Interesting stuff. I would take issue with his inexact language which occasionally veers off into the weeds (eg., “…injectable products that confer no immunity at all”) because although it doesn’t undermine the general argument, it makes him look like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But hey, he’s a sociologist*, so I guess he gets a pass. I would be really interested to know if any lawyers have a similar take on ‘mandates’ and whether there is any legal recourse for the average citizen.
I particularly like this bit:
The Mental Health Act Section 136 begins:
"If a person appears to a constable to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control, the constable may, if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons …
(a) remove the person to a place of safety within the meaning of section 135, or …"
Which suggests that it’s the responsibility of the police to haul off various deluded people in positions of power for assessment by a psychiatrist because they a danger to themselves and others and should probably be detained for treatment. Not gonna happen, for obvious reasons.
*How many sociologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Only one, but the lightbulb must be aware of its roots in Western Imperialism, and must truly want to change.