In Avengers: Endgame, Tilda Swinton's character, the Ancient One, warned the heroes not to mess with time.
Once a certain rule is removed, the flow of time splits and reality becomes unstable. Indeed, reality, or whatever realities which existed, would multiply. To cut a long story short -- mess with time, and things can end up very confusing.
The same is true with the law and justice system. Mess with the two things that allow us -- with our diverse wants and needs -- to co-exist in peace, and the result will be disorder and instability.
Last week's attack on anti-junta activist Sirawith "Ja New" Seritiwat was extremely disturbing.
It isn't just because the assault was brutal -- the young activist ended up in intensive care with a broken nose and a fractured eye socket.
It isn't just because the bashing was a repeat act -- occurring only a week or so after Mr Sirawith had been attacked by five men, who remain unidentified.
It isn't just because several days have passed and not much progress has been made in the case.
What's worrying about the brutal attack on Mr Sirawith is that it signals a return to the culture of political violence and impunity.
It's extremely distressing to see comments which downplay the physical violence against Mr Sirawith -- for example, "Injuries to activists are always followed by bank account numbers for money transfers", or "Which activist should be next?"
There are those who posted comments telling doctors not to be so quick to give Mr Sirawith treatment, suggesting the activist could be kept in his suffering "for humour's sake".
There are even those who tried to defend the military and government, which have been heavily criticised for allowing such a brazen crime to occur, by theorising that Mr Sirawith could have plotted his own attack.
These comments, and many other sardonic remarks which fill up our social media pages reflect a certain social attitude -- that is, anti-junta activists deserve to be treated with brutality.
These comments reflect the startling extent to which our society has dehumanised anti-junta activists. Political violence, including the repeated crimes against Mr Sirawith and other political activists, can occur because this kind of hatred and extremist attitudes are allowed to proliferate.
So why has hate, fear, and insecurity resurfaced in our society even though we have just gone through a similar experience only a few years ago? It is mainly because the rule of law and our justice system have been skewed to favour those at the very top of the ladder.
Should a clause like Section 44 have a place in lawful society? Not at all. It allows one man's order to override all other rules. At the same time, the issuer of the order -- the head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha -- remains above the law.
In fact, there is no way of knowing exactly what Gen Prayut's position is as the head of the NCPO. He must be a state official for any of the Section 44 orders he issued to be binding. But when he applied to be a prime ministerial candidate for the last election, he wasn't considered as one -- because it would have disqualified him.
Does it make sense for Gen Prayut to invoke Section 44 to relieve digital TV operators of billions of baht in debt owed to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission in unpaid licence fees? People may agree or disagree with the action, but the most important issue here is how can this decision -- which obviously involves state money -- be made by a single man, instead of through a transparent and accountable process?
If Section 44 is not the incubator that is breeding culture of impunity that is taking hold on Thai society, then what is?
Of course, there are other obvious attempts to distort the rule of law, but nobody can say or do anything about it. What about the electoral system, which allows senators handpicked by the NCPO to vote in the next prime minister? Is it fair? The conflict of interest is clear for everyone to see, yet this was enshrined in the charter -- considered as good enough for the country.
Mess with the legal system, and the result will be confusion and disagreements about what is considered as free, fair and honest.
The aberration followed previous attempts to bend the law for personal interest. Remember the luxury watches? Don't forget that the anti-graft commission ruled that it was okay for the Gen Rolex to "borrow" some 30 million baht worth of watches from his friends and not list them in his asset declaration. If we follow this logic, the entire banking system would have collapsed, as we would not have to recognise borrowed money as liabilities.
The attack on Mr Sirawith is an evidence that the rule of law has been messed up with. And the result is becoming more violent.
Atiya Achakulwisut is a columnist, Bangkok Post.