Since you are not quick on the uptake to figure out what I was saying, I will spell it out explicitly.
When I said it was a "code", I didn't literally mean that you were speaking in code, like some sort of cryptographic secret language. Instead I was making fun of you, for asserting that the laws were illegal, without any actual justification.
You originally stated "It’s unlikely to pass judicial review". And you just asserted it. With no justification.
And then later, when I pressed you on it, your only justification, for why you think these laws are illegal is "That remains to be seen.". Which isn't an argument for why the laws might be illegal.
I was assuming that when you said "It’s unlikely to pass judicial review", that you might actually have a reason for why you think the law is illegal, other than "That remains to be seen.". But I guess I was wrong on thinking that you had a reason.
You had no actual reason or justification, for why these laws could be illegal, even though there are multiple laws, attempting to be passed in all sorts of countries, such as the EU, which you were wrong about.
You just said it was illegal, and said we'll have to wait to find out, lol. Thats not a reason, because you don't have any.