that far from medical orthodoxy and expect to remain inside the profession. There should be room for a wide range of opinions but microchips for goodness sakes!
This is why I need to write a follow-up piece, clearly, as there is a lot to this. (I don't mean there is a lot to the idea that the vaccine was about delivering microchips, but about how far the law should go in protecting views that are, let's call a spade a spade, a bit crankish.)
Genuinely frightening. See also https://open.substack.com/pub/cjhopkins/p/the-resistible-rise-of-the-new-normal?r=3ezew&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Mr Adil has found out that our system of law, particularly at the high court is ‘so unclear and unpredictable’ as you say. Katie Hopkins did a recent video talking about the Lawrence Fox case talking specifically about this issue in the high court. With our current activist judges I think any public figure, or even the Government, going against the narrative will be unlikely to get a favourable hearing (I was thinking of some of the recent immigration decisions). I am not sure they are even actively setting out the harm these individuals, it’s just their belief system finds their views and actions intolerable. This situation applies to much of the world and you just need to realise these people are not there to give you justice.
I haven't read the judgment in the Lawrence Fox case or paid too much attention to it. The problem is less judicial activism - though there are activist judges - but more unconscious bias. This is a hard problem to remedy.
So very unfair. I hope Mr Adil can re-locate to a less totalitarian state, re-register there and continue to practice as a surgeon.
Another great piece, David. Is there anything in the historical record of laws moving in this direction as prelude to societal collapse?
The ones that leap to mind are the extremes - France during the Terror, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. In both those circumstances the authorities specifically declared that courts would not enforce law, but revolutionary principle, with the result being chaos in the very worst sense.
Just occurred to me for some reason the most obvious: the "Enabling Act" of Hitler's Germany.