|
Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel's deputy PM threatened with arrest for war crimes (11/6/2010 12:33:44 PM)
|
Oh dear I seem to have upset a Mr. Crazyml judging by his extremely long thread where he compares me to a dog returning to his vomit, a “jackass” etc. PMSL I imagine my previous posts where I had the nerve to disagree with Hertz’s near continuous attempts to demonise Israel distressed him somewhat. Perhaps I hurt Crazyml’s ego when he posted here before saying he made a oath to himself not to post on this silly section of the forum and I replied by saying he had just broken his own promise to himself.
Crazyml, your snobbery about posting on such a silly section is comical in the extreme. Might I return the compliment and say you are the jackass due to your clear egotism and air of affected superiority (“sigh” etc.). Forums are forums and no doubt there will be stupid contributions but also the occasional interesting one – this Collar Me section is no different in this regard so stop the bullshit. Apologies for the similarly long post in reply but it requires time to properly answer all of Crazyml’s criticisms.
I will be magnanimous and say clearly you have more knowledge of the UK courts than I have. I only lived there for a brief time. I was responding to Hertz with regard to what objections I had heard with regard to magisterial arrest warrants. Here you have greater knowledge than I so you contributed a fairly strong attack seemingly to discredit all my contributions re. Israel as you continually go on through your post about my debating skills, intellectual dishonesty etc. Therefore I would like to see you do it with the material I contributed on the other threads. I think you will find it a lot more difficult.
Crazyml: “Continuously saying that you're right isn't exactly likely to win you the argument either.” Hertz from post 14 onwards was saying continually that I am wrong, the writers of the piece in the Telegraph I linked were wrong etc. I rightly pointed out that that is no refutation. I made arguments and cited examples of why I asserted what I had asserted. I repeated those points to a varying extent, sometimes elaborating, when Hertz was simply denying the veracity of what I was saying. Whether those points are good or not is quite another matter which you subsequently take issue with. Therefore, your assertion above is really quite absurd, and perhaps even a schoolboy mud slinging debating tactic.
Crazyml: “A couple of thoughts here. Hertz doesn't need to draw on "infinite" wisdom to know more than you about this topic; Hertz just needs a little more knowledge than you. In this case, Hertz clearly does have at least a little more knowledge.” The reference to Hertz’s “infinite wisdom” is a reference to his point blank denials of facts or arguments. It is as if he is an adjudicator or judge who simply says “no” etc. He has done the same in the past on other threads when people made good points. He did the same here. Saying he clearly has more knowledge when I brought the issue of the magistrates up and backed up my claims is difficult to see as I went into greater detail about a magistrate’s role even if it was in part wrong. I was correct to say magistrates have a lowly position – the bottom of the judicial chain in the UK courts and for such people to have powers over international figures relating to alleged crimes on foreign soil is manifestly wrong. That was the thrust of my argument from the beginning.
Crazyml wrote: “You refer to the "author of the Belfast Telegraph article", implying that this "person" works with the courts and that, implicitly, they should know more than Hertz. Well, I deal with journalists all the time, especially on issues surrounding the misreporting of science and research. I can tell you from personal experience that, while there are a few really good journos, there are many that are lazy and driven by the, often political, bias of the editor/proprietor of the paper for which they write. But that doesn't apply in this case, as the "author" of the "article" to which you linked in post #11 isn't an author, but two: "Terry McCorran and Steven Jaffe". McCorran and Jaffe are co-chairs of "Northern Ireland Friends of Israel". The piece isn't even an article, it's a letter the paper. So you've either missed this point (a basic, and somewhat foolish error since you're relying up on it to make your case) or you were aware of the fact that this wasn't an article written by a journalist and you're deliberately seeking to mislead the other readers of this board. Which is it - Did you make a foolish error or were you seeking to deceive?”
Oh dear I made a slip and said it was the author of an “article”. Perhaps that is a shooting offence in whatever hole you crawl from but as I said before to Hertz, forums are not articles and neither are they thesis’. I did not say it elsewhere on the forum so your attempt to portray me as dishonest is absurd. I also provided a link to the piece which is pretty easy to access if anyone has doubts about what I said. Isn’t that right Homles? Steven Jaffe is a London based attorney http://pulsemedia.org/2009/03/19/ian-paisley-launches-northern-ireland-friends-of-israel/ with many years of experience. He is related to the well known influential politician Otto Jaffe who was Lord Mayor of Belfast from 1899 to 1916. Terry McCorran is or was until recently head of Unison, an important union, who would also have a good deal of experience with regard to UK law. I guess it was neither a “foolish error” or deception. lol
Crazyml said: “This is a schoolboy debating technique, you accuse your opponent of saying something they haven't said, that is absurd. Then in the following sentence you repeat, like a dog returning to its vomit, the same nonsense you've been promulgating throughout the thread;” Saying the person I disagree with is naïve, and inferring from what they have said about evidentiary requirements being exactly the same, is a schoolboy debating technique? Well clearly you are a master-debater. Here I was thinking it is perfectly legitimate to call someone “naïve” if you genuinely think they are and to infer a point about time spent on cases but no you have put me to rights with your oh so superior perception.
Crazyml wrote: “Really, really, this is not true. The evidential requirements are set according to the offence, not the court. Sentencing guidelines are set according to the offence, not the court. Different courts hear different types of case according to their competence. If the supreme court were to hear a case on "littering" it would apply exactly the same evidential requirements.” If that is true then all well and good. I’m quite willing to admit I am wrong if that is shown to be the case so if you can quote an official policy document then I’ll happily acknowledge it. However, even if you do so, your refutation only diverges with part of my assertion. My point was that magisterial courts typically hear relatively unimportant cases where evidential requirements are pretty low, as you note above when mentioning competence’s. That is the practice of that court where the competence is limited. Even you said below that magistrates have limited powers of issuing arrest warrants. Thus we have a court with distinctly limited powers and competence’s according to your point, issuing arrest warrants for war crimes!
Crazyml wrote: “There is a pretty comprehensive training process for magistrates in the UK, and all magistrates courts have a "clerk", who is legally qualified.” You are correct to say there is training, I never said there wasn’t but you are also conveniently glossing over the details. All magistrates get training for a three month period before sitting as judges. They do receive mentoring from more experienced magistrates to cover basic law and procedure. It’s hardly very impressive in my opinion.
Crazyml wrote: “I don't see how this can be ridiculous, the vast majority of arrest warrants issued in the uk are issued by magistrates, there is a very straightforward protocol and the standards of evidence required to issue a warrant are the same for every single court in England and Wales.” I think it is ridiculous because firstly, I believe the majority of arrest warrants are at the behest of the authorities typically with a neutral political stance, in contrast with campaigners that clearly have an axe to grind. This would inevitably make the decision making process of a magistrate more difficult. Secondly, having an unqualified individual (yes with some training), and sometimes with relatively little experience, making decisions over whether an international figure should be arrested on foreign soil for the gravest of alleged acts committed in another sovereign territory seems really bizarre. It would result in a serious diplomatic incident. That is why I said such decisions should be made by higher justices.
Crazyml: “You're doing that "school debating club" thing again - Hertz has not claimed that the different courts do not have different levels of competence. The point is that some offences do not merit the high court. The issuing of a warrant is not a complex topic.” I disagree - I said from the outset that it was wrong for magistrates to deal with such issues due to their status in the courts system. This was my chief objection. Hertz took issue with it and judging by his responses acted as if there was no substantial difference between a magistrates court and a higher court with regard to the quality of the decision making process. This can be inferred as he broadly disagreed with my posts, only in part on the issue of evidential grounds. Also the issuing of a warrant is a complex topic when petitioned by a private individual where there can very clearly be a political motivation as I explained above. BTW I never went to a "school debating club" or took any classes in it so I look on your view as a compliment.
Crazyml: “Even if your "above reason" were valid, can you explain how you can possibly infer from that that there is a correlation between this and the conviction rates. Again you're either wilfully or ignorantly misunderstanding the distinction between "complexity of the offence" and "evidentiary requirements" - Lower courts hear much simpler cases, this alone explains the higher conviction rate.” I explained why I believed lower courts have a higher conviction rate. I based this on the controversy over a decade ago where the Labour government wanted to move a substantial number of quite serious crimes to the lower courts. There were strong objections to this proposal as lower courts have a higher conviction rate. If as suggested, there was a greater possibility of wrongful decisions then it is fair to infer that their treatment of the body of evidence for cases was generally less circumspect than higher courts. If I am wrong about that then so be it but I think it is a reasonable view to arrive at. Magisterial courts can also try some serious cases as they have sentencing powers of one year which is quite substantial so your view that it is simply a matter of complexity of offence could partly be an inference.
Crazyml: “Well said! And that <drum roll please> is why lower courts hear simpler cases, and higher courts hear complex cases.” You inferred that the complexity of cases would lead to a different conviction rate. If that were the case then why would higher courts have a lower conviction rate if they have dramatically more time to sift through the evidentiary material with a lot of care? Thus, I don’t think you point completely explains why there would be a significant difference in conviction rates. It may be part of the reason but my explanation that there could be less care with evidence isn’t refuted.
Crazyml states: “They will very often hear the case at least in part before deciding to refer it to a higher court. You misunderstand their role here - they have to hear committal procedings to determine whether there is a case to answer not whether the defendant is innocent or guilty.” and “A magistrates court would ONLY issue the warrant, and conduct the committal proceedings, it would not, never, ever-ever-ever hear a war-crimes case.” I could not find any reference to magistrates having to implicitly refer these cases to higher courts, only that it requires the Attorney-General's consent to proceed with prosecution. In any case the committal proceedings you mention are part of the decision making process as to whether the individual accused of war crimes remain detained for an extended period of time until trial. They are a determination of probable guilt or innocence and have a large impact on the treatment of said individual. Thus they are in spirit similar in some respects to an official trial. For a lower justice to deliberate in this way on accusations of war crimes seems wrong IMHO.
Crazyml: wrote “They have limited powers to issue arrest warants, and limited powers to hear certain cases.” Crazyml says magistrates have limited powers to issue arrest warrants. This would appear to suggest magistrates cannot issue warrants for certain matters that are particularly serious. If true it adds credence to the point that they shouldn’t issue warrants for alleged war crimes due to the seriousness of such accusations that almost always apply to foreign regions, and their impact on foreign affairs.
Crazyml: “Magistrates are selected, interviewed, assessed and trained. These aren't people dragged out of the taxi queue and put into a court room.” I never said they were dragged out of taxi queue etc. and yes there is a vetting process. However, the point remains that they are not legal professionals. They are taken from all walks of life and first sit with only three months of training which seems low IMO.
Crazyml: wrote: “You really are very very confused.”, “Can you now see why I have the impression that you're the one doing the blustering?” and “Now, this is the pols and religion forum, so heaven knows how you're going to respond to this post. I'll be very pleasantly surprised if your response is "Thanks for the clarification, I'm sorry if I came across as a jackass" but I'm not holding my breath.” Sorry to disappoint but frankly it is evident that you have some sort of issue with the material I post beyond it being merely right or wrong or otherwise you wouldn’t be indulging in such self defeating diatribes. If the material I post concerns you then I advise you to cool it with the silly name calling, and to contact the moderators or report the posts. Who knows it may work as my posts have deleted before.
“To the OP... I completely empathise with the desire of some to force the trial (by a competent court, in one of the fairest - albeit not 100% perfect - justice systems in the world) of people who are believed to have committed war crimes. But there's a bigger picture here, if we're going to resolve the horrid dispute between Israel and Palestine, we have to engage with the leaders of both sides in a dialogue. The threat of arrest and trial of these people simply prevents that dialogue from taking place, and this makes it (in my view) against the public interest. The Israel Palestine conflict cannot be fixed by the English courts.” Many would disagree with your belief that English justice is one of the fairest in the world but that is for another discussion. The point I wish to make here is that Hertz and many other ardent pro-Palestinians are not happy with Israel existing as a Jewish state at all. In essence they believe it should not exist and as such are not pro-peace despite their assertions to the contrary. Many will have seen so-called “activists” carrying placards saying “smash Israel/Zionism” etc. They wish to demonise Israel as much as possible in an attempt to destroy it. These opinions are been expressed publicly by pro-Palestinian leaders like Omar Barghouti. The aim of the BDS movement is not to stop any oppression of Palestinians as they might put it but to destroy Israel which they see as completely illegitimate. It is in this context that the UK justice system is being used. Would it not be wonderful to see a senior Israeli politician being dragged away in handcuffs? For propaganda purposes it would work a charm for it would gain massive international coverage whilst humiliating Israel hugely.
|
|
|
|
