It's your opinion that calling for jury nullification constitutes hate speech, in a legal sense for some of the jurisdictions mentioned? Because without that assumption it's not an article on the exact topic.
More importantly is that the LW admins opinion? They don't mention hate speech but they mention threats of violence. But their post is ambiguous on what exactly the issue is with advocating for jury nullification.
Nobody is saying a person should be shot. They are saying a jury should not convict the perpetrator even if he is guilty. You are claiming that Dutch law equates the two, despite not being a legal expert.
But that is not even my question, which you cannot answer if you are not related to LW admins or a psychic. Did they base their policy towards jury nullification to legal advice or not? Did they even base it on their own layman understanding of the laws or is it just their discretion?
Their statement is murky, in my opinion purposely so, in order to deflect criticism for their choice to censor posts 'celebrating' violence. It's their right to do so but so is mine and other's to criticize them for it and especially for presenting it as an issue of lack of free speech in the EU.
You are taking for granted that that advocating for jury nullification is advocating for the actual crime to be committed. But you are not a legal expert.
Is advocating for lower sentences for some crimes illegal? Would calling for legalization of drug use constitute a crime?
That jury nullification does not exist in Dutch law is not in favor of it being interpreted as advocacy t commit a crime.
It was a combination of some infrastructure being offline (a VOR beacon) thus requiring a different procedure that was not followed correctly.
I don't believe the pilots ever considered they had crossed into Soviet airspace, they were probably unaware of any deviation from their flight plan.
Nor was there any contact with Soviet forces. Were they ordered to leave the airspace would significantly change the share of blame making the pilots criminal and letting the Soviets off easily.
The intercept claims to have tried to have fired warning shots but admits they were not really visible in the night. I think that if he flown directly in front of them, they would notice if not visually the turbulence. But the decision seems to have been taken that it was not a civilian plane at a higher level and the identification part of the intercept a formality. Apparently they had actually missed intercepting some actual spy planes recently and they had to save face.
Firstly act of wars do not necessarily, in fact usually, do no lead to full blown war. Iran and Israel launched missiles at each other recently and they did not go to full blown war, does that mean that both of those acts were not in-fact act of wars but perfectly normal behavior?
I presume you are referring to KAL-007 (as when MH-17 happened the Russian proxies were already at war with Ukraine). It was the Soviet Union and it didn't shoot it down for violating an imaginary ADIZ but after twice overflying Soviet territory. It's disputed whether the plane did manage to exit Soviet airspace after the second overfly but it not relevant, the SU justification was always that it crossed in their territory not that it entered a unilaterally declared ADIZ.
Why? China also has an ADIZ which just like S.Korea's and every ADIZ is based on bullshit not on international law. China will also "intercept" aka fly planes alongside and whine about Korean "aggression".
ADIZ violations are not real. Actually trying to enforce one by shooting down planes would be an unprovoked act of war.
Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
OP's claim was that official call anti-zionist Jews 'allegedly Jewish' (ostensibly actually, a synonym) and that they decided if they are "bad" or "good" Jews. It seems obvious to me from the choice of words as well as the punctuation he is not referring to official acts but bias of the official. Which may well affect their official decisions.
If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.
Are the communities not the ones referred to by the commissioner in his defense? That makes them relevant. If the article is wrong that you have to be part of such a community to be "officially" Jewish it's irrelevant, the issue is that the commissioner tried to defend his position by appealing to them.
You are much quicker to attack the OP, the article, me than the commissioner.
You could perhaps read the first part as that, a matter of % of Jewish people in an organization rather than one of 'true' Jewishness of the members identifying as Jews. Your reading is very generous to him.
But from the second commend it's obvious it's the latter. He is attacking the Jewishness of Jewish members of that organization. That he does it en mass does not make it better.
I don't have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion. It is not relevant that it is wrong. The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.
Blume was embroiled in a small scandal after he referred to Jüdische Stimme as “ostensibly Jewish” on Twitter
Blume demurred, claiming that, while he was happy to accept anyone’s self-definition as Jewish as a matter of personal religious freedom, he was not sure whether the group’s members counted as members of the Jewish religious communities that are legal partners of the German state
In Germany, membership in religious communities is regulated by state-designated institutions, meaning that to be officially Jewish, one must join the Jüdische Gemeinde, the state-affiliated Jewish community
A requirement to assume a major office a person has been elected to should be part of the constitution. Otherwise Biden would not have been in power for sure, perhaps not even Obama.
They need to ban them from forking the browser. Google has the ability to get people to install the new Google totally-not-chrome browser. Especially if they keep Android as well.
It's your opinion that calling for jury nullification constitutes hate speech, in a legal sense for some of the jurisdictions mentioned? Because without that assumption it's not an article on the exact topic.
More importantly is that the LW admins opinion? They don't mention hate speech but they mention threats of violence. But their post is ambiguous on what exactly the issue is with advocating for jury nullification.