Those of us who make and keep our homes here in North America (excluding Mexico), and those of the British Commonwealth, including all of Britain and Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, are very fortunate. We are fortunate to have inherited and be descendant of the fairest and most achieving societies ever known to man,
GEERT WILDERS, a Dutch Member of Parliament, has been on trial for nearly three weeks. The trial ends tomorrow. He has been before a triumvir of judges in a court of lost minds. His alleged "crime" is asking his fellow Dutchmen and woman if they wanted fewer Moroccans in Holland, and if elected, he would arrange just that. It is the duty of Parliamentarians to ask those they purportedly represent what their wills are on specific subjects and then carry out those wills.
You may read a bit here:
Wilders unapologetic as Dutch hate speech trial ends
link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/wilders-unapologetic-dutch-hate-speech-trial-ends-175311499.html
Why should we be thankful we are not in Holland? Could a trial like this not happen in our countries? It is possible, with an ignorant or crooked prosecutor, but still the outcome would have to be an acquittal. Why? What is the difference between the countries mentioned above and that of Holland, and the rest of continental Europe? If you said our constitutions you would be wrong. The difference that none seem to want to reveal in public is we are common law societies. We are descendant of English Common Law. In our systems, there has to be an injured party come forward during the trial and that party has the burden to prove they suffered an injury. In our glorious system, when the defendant rises and says "Who is the injured party?", the Public prosecutor's case collapses as the Public prosecutor can not testify. At that point the Public prosecutor is the one doing the injury. In Wilders' case above, the absurdity is the alleged victim has never set foot on Dutch soil and is not even known!
And so, we are truly thankful we are not caught up in such a foolish maze of none sense called "Civil Law" such as our European brothers and sisters suffer themselves to.
GEERT WILDERS, a Dutch Member of Parliament, has been on trial for nearly three weeks. The trial ends tomorrow. He has been before a triumvir of judges in a court of lost minds. His alleged "crime" is asking his fellow Dutchmen and woman if they wanted fewer Moroccans in Holland, and if elected, he would arrange just that. It is the duty of Parliamentarians to ask those they purportedly represent what their wills are on specific subjects and then carry out those wills.
You may read a bit here:
Wilders unapologetic as Dutch hate speech trial ends
link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/wilders-unapologetic-dutch-hate-speech-trial-ends-175311499.html
Why should we be thankful we are not in Holland? Could a trial like this not happen in our countries? It is possible, with an ignorant or crooked prosecutor, but still the outcome would have to be an acquittal. Why? What is the difference between the countries mentioned above and that of Holland, and the rest of continental Europe? If you said our constitutions you would be wrong. The difference that none seem to want to reveal in public is we are common law societies. We are descendant of English Common Law. In our systems, there has to be an injured party come forward during the trial and that party has the burden to prove they suffered an injury. In our glorious system, when the defendant rises and says "Who is the injured party?", the Public prosecutor's case collapses as the Public prosecutor can not testify. At that point the Public prosecutor is the one doing the injury. In Wilders' case above, the absurdity is the alleged victim has never set foot on Dutch soil and is not even known!
And so, we are truly thankful we are not caught up in such a foolish maze of none sense called "Civil Law" such as our European brothers and sisters suffer themselves to.
