This is a great analysis, although it doesn't explain that a referendum would also be required if it doesn't work in order to remove it or the costs involved with a referendum. Yes it could be legislated, which means it could have already occurred, why hasn't it? I understand a big part of this argument is because then alternative Government's may remove it, anyone that knows politics understands that would be political suicide. Who is chosen to be on it, from where and how? Who makes this decision? Why won't every group/tribe have a representative?

Why can't the artworld cancel Hannah or at least try? There's a whole host of people being  retrospectively cancelled for things they said once or did once in a time when it was more culturally accepted. I don't understand why people are so vehemently focused on applying today's standards to people, and times when these considerations didn't exist. It doesn't mean what Picasso was doing, had done is right, we can acknowledge it now as being wrong but we must also acknowledge that it was a very different time and society then, which made it culturally acceptable. We have different standards now. Also if you can expect to cancel someone for something they say that differs from your opinion, why should you be immune to the same treatment. This is the largest issue with cancel culture, and wokeism. The people who are doing the majority of the cancelling don't accept that if you normalise this type of bullying (predominantly done from the keys of a message board or twitter) then you yourself must come to accept that this can also happen to you and others you care about. When did common decency and acceptance of someone's view point, even if you disagree disappear?