Dutch human rights activist, Olax Outis had no “lawful defence” and was stopped from give a closing speech – but was acquitted by the jury in a verdict seen as a snub to a system complicit in Genocide.
They’re welcome to say that. I’ll stick with my own beliefs and those of the judge in this case though, after a brief read of some of that long paper. You’re welcome to make the case, though.
The Jury is law and the Jury decided Olax Outis did nothing wrong. Maybe the judge shouldn’t have disrespected the Jury? Maybe they decided that, given the context, it was more important that voices against genocide not be silenced?
I’m done doing your homework. The fact is is that the Jury acquitted Olax Outis unanimously. If you think that was a mistake, well, you weren’t on the Jury.
They’re welcome to say that. I’ll stick with my own beliefs and those of the judge in this case though, after a brief read of some of that long paper. You’re welcome to make the case, though.
I’m sorry. You’re beliefs don’t matter. Only facts.
Like the fact that the article linked does not represent the law in the UK at the moment?
The Jury is law and the Jury decided Olax Outis did nothing wrong. Maybe the judge shouldn’t have disrespected the Jury? Maybe they decided that, given the context, it was more important that voices against genocide not be silenced?
Nope.
Happy to discuss this, but first read a book on how the law actually works, so that you can talk about how you think it should change coherently.
I’m done doing your homework. The fact is is that the Jury acquitted Olax Outis unanimously. If you think that was a mistake, well, you weren’t on the Jury.
Your understanding of legal theory seems to have come from a Tumblr post, so I wouldn’t accept any homework you did on my behalf.
There is room for disagreement and reasoned debate but you don’t understand enough to engage in it. Bye.