In a lot more trouble than we thought

The court of judges in the first trial against Geert Wilders, which was pulled off the case after dismissal on the grounds of 'apparent prejudice', was under heavy pressure caused by media attention and public opinion. The court was insufficiently supervised and did not fully realize her performance would be scrutinized for political prejudices.

That, according to Het Parool (NL), is the main conclusion drawn by the Meijerink commission, which was tasked with investigating the the judicial governance and management of the court case against Wilders. The report can be viewed here (NL; pdf).

The judges in the (first) Wilders trial, particularly Jan Moors (p), if Het Parool is to be believed, felt their integrity had been violated. It was for that reason, they declined to attend the second request for dismissal: They couldn't bare the presence of so many cameras. According to the Meijerink commission the effect of a dismissal is greater when it concerns 'an intensive and demanding trial as this case, more so that it played out in the full view of the nation'.

I don't know about you, dear reader, but I was raised with the idea that a judge is supposed to be the living example of integrity. A meticulously impartial adjudicator, free of any prejudice, political or otherwise. Someone that is supposed to apply the law, irrespective of a persons identity, race, nationality, gender, religion, status or income or political affiliation. After all, all are equal before the law. That has always been one of the guiding principles of Western case law and jurisprudence.

So, what is the Meijerink commission saying when they conclude that the Amsterdam court 'did not fully realize her performance would be scrutinized for political prejudices'? I would think a judge would always be aware of the possibility of being scrutinized for and questioned about prejudices of any kind. And the efforts, naturally following, to be as unprejudiced as humanly possible. Or, if such is asking just too much of the judge in question, to have the integrity to decline appointment.

Did the Amsterdam court really underestimate the attention the Wilders trial would garner and thought they could get away with a little (politically correct) prejudice? Is that what the commission Meijerink is admitting? Are they tacitly admitting that the feelings of violated integrity of the judges in the Wilders trial are a result, not of false accusations of prejudice, but of being caught out?

Between the lines, the conclusions of the Meijerink report seem to admit at least some of the courts at times let prejudices creep into their administering of justice. And that extra care must be taken to avoid the 'appearance of prejudice' in cases where media attention and public scrutiny is expected to be heavier than usual. I sincerely hope that this is not actually the case. For if it is, we are in a lot more trouble then we thought.

2 reacties:

Rhlt zei

Holland, it would seem, is pretty well a done deal from the Moslem perspective. A country that used to be proudly Dutch and White now is more than willing to surrender its uniqueness to the Moslem invader.
Piet Hein is turning over in his grave!

DP111 zei

Worth reading again

We may like to think that the judiciary is immune to change in the values of a society, but of course they are not. Multiculturalism demands the abandonment of absolute morality grounded in Christianity to a mishmash of expediency, and from there to sycophancy to the violent, or the state ie corruption.

The profound problem of Muslim immigration

The subversion against our societies is executed by relatively few immigrants. Most immigrants from Islamic countries do not come to the West in order tor transform free Western countries into semblances of the autocracies or theocracies they have fled from. They seek better living conditions, employment, a better future – but they do so without the intention to change their religion, and this is where things get complicated.

Retaining faith in Islam and Islamic scholars will lead the immigrants to tacitly support the subversive aims of Islamists who have also come to the West, initially as a relatively small fraction of millions of Islamic immigrants. These Islamic leaders and scholars use the Islamic teachings to destroy confidence in Western democracies, and they are astonishingly effective in achieving that aim.

Explaining how this seemingly irrational development can take place requires some history. This first and foremost means the life and conduct of Muhammad, the perfect example for the pious Muslim even today. The authority of Muhammad is absolute in Islam, be it in form of Quranic commands or the examples of conduct recorded in hadith collections, known in Islam as the 'Sunna'. Hijra, immigration, was a key element in Muhammads takeover of Yathrib, today known as Medina.

Unfortunately, the concept of Hijra is not limited in time or space to 7th century Arabia. The command as given is absolute, and remains an obligation on Muslims. One of many hadith quotes Muhammad for this:
I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah.

Thus, immigration is step four out of a five step plan. Sam Solomon elaborates:
So Hijra or migration is binding on all Muslims for numerous reasons; the most important being that migration is preparatory to jihad with an aim and objective of securing victory for Islam and Muslims either in another country or generally as a community.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...