That was TB I was quoting.
It's an example of him seeing everyone was equal but not when it came to having a vote.
If I'm ever sectioned under the mental health act then I accept I'll lose my right to vote whilst that remains in place. If you have the cognitive ability i.e. understand what or whom you are voting for then there should be no restrictions. When a person isn't that's when the law has to be applied along side appeals.
It was a poor and inaccurate example because you don't seem to fully understand equality/egalitarianism/equality under the law and how they are mutually exclusive with some restrictions and qualifications of rights and privilages, yet are not with others.
Some restrictions and qualifications of rights and privileges that are not mutually exclusive with equality under the law:
Age to vote, to drink, to drive, to be classed as an adult.
Competence/qualification to operate a car, a gun, a plane, explosives, be considered competent to stand trial, hold a public office.
Nationality to vote, claim residency.
These are all rights and privileges GIVEN on qualification and can be rescinded.
Examples of restrictions and qualifications of rights and privileges that are mutually exclusive with equality under the law:
(removing or restricting any of the following)
Right to equal protection and treatment by the law.
Right to life.
Right to a fair trial.
Freedom of thought, belief or religion.
These rights are not given and therefore can't be rescinded without.
There are other factors which makes things unequal in law, for example being rich enough to hire the best solicitor/QC available.
Also, luck can play a part in having a judge who is flexible, reasonable and open to 'persuasion'.
It would be ideal to think the law is equal to all, but unfortunately in reality it isn't.
You also have to be considered mentally fit to stand trial.
Probably better than I'd get:
Michael Adebolajo loses first part of Rigby murder appeal - Rigby killer loses initial appeal bid
Meanwhile, the Sun newspaper has said Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who was also convicted, have together received about £212,000 in legal aid.
A freedom of information request by the newspaper revealed the pair received a combined £212,613.32 to cover legal bills, comprising £138,803.96 for Adebolajo and £73,809.36 for Adebowale.
You don't seem to get that everyone has to have a vote so that everyone matters to whoever is in charge.
That is quite correct - however, the principle is in the attempt maintain it's values to the best of our abilities in the face of external, unforeseen or other forces outside it's scope that introduce inequalities, human error etc.
As you say, in reality the law isn't always blind and doesn't always provide equality for all, but it fundamentally always tries to be rather than taking a pick and mix approach by choice.
It's currently how all fundamental principles of law, human rights, constitutions etc are attempted to be reconciled with the practicalities, complexities and contradictions of human life and other principles, systems and structures .... just some are more successful or try considerably harder.
That is not nor ever has been a principle or practice of democracy and is in fact contradictory to observations and reason.
If you are not a voter for a particular MP, party or government, then they don't have to represent your wishes and may well have a mandate to actively oppose them.
There are elected officials and parties that aim to represent everyone to the best of their abilities according to their beliefs - to whom people who can't vote like for example children matter to them on principle, or if not on principle, by proxy of those that can vote who love, care for or otherwise support.
How do you square the polices and positions of for example the DUP party in NI with the idea that everyone that can vote matters to whoever is in charge ?
I am pretty sure there are quite a few catholic, muslim and gay people who can and do vote that the DUP don't consider 'matter'.
A less extreme and less devicive example would be all the Tory voters in Labour strong holds, Labour voters Tory strong holds and people who support parties other than the main two in general.
How and why would everyone who can vote 'matter' when a party has a clear majority ?
Any minority group potentially doesn't matter if at least matters a lot less to a governing party or MP especially when they have a clear majority.
It is only with other principles and ideas where individuals who don't belong to a minority show empathy and appeal for equality that those in charge actually have to consider them to 'matter'.
The law is similar to religion in that respect. What is written tries to meet the ideal and serve a higher principle, but how the written law can be interpreted and spun by clever gowned and bewigged professionals to ensure a victorious outcome is the reality.
It is part of the human or animal fabric to look for weakness and go in for the kill. The higher principle or ideal tends to get lost or masked in the cut and thrust of courtroom battles.