Today the Dismissal-court, headed by 'impartial' Left-wing 'judge' F. Bauduin, has confirmed the use of plural in the headline of my previous article: we indeed have Kangaroo Courts in The Netherlands: it has denied the appeal for dismissal by Mr. Moszkowicz. Geert Wilders' judge may have used some 'unfortunate choice of words' but he was 'in no terms prejuduced'.
Says Bauduin, member of (a.o.) the Morocco Fund, in which his name is one of only two Dutch ones. Looking at the list of his 'other activities' (thanks, Artikel7) it quickly becomes clear he is no friend of Geert Wilders' PVV, but prejudiced himself, so he should have stepped aside instead of heading the dismissal court.
As it is, one 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing 'judge' judges another 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing judge to be impartial, only because that other 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing judge himself claims, after showing prejudice, to be impartial. One would think that the choice of Morocco loving Bauduin as dismissal-judge is a rather 'unfortunate choice of judge' given the fact that Wilders' case touches on the issues The Netherlands have with problematic Moroccan youth...
Well, at least it becomes clearer day by day what a circus the Dutch ' justice' system really is. First, we have an unprofessional judge who lets his personal bias against Wilders prevail in his job. Then, the justice minister himself appears to have had a part in the decision to prosecute Wilders. And now we have another unprofessional, Morocco-loving judge, who 'impartially' decides that the biased judge is impartial. What's next?
These are interesting times (remember Confucius).
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Kangaroo Courts in a Banana Monarchy
Yesterday, the political trial against Geert Wilders started. While the court earlier already denied Wilders the majority of his witnesses, it allowed only three out of eighteen, claiming that it did not need to hear the same story multiple times, it yesterday once again showed its true (green+red=brown) colors: when Wilders announced he will appeal to his right to remain silent, the lead judge commented that it looked like Wilders lived up to his MSM reputation of posing a statement and then avoiding the debate.
A more clear demonstration of prejudice is hardly thinkable, as anyone following the debate knows that Wilders is always prepared to defend his opinions, and explain the delicacy of his position. Yesterday Wilders commented that he felt more like being in conversation with a D'66 (Democrats '66, the left wing traitor party more commonly referred to as Dhimmy'66) colleague than with an independent court. He also said he did not take back a single word, but that he was not responsible for statements he never made, but which were attributed to him by others.
A more clear demonstration of prejudice is hardly thinkable, as anyone following the debate knows that Wilders is always prepared to defend his opinions, and explain the delicacy of his position. Yesterday Wilders commented that he felt more like being in conversation with a D'66 (Democrats '66, the left wing traitor party more commonly referred to as Dhimmy'66) colleague than with an independent court. He also said he did not take back a single word, but that he was not responsible for statements he never made, but which were attributed to him by others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
