classical liberal here using “icky” as her moral guide
I can also make myself queasy thinking about what some adults choose to do to / with their bodies.
But then I remind myself that a person’s icky is rooted in their personal culture, taste, history. It’s a deceptively unreliable basis for moral or political decisions.
Appeals to personal viscera for authority are the hallmark of magical thinking, essential ingredient of extreme ideology.
That said, fearhate of tattoos, like fearhate of queerness, is a brilliantly stupid place for elderly reactionaries to draw their line.
Everyone under 30 has a friend with a tattoo.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
this exchange between the wacky liars running my country reminds me of one of the strangest asylum appeal hearings I did.🧵 1/
My client’s case for refugee status was that he had been a fighter in a long running civil war. The Home Office didn’t believe him for their usual reason of supposed discrepancies between different interviews and statements.
At the appeal hearing the immigration judge, who had a notoriously eccentric approach to judging and fancied himself as a military expert, took a different tack.
TIL Franz Kafka spent 14 years employed in the Austrian Workmen’s Accident Insurance Institute in Prague; a pioneering official using state powers to protect & compensate injured workers. thenation.com/article/archiv…
Djokovic’s case *should* provoke outrage: people can be imprisoned indefinitely, denied moving around *on a whim* & have no real remedy?
But we debate how this normality should be applied to a special person.
What abt everyone else? Especially ppl from non-white-coded states.
This was not the exercise of a pandemic-prevention power of isolation. It was border control. The silence on such extreme executive power over the bodies of humans is troubling.
But not surprising. Australian Govs of all parties have used it.
Djokovic’s case should also be a teachable moment on the emptiness of “fair procedure” and “judicial remedies” in immigration.
He had the right (upheld by a court) to more time to make representations - but under a system where a politician can do what he likes. +
the problem isn’t Boris. It’s how hundreds of politicians, civil servants, police officers, the media, who claim to uphold the law and the truth watched *in silence* while hundreds of them broke the law
That system is just as open to abuse by Gove or Patel. +
Johnson has shown us that UK’s political system could not (so far) keep its standards and constrain a shameless liar willing to push colleagues into complicity.
How would it cope with a *competent* sociopathic autocrat PM? +
Politics is a magnet to narcissists & sociopaths. It needs extremely strong checks and balances, in a lasting structure to defeat and expose cheats & liars and constantly privilege transparent rule-following.
That should be our focus. Not swapping out one crook for another. +
+ anyone can write to the ICC prosecutor. It’s not a formal legal process. Which is generally good, but here signifies that it’s being chosen to avoid the scrutiny a case would get in British or European courts +
+ and if the “lawyer” representing isn’t qualified to act as a lawyer (not a solicitor or barrister, as seems to be case here) that also suggests your using “legal process” as a stunt, and not genuinely / seriously.
Home Office Anon tells Sun its the cheap, easy answer to stop Channel crossings.
Tl;dr that claim is bogus - but lays the ground for massive extension of the surveillance state.
THREAD 1/
125,000 asylum-seekers in UK. Application numbers historically low, but pending claims high because Home Office officials refuse to decide cases, procrastinating for years instead of issuing permits to refugees & others they can’t remove. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief… 2/
Some asylum-seekers are detained. But vast majority are on “immigration bail”, a scare-criminal-sounding re-labelling of “temporary admission” by May’s Immigration Act 2016 3/