Is that true? How is that even legal? How the courts of a liberal democracy allow that?
The conclusion is that the United Kingdom is not a liberal democracy.
The term I see thrown around is “electoral authoritarianism,” where elections may be free and fair but institutions don’t reflect liberal values.
Maybe we’re discovering that democracy and liberal values don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand.
That system was never going to survive alongside immigration (driven by capital demanding cheaper foreign labor in the 1800s), the growth of middle-class and educated women, and the spread into the frontier.
It's not an accident that contemporary US Republicans have started repeating this talking point. The last Republican challenger to win the presidency (not re-election) by popular vote was George HW Bush 35 years ago. Expect to see less 'will of the people' talk from them in the years ahead.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/republican...
Edit: I see he is an UK citizen and he was detained at Glasgow airport; I would think he has some rights there - I guess that’s why UK police had to use the terror laws - alternative would be to ask the Swiss (or wherever he was flying) to detain him.
Luckily there’s not much worth seeing there anyways.
Do we have a word for what used to be called draconian laws? Some countries still practice original-sense draconian laws and I don't want to conflate them with the not nearly as bad anti-due-process laws such as the ones here.