One Comment

  1. Read your article. Perhaps you’d consider a more general piece on (super-)injunctions. Are they appropriate? They are expensive, so we read, so only the wealthy can afford them. Is this appropriate?

    The law generally seems more concerned with property rights than human rights. You might say that an injunction preserves a person’s property at the expense of another’s human rights.

    On what basis would a court decide to issue a (super-) injunction? When does the privacy of the seeker outweigh the human rights of the person who is being silenced? What is the public interest?

    It may all be explicable in terms of ‘law’, but is the law fit for purpose?

    Is it correct, as I’ve seen reported, that injunctions have been used to ‘cover up’ inadequacies in government? If so, how can this be acceptable? After all, government is supposed to be what’s done on our, the general public’s, behalf; government, the state, isn’t supposed to be a law unto itself; or is it?

Comments are closed.