Monday, 19 July 2010

Politicizing the Courts

This is an update regarding the British court case in which the judge ruled activists who damaged private property should not be found guilty because they were preventing future'Israeli war crimes.'

Jonathan Hoffman has an excellent (and detailed) write up based on the court transcripts over at CifWatch. If you can spare a few moments to read even part of the text I highly recommend it.

The Judge is clearly telling the Jury that he regards Osmond as a hero. He compares him to the suffragettes, clearly identifies him with Burke’s “good men” and admires the way that Osmond “puts himself in harm’s way to protect others” (Osmond was formerly in the disputed territories with ISM). He even suggests that Osmond deserves the George Medal (this ranks second to only the Victoria Cross in awards for bravery in the UK). This is a highly confused analogy. Is Bathurst-Norman suggesting that someone who attacked a British armaments factory during World War Two deserved the George Medal? Or rather someone who threw themselves in the path of a British tank? Or maybe in the path of a German tank? Whatever the Judge meant, it has no place in a British Court of Law, because it is a deliberately emotional statement designed for one reason and one reason only: to vilify Israel.