We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – What the end of politics looks like We are only, here in the UK, at the very beginning of the process of descent into tyranny. But it is helpful to frame our thinking with this in mind: that is our trajectory if we continue to imagine that state authority can be founded in political hedonism, or the unity of desire. And it is also helpful for us therefore to imagine how things can be different: what is the proper grounds for the authority of the state, and how are states indeed properly constituted?
The answer, for those who know their political theory, is the antithesis of tyranny: the rule of law. But it is the rule of law understood in a special way. It does not mean the ‘rule of lawyers’ (which we are now highly familiar with). It means something much more specific than that.
– David McGrogan (£)
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
No – certainly not.
We in the United Kingdom are not “only” at “the very beginning of the process of descent into tyranny” – the people are disarmed (traditionally the key step in establishing unlimited government power), the education system (including the private schools) teaches that government is the answer to all problems – via its spending and regulations, never even considering the possibility that bigger government may make things WORSE than they otherwise would be (the teaching of history is particularly perverse), Freedom of Speech has been savagely attacked – with THOUSANDS of people arrested every year, for their words.
We are well down the road towards tyranny – NOT just at the beginning of that road.
However, I agree with the second point – that the-rule-of-law is the answer and that it must be properly defined – but that brings us back to education, what people, including lawyers, are taught as “the rule of law” is NOT the rule of law as traditionally understood – the rule of law, as traditionally understood, was that a “crime” is a violation of the body or goods of someone else – by force or fraud, that is the Common Law. But both the vast mass of legislation over the last century (indeed more than that) ignore this principle – and lawyers and judges are also taught a very different idea of what the rule of law means.
When Thomas Hobbes wrote his “Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law of England” he (Mr Hobbes) was the “philosopher” – and his idea of what “law” and “justice” meant (as in his “Leviathan”) utterly twist and corrupt these concepts – turning them into the will of the ruler or rulers (who can indeed by called judges – for judges need not be servants of the law and justice as traditionally understood by the non aggression principle, judges may be tyrants).
Mr Jeremy Bentham had much the same view – hence his claim that natural justice (as traditionally understood – non aggression principle) did not exist, and that rights AGAINST the state were “nonsense” and claiming that they had a natural origin in the nature of humans as free will moral beings was “nonsense on stilts” – as to Mr Bentham (as to Mr Hobbes) a human was NOT a being – they claimed that we are just machines, that we have no souls, no moral agency (free will).
Modern “Declarations” and “Conventions” about “human rights” pay lip service to the concept – but, if one reads them carefully (as lawyers and judges do) they do NOT defend the private property rights of individuals against the state – not even the right to keep and bear arms (the traditional definition of a free person in both Classical Greek and Roman law and Germanic law) or Freedom of Speech.
Mandleson said many years ago (while we were under the thumb of the EU) that we were living in a post democratic age, and much as I hated him saying that, it did seem to be true then and even more so now.
I think that the US Constitution and bill of rights should be taught across the west as something admirable. The fact that is not is very telling.
A good short book on the law (the effort to establish the principle of traditional justice, private property and voluntary contracts – the non aggression principle) is Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law”.
This shows that the idea of law is not confined to English thinkers such as Chief Justice Coke (see, for example, the Case of Dr Bonham 1610 – Coke was the great enemy of the master of Thomas Hobbes – Sir Francis Bacon who held that “law” was just the will of the ruler or rulers – see, for example, his “New Atlantis”, also 1610, where an “enlightened” “scientific” elite have total power over ordinary people – something that would have delighted Jeremy Bentham), or Chief Justice Sir John Holt (Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710 – and, like Coke, an opponent of the abuses of Parliament – NOT just the King, a foe of the idea that Parliament could commit any injustice it felt like committing, indeed declare such crimes “the law” – a position later pushed by Sir William Blackstone).
Indeed in some ways (certainly not all ways) France was a freer country than Britain in some parts of the 19th century – for example France did not have Income Tax or a Poor Law Tax.
The peak of liberty (of limited government) in France was probably 1869 (the same is true for Britain – although it depends what part of Britain you mean – for example in my home town of Kettering the state reached its point of most limitation in 1874 – as we did not have a School Board and national taxation in Britain reached its low point in 1874).
Even as late as the 1970s government in France was smaller, as a proportion of civil society, than in Britain.
The point that the rule of law is NOT the rule of judges is especially important – judges must first be taught what the law is (the principles of natural justice) and what it is not – and this education must occur long before they become judges.
In should be remembered that the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, of which Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was a leading member, was founded to destroy (to exterminate) the traditional (private property rights, voluntary contract, strictly limited government) understanding of what “law” and “justice” are.
Tyranny is not some unintended consequence of “human action, but not human design” – it is chosen by key people, it is their aim – their objective. And liberty is the same – it is also NOT the consequence of “human action, but not human design” – it does not just “evolve” (contra Hayek), humans beings (free will – moral agency) have to choose it and make the sacrifices, if need be their lives, to establish it and maintain it – the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
In judging any philosophy, either political philosophy – or philosophy of what a human is (are we human beings or not?) – what used to be called “the nature of man” – the key question is whether a follower of such a philosophy would be prepared to fight to the death to defend the private property of others (not just their own), including the persons of fellow citizens – from unjust execution.
A philosophy that teaches (in effect), for example, that “as long as it is not me who is to be hanged, I will not take up arms” is useless – ditto a philosophy that judges things by the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” – rather than individual justice.
It makes no difference if a gang of rapists gain more pleasure from raping someone than the victim suffers pain – pleasure and pain are not what justice (moral good and moral evil) are about – it is a category mistake to hold that they are.
Nor does it matter if executing an innocent person deters crime – as justice is not about this. Punishment should be proportionate to the crime (the intentional, free will chosen, violation of the body or goods of others) – whether it deters crime is not relevant.
You do not punish the innocent (regardless of what “good” punishing the innocent may supposedly do) – and you punish the guilty in proportion to their crime (their free will chosen violation of the bodies or goods of others).
Rour le Jour.
Yes – although liberty and democracy are very different things, BOTH have been undermined.
Individual liberty has been in decline for a horribly long time (hence the idea that we are at the “start” of the slide towards tyranny – is absurd), and so has democracy (the rule of the majority of ordinary people) been subverted.
For example, the British people were opposed to mass immigration – now wishing their country to be taken from them, but the wishes of the people were treated with total contempt by the establishment elite (from the 1960s onwards – 60 years now) – hence the plundering, the rape gangs, and so on.
Freedom of Speech was one of the first casualties of this anti democratic policy of the establishment elite – in a series of Acts of Parliament from 1965 (which also attacked Freedom of Association), 1968, 1976, 2010 (no doubt I have missed some dreadful measures – there have been many).
A hypothesis from me for comment. The power that prevented the servant, now the blob, from achieving illegitimate ruling power was the hereditary House of Lords as it worked until it was reformed in the latter part of the 20th century. This was effectively a random set of people, albeit not entirely typical, many of whom were not political and only used their power when they perceived a serious problem had arisen. How about replacing the current house of lords by a random selection of the populace?
A question for Paul Marks. Is Nigel Farage the current version of John Pym? I have been picking ChatGPT’s brains.
While slightly OT, this article takes a caustic view of Sir Keir Starmer’s trip to China:
So, never-here-Keir is on, by my counting, his 38th overseas trip since entering Downing Street. This time, it is to Communist China, in what must feel like something of a homecoming for Starmer. The Prime Minister has declared that this trip will make Britain richer, which is a surprising goal given he is doing seemingly all he can in order to prevent this with domestic policy.
Cosying up to the CCP will make us not just richer, but also safer, apparently. As safe as Jimmy Lai, the British citizen held as a political prisoner in the Peoples’ Republic? As safe as the Uyghurs subjected to the mass sterilisation and cleansing programmes? We shall have to wait and see.
I cannot help but think that the authortarian nature of Communist China (the social credit system, imprisonment of political adversaries or critics) isn’t something that repels a man who leads a government that wants, for example, to reduce trial by jury, that has postponed local elections covering 4.5 million voters, has presided over further erosions of free speech, etc. Is the UK as bad as China? No, and it would be foolish to say so, but the direction of travel is unmistakable.
David Roberts – traditional families, most of them landowners, were indeed a check on bad ideas – although the could only hold them up for a year.
A randomly selected second chamber – it is an idea, I believe that Ancient Athens used random selection (the lot) for some bodies.
Is Nigel Farage a modern version of John Pym? I do not know – we shall have to see.
Johnathan Peace – there are differences between the British government and the People’s Republic of China Dictatorship – but there is, sadly, more than unites them than divides them.
Paul Marks – For me the purpose of a years delay, was not the delay itself, but that it enabled, those Lords who knew why the legislation was bad, and were independent, to publicly expose its failings. This also means the government was less likely to produce legislation which could result in it’s ridicule, both itself and the legislation, in the Lords. Unlike today when their “place people” can facilitate the government’s bad legislation.
The “rule of law” has always been offered as the antithesis of the “rule of a man.”
That’s the version lawyers are taught. A just society makes intelligent rules and then applies them fairly to everyone going forward, while, in “the rule of a man”, arbitrary edicts that please the ruler are announced and applied retroactively or proactively.
Of relevance to this post is an article in today’s American Greatness. See https://amgreatness.com/2026/01/29/the-eu-just-murdered-western-civilization/
Excerpt:
Fundamentally, the U.S. has three major problems with the EU, UK, and Canada. First, the EU, UK, and Canada are becoming increasingly totalitarian. Second, they have de facto an open borders policy and are importing immigrants by the many tens of millions. Third, neither the EU’s nor Starmer’s nor Carney’s governments will alter that policy. In fact, they are expanding, despite great support for political parties and some countries like Hungary, which stand opposed.
The cost of these policies is the intentional destruction of Europe, the UK, and Canada by endless immigration backed by the full coercive power of Brussels, London, and Ottawa. The consequence is the death of Western civilization. This is a major national security threat. Costs imposed upon the EU, UK, and Canada for continuing endless immigration are simply not high enough.
The EU’s leadership is not a friend, and it is not a frenemy. It is worse. The EU is increasingly directly opposed to U.S. national security. If the EU does not change its policies, it is past its sell-by date. If other measures will not work, then now is the time to link security to mass remigration, with targets and specific dates for each EU member, the UK, and Canada. Mass immigration is destroying NATO, European states, and Western civilization. That is an existential cost—massive and unacceptable. Now is the time for real costs to be imposed on the EU to save the West.
I would argue that we have been descending into tyranny since the Taff Vale judgement. Or maybe since the introduction of Death Duties a few years earlier. Or maybe the introduction of state schools in 1870. Whenever it started it was a long time ago. Every loss of freedom is not only a loss in itself but creates second-order effects. So problem → less freedom → more problems → even less freedom.
In general, i agree with what Paul Marks has said above. I think that tyranny has already descended on the UK. I am glad that I am neither a UK subject or resident. I am less optimistic than him about the possibility of an electoral solution.
Subotai Bahadur
I would point out that Canada was going to elect a Conservative government until the Don started blathering about it becoming the 51st state. The disaster of Carney’s globalist regime is down to him and his daft witterings.
I submit that people here are not entirely clear about a fundamental distinction — a distinction between 2 dichotomies.
There is a dichotomy between the rule of law (constitutionalism) and absolutism.
There is also a distinct dichotomy between laissez-faire (libertarianism) and totalitarianism.
As proof of concept, let me point out ancient Israel and ancient Sparta: neither of them under arbitrary rule by a man, assembly, or the majority of the people. Both could be said to be under the rule of law, but neither was a laissez-faire State.
More debatable is the opposite: the possibility of laissez-faire without the rule of law. The best example that comes to mind is Hong Kong under British rule: obviously laissez-faire, and arguably under the rule of law — but actually subject to arbitrary rule by the British government.
NB: I must give credit to Quentin Skinner, Samuel Finer, and David D. Friedman, for inspiring this analysis.
David Roberts – good point.
Patrick – yes it has been a very long march away from liberty.
JohnK – I have heard it argued both ways, but I would NOT have made the jokes that the President made.
Snorri – it depends what one means by “law”, if one means “written rules” then Sparta had lots of them, although none of these written rules applied to the Helots (perhaps the majority of the population of the area – certainly they outnumbered Spartan citizens, the “dwellers round about” complicate matters – as they were neither Citizens or Helots) – as the Spartans ritually declared WAR upon them every year, for the precise purpose of being allowed to do whatever they wanted to them.
However, if are using the traditional definition of law as the effort to apply in time and place the principle of natural justice – then NO Sparta did NOT have the rule of law. As the “laws” even as they applied to Spartan citizens were not lawful – they were not in accord with natural justice, they were not a good-faith effort to apply the principle of justice.
If “the rule of law” just means the rule of the commands of the state (be that the legislature or the judges) then it is a worthless concept – only if “the rule of law” means the effort to follow the principle of justice, to-each-their-own, is it a concept that is of any moral value.
“Why should we obey the law?” is a question that makes sense IF the law is the effort to establish, in time and place, the principle of to each their own (do not violate the body or goods of others) – it is a false question if “law” does NOT mean that.
Indeed if “law” is what people like Thomas Hobbes and Jeremy Bentham said it was – the commands of the state, then we do not have a moral duty to obey the law, we have a moral duty to fight AGAINST this (FALSE) “rule of law”.
Such people as Sir Thomas Holt (Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710) understood this.
So did Roman philosophers of law – although they made excuses for the injustice of their own state.
For example, they admitted that slavery was against natural law (natural justice) – but then said it was acceptable for Romans to practice slavery because “all other nations” practiced it.
Even if true – that everyone else does a wicked thing, does not make it right for one’self to do i.
It does not make it lawful – even if it is written as a “law”.
Short version – “laissez faire” (voluntary interaction) is the rule-of-law.
An example of the clash between “law” as the commands of the state and “law” as the effort to apply the principle of justice, is the late 19th century obsession of American Democrats to have gold and silver currency at the same time – with a FIXED EXCHANGE RATE between them.
Yes one can have both gold and silver as money – if there is no attempt to fix the exchange rate by “law” (in the sense of command) as they are two different commodities – and so their value (in relation to each other) will fluctuate (which is why contracts must specify if payment is to be made in gold or silver), to try and “fix” the exchange rate between two different commodities (such as gold and silver) is a clear violation of natural law.
Oddly J.S. Mill said that the natural laws of economics (which he touched on his “Principles of Political Economy”), were a “different principle” to the moral law he outlined in “On Liberty” – they are NOT different principles, they are the same principle.
For example, it is morally wrong for the state to try and fix the price of some good – not just wrong in the sense of violation of economic law, but also unjust – a crime, a crime committed by the state.
Bastiat (see his book “The Law”) was much better on this than J.S. Mill.
What does one do when one sees the state about to kill someone unjustly, say due to a “law” that everyone with brown hair is to be executed.
One fights – fights the state, that is the LAWFUL thing to do.
Of course, one may lose and die – but justice does not guarantee victory.
And the just man only dies once – he does not die every day, die inside – in humiliation of obeying evil.
Paul: Given your previous comments, I expected a reply from you along those lines.
My view is that your definition of ‘rule of law’ is legitimate, but too restrictive for practical purposes. It leaves us without a name for the opposite of arbitrary (absolutist) rule. In ancient Sparta, there was no arbitrary rule, and therefore it makes sense to me to say that Sparta was under the rule of law. Judging by his comment, it also makes sense to bobby.
In ancient Sparta, there was of course no equality before the law. The rule of law applied to full citizens only: the Helots lived under arbitrary rule. That needs to be clarified, as you pointed out.
I also note that you have not commented on ancient Israel. The law that ruled there was (supposed to be) Divine Law. To say that it was not “real law” because it was not laissez-faire, is blasphemous from the Jewish point of view.
A simpler example is 1+1=2.
This is the truth – natural law, and Parliament demanding that everyone pretend that 1+1=3 would be both practically and morally wrong – it would be unlawful (yes – unlawful, as someone like Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke or Chief Justice Sir John Holt would point out) for Parliament to behave in this way.
“But Sir William Blackstone said that anything Parliament said had to be done” – yes he did, and he was WRONG, his conception of what “law” is was WRONG – it was against the Common Law, against natural justice. Sir William Blackstone also said he believed in natural law (natural justice) so for him to then say that any ravings of Parliament were “law” that must be obeyed, was wildly inconsistent. As Thomas Jefferson (along with the other American Founding Fathers) pointed out – this is a central contradiction in the writings of Sir William Blackstone.
The above is why, for example, demanding (as that 19th century Democrats did) that gold and silver both be used as money at a FIXED EXCHANGE RATE is wrong (against natural law) – because they are two different commodities. The late 19th century Democrats were demanding that an Act of Congress repeal natural law – this makes no more sense than demanding that Congress repeal the law of gravity, or demand that 1+1=3.
There is nothing wrong with people using both gold and silver as money – but the exchange rate between them must NOT be “fixed by law” – for that is a fatal misunderstanding of what “law” is.
Voluntary contracts should specify whether payment is to be made in gold or in silver – and how much gold or silver (of a certain purity) is to be the payment.
I used to think that the insane demand that gold and silver both be a “Dollar” at a FIXED EXCHANGE RATE came in with William Jennings Byran – but I was wrong, as it is also there (for example) in the Presidential platform of the Democrats in 1892.
Such a “law” that “fixes” the exchange rate of gold and silver is no more in accord with natural law than a demand that Congress pass a “law” saying that 1+1=3 – and PUNISHING anyone who, rightly, acts on the basis that 1+1=2.
The exchange rate of commodities (goods) or, indeed of fiat currencies, must not be “fixed” (rigged) as this ignored physical reality (the actual production of these things) – it is against natural law.
That is why, for example, it is not the “Black Market” traders of food and other goods, who trade at the true prices of these things, who are the “criminals” – the criminals are the governments who impose price controls.
It is the governments, not the traders, who are (with their false edicts) violating The Law.
Not just a “practical” matter – but also a moral matter.
Liberty, the true “rule of law”, is following the truth – for example that 1+1=2, and if Parliament passes an “Act” that says that 1+1=3 and punishing people who act on the basis that 1+1=2, that Act of Parliament is UNLAWFUL.
And, sadly, Parliament is quote capable of passing price controls and other unlawful edicts – and has often done so.
Paul: I could be wrong about the common usage, but it seems to me that what most people mean by ‘rule of law’ in everyday context (rather than the deeper and wider one), is that whatever the law is – good or bad – it is applied equally to everyone. I tend to think now that good laws applied selectively could be worse than bad laws applied equally. I know it’s an oversimplification, so only FWIW.
It seems everywhere now we have the worst of both worlds: lots of bad laws in addition to good ones, both often applied selectively.
Alisa – in which case the term has no moral content, the term would not be used in reverence.
You may well be correct – but if you are correct about modern usage, then “the rule of law” has become a worthless term.
The post used the term “the rule of law” with some reverence – implying it was using the old definition of “law” – as Sir Edward Coke or Sir John Holt would have understood the word. NOT the definition of “law” used by Thomas Hobbes or Jeremy Bentham.
On second thoughts not a “worthless” term – an actively evil one. If we are using the word “law” as Mr Hobbes or Mr Bentham understood the term (the commands of the ruler or rulers) – then it is evil and it must be defeated.
“the rule of law” would mean “the rule of evil” – the opposite of what it once meant, it once meant the effort to apply in the circumstances of time and place the principle of justice (the non violation of the bodies or goods of others).
“ruler or rulers” can call themselves “judges” or “justices” – not just Kings or Parliaments.
For just calling a person a “judge” or “justice” does not give them any respect for the law (not the commands, will, of the ruler or rulers) – they may not understand what the principle of law is, or they may understand – and oppose justice, commit themselves to injustice.
For example, it was very clear from his relationship with Harold Laski (and by other evidence) that Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr had nothing but hatred and contempt for the limited government principles of the United States Constitution (itself not creating any principle – but trying to follow the principle of justice) – his presence on the court was terrible, as he had falsely sworn.
A sharp distinction must be drawn between making a good faith effort to follow the law (the principle) and failing in this-or-that, and having nothing but hatred and contempt for the law.
The modern establishment, and their “laws”, fall into the second category – their “laws” are a sort of “anti law”, and “the rule of law” as they would define it, is the enemy of what “the rule of law” traditionally meant.
For those who reject Frederic Bastiat’s work “The Law” on the grounds that he was not a professional lawyer, there is Bruno Leoni’s “Freedom And The Law”.
Leoni rightly makes a distinction between the law and “legislation” (i.e. the arbitrary ravings of Parliaments, Kings, officials, or whoever), but the weakness of the book is that it assumes that lawyers and judges respect the principles of the law (of the non aggression principle) – that is often no longer true.
However, Bruno Leoni reminds us that the law is NOT just a Common Law (English language) concept – it was understood by the Roman Law tradition as well.
If Snorri demands a source from the Netherlands – I would point to the work of Hugo Grotius – although he was mainly concerned with international matters, the principles Grotius understood can, at least in part, be applied domestically.
Lastly – on the “so-and-so never practiced law” point – neither did Thomas Hobbes, David Hume or Jeremy Bentham – none of these men had any legal qualifications what-so-ever and never practiced law, so why follow their doctrines that human beings (free will moral agents – capable than doing other than they do, and thus having “criminal responsibility”, “guilty mind” if they CHOOSE to commit crimes) do-not-exist, and the state can do anything it feels like doing – with “law” and “justice” just being the will (whims) of those in power – these doctrines being most naked in the work of Mr Hobbes.
It is true that the rise in the power of officials at the expense of United Kingdom Parliament has been a bad thing, a very bad thing (as first described by Chief Justice Hewart in 1929 “The New Despotism”) – but observation of the behaviour of Parliament (at least since the 1870s) shows that this body has no understanding of the principles of law, and can not be trusted to uphold the law – rather than subverting the law with legislation.
It should be remembered that Parliament is rightly – “the High Court of the Monarch in Parliament”.
It does not exist to “make law” (an obscene concept), it is there to FIND what the law (the effort to apply the principle of justice, to each their own, in time and space) is – and to declare this clearly, in written form.
Sadly I doubt that more than 1 in a 100 Members of Parliament now understands this – so Parliament has become part of the problem, rather than the solution.
Sir William Blackstone and others (rightly denounced by the American Founding Fathers) have a lot to answer for.
Judges are not there to “make law” either – they are there to FIND it, although many have fallen into evil and think they can and should “make law”.
Hans Kelson with his “Pure Theory of Law” revived the idea of Thomas Hobbes that “law” means the commands of the state, that “the law” has no independent moral independence from the state.
Hans Kelson was considered, in the early 20th century, a great scholar of law – which is odd as, if true, his theory would mean that “law” has no moral importance (there would be no reason, other than fear, for obeying “laws”) and “the law” and “the rule of law” (as a way of limiting the state) does-not-exist.
In any case Hans Kelson would, according to his theory, have no right to complain had the state tried to kill him for being Jewish – as his killing would, according to his “Pure Theory of Law” have been perfectly legal – if done by the command of the state.
For some reason Professor Kelson fled Europe rather than accepting his (according to his own theory – the “Pure Theory of Law”) lawful punishment for being Jewish.
It should be noted that “democracy” changes nothing in this regard – as Adolf Hitler was very popular in Germany, and other Jew hating regimes, such as that in Slovakia, were very popular with their populations.
I have not violated “Godwin’s Law” – as Hans Kelson was the foremost “legal scholar” of the relevant time period – under his theory, “The Pure Theory of Law”, the Holocaust, and other crimes, were not crimes at all – as they were the will of the state, states that had widespread popular support.
I would be interested in knowing Paul Marks’ thoughts on this exposition of the anatomy of a political smear campaign.
Is this manner of responding to people who hold “incorrect” political views appropriate in our post-Enlightenment world?
https://solarireport.substack.com/p/the-prosecution-of-dutch-mp-gideon?publication_id=3243028&post_id=186883707&isFreemail=true&r=jc39v&triedRedirect=true
Cheers!