ABSTRACT
This chapter relates the story of a homeless man who was mistakenly imprisoned for four months towards the end of the 2014 Occupy protests in Hong Kong. It shows how the Heideggerian certainty of ‘judiciary talk’ was not diminished when the length of a sentence was successfully appealed. It became certainty in justice. The chapter also asks if ‘judiciary talk’ is ‘idle talk’ in Heidegger’s lexicon – i.e. made for public consumption, easily snatched up and cultivating an indifferent intelligibility. The case of a man who opened a yellow umbrella in protest at his investiture as a member of the local parliament is framed as performative nihilism i.e. foreseeing judiciary talk’s requirement of constancy and loyalty of purpose but protesting anyway. The mere action of protest in performative cases means that judges can take their political context as read. Representing is a kind of doubting in Hong Kong’s legislature but attention cannot be drawn to it by investiture stunts. Judiciary talk is concluded not to be a franchise of idle talk despite its droning and simpleton tone. It is a morality relying on pretend ignorance of external political expectations so that it can make a claim of authenticity.
