foxie48
tickingbird my understanding is that the Supreme Court initially over ruled the govt, then changed on appeal of national security but SB can appeal that verdict and the current situation is one of being paused until a way can be found for her to represent her case. If the Supreme court over rules her appeal, then that will be that but I will still feel very uncomfortable about this particular situation. Anyone who works in schools or has contact with children will have undertaken Safeguarding training and will have some knowledge with regard to the "Prevent" programme. This programme recognises the extent to which vulnerable children can be groomed into terrorist organisations. In the future it might mean that any child groomed in this way is not seen as a victim but as a risk to national security and stripped of their nationality. I worry that this would be a step too far.
Foxie, you put is so well.
In the Court of Public Opinion there are no rules of evidence, no burdens of proof, no cross-examinations, and no standards of admissibility. There are no questions and also no answers. Also, please be aware that in the Court of Public Opinion, choosing silence or doubt is itself a prosecutable offense…the Court of Public Opinion is what we used to call villagers with flaming torches. It has no rules, no arbiter, no mechanism at all for separating truth from lies. It allows everything into evidence and has no mechanism to separate facts about the case from the experiences and political leanings of the millions of us who are all acting as witnesses, judges, and jurors.
[source: Dahlia Lithwick “Woody Allen v. Dylan Farrow: The Court of Public Opinion is now in session.”]