EUnion justice

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) last Thursday ruled on a discrimination case brought before it by the Belgian Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding. And in ti's ruling the ECJ proved itself to be every bit of a kangaroo court, doing without the most basic principles of common justice, as the 'Human Rights Commissions' that make the lives of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn so difficult.

The case involves a Belgian garage-door company, who's director has stated publicly he would not employ Moroccans, because such made his clientèle distinctly uncomfortable. The case was first brought before a Belgian labour court, which dismissed it. So the Centrum, like any quango having deep, tax-payer filled pockets, brought the case before the ECJ, which finally ruled the day before yesterday.

And it is a rather chilling ruling. As EU Referendum explains the ruling is a blank cheque for the race relations industry.
It decided that an employer who "publicly lets it be known that, under its recruitment policy, it will not recruit any employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin may constitute facts of such a nature as to give rise to a presumption of a discriminatory recruitment policy."

What makes this so very different – even alarming – is that the court has ruled that the "absence of an identifiable complainant does not mean that there is no direct discrimination". Therefore, even though no one is affected by the "discrimination" it must still be treated as a criminal offence.

From here though, it gets worse. The court was also asked to rule on what sanctions were appropriate for discrimination of this kind, the Directive requiring that member states impose "effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions," even where there is no identifiable victim. (...)

To add insult to injury, the court then made a final ruling. It decided to reverse the burden of proof in this type of case, deciding that if a "discriminatory recruitment policy is alleged by reference to statements made publicly by an employer with regard to its recruitment policy … it is for the employer to prove that it has not infringed the principle of equal treatment."

So, there were are – "European" justice for you: guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent, guilty of an "offence" even though there is no victim, and prey to any passing race relations industry zealot who thinks they can make a quick buck out of taking you to court.
On the other hand, if you embezzle several hunderds of thousand euros of tax-payer money in your capacity as a EUrocrat and are found guilty you get...

... awarded damages for being "confronted with feelings of injustice and frustration" and because they had "suffered damage to their honour and professional reputation …".

As of the Turnip, these people are our supreme justice, people. Not even our 'own' government can help anyone falling foul of these 'judges'.

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...