The 'Rule of Law' in totalitarian societies

Daniel Greenfield:

The establishment of late, the left and some of its allies on the right, has been lecturing us ceaselessly on that magnificent thing that they call, "The rule of law".

The rule of law might be more accurately deemed the rule of lawyers and the rule of judges. Every halfway civilized country lives under the rule of law. Especially the uncivilized ones. China and Iran both suffer under the absolute rule of law.

As does the UK.

On Friday, British free-speech activist and Islam critic Tommy Robinson was acting as a responsible citizen journalist -- reporting live on camera from outside a Leeds courtroom where several Muslims were being tried for child rape -- when he was set upon by several police officers. In the space of the next few hours, a judge tried, convicted, and sentenced him to 13 months in jail -- and also issued a gag order, demanding a total news blackout on the case in the British news media. Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was immediately taken to Hull Prison.

The rule of law, which the media praises, allows judges to impose a cone of censorship on the media. And not just in the UK.

When you can be arrested, sent to prison and have any information about your arrest and imprisonment censored, that too is the rule of law.

We don't have the rule of law in America. We use the law as a tool to protect our founding principles and our rights. When you have the rule of law, then there can be no rights, only powers.

Mueller, we are told, represents the rule of law.

The law, of course, is meant to rule equally. And the Mueller coup is a blatantly partisan campaign to overturn the 2016 election. But the very idea of the rule of law is that votes don't matter, rather people like Mueller, the appointed representatives of the establishment and its law, should be able to overturn an election because the mob chose wrongly and their choice is an insult to the rule of law.
...

What happened in the UK is one reason that justified the American Revolution.   There is no excuse for what happened to Robinson.  In the US you are still entitled to due process in a probation revocation proceeding and Robinson was not afforded that. 

One of the first cases I tried was as an appointed counsel in a revocation of probation case.  While they can be cut and dried I dove into the facts of the case, found alibi witnesses for the accused and studied the law under which he was charged. 

The States theory of the case was that the accused had an unexplained possession of recently stolen property, a boom box taken from a burglary.  In fact. he had an explanation.  He said he bought it from someone on the street and when he was confronted by the police he told the cop to take it because he did not want any stolen property.  I actually found the kid he bought it from who was also awaiting trial in the jail and he confirmed my client's story.  At the hearing on the revocation when I cross-examined the police officer he confirmed what my client had told him. 

When the State rested its case, I was prepared to bring in the witnesses I had found but wound up not needing them.  The judge was livid.  He yelled at the Assistant DA, "You can't rest.  You haven't proved your case."  The ADA mumbled something and the judge "It was not an unexplained possession.  Dismissed." 

I had won a case that the state thought was this kids ticket to the penitentiary.  It does not appear that Robinson was offered a real opportunity to present his own case with a lawyer.