There is no serious way to defend yourself against this, as the Public Prosecutor will use the 'Total Toxicity Score' as his 'evidence', instead of going over all the supposedly toxic quotes.
Then there is no need to defend yourself, because the 'public prosecutor' hasn't proven his case.
These people should be jailed for life after a fair trial. Not this guy, but the 'public prosecutor' and any 'judge' who go along with it.
Your argument’s fatal flaw lies in its attempt to employ logic and reason against people who are ruled by emotion and “feminine” energy. People who smile and wave “immigrants welcome” banners as their cathedrals burn and their rape rates skyrocket, people who can barely mount a lacklustre rebuttal to JD Vance without bursting into tears on the world stage.
Weak men are the most dangerous, and Europe is infested with (and ruled by) them.
The US founding fathers were hands down the strongest and smartest human beings who ever lived, they were 100% correct on everything they ever said or wrote about the old world. It’s fucking doomed.
you misunderstand the european courts. Assumption of innocence and the burden of proof are not actually tenants of continental european legal systems. In fact, the defendant has an equal obligation to prove his innocence to the prosecutions obligation to demonstrate guilt in many european courts--and the european unions courts are even worse. They don't have Habeas Corpus, and place the burden of proof nearly entirely on the defendant, especially in speech cases.
the defendant has an equal obligation to prove his innocence to the prosecutions obligation to demonstrate guilt in many european courts
That's simply not true. Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of the laws of European countries, at least on paper.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Article 6.2 ECHR (which let's be real, is trash)
They don't have Habeas Corpus
That's because it's a term from common law, and European countries have civil (Roman) law.
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Article 6.1 ECHR
However, the problem is that the judges are nearly all hard-left radicals, who will twist the law as much as they can to persecute their opponents.
If you compare continental (EU) speech persecutions and those in Britain, Perfidious Albion is much the worse for it. The problems that we have clearly do not stem from not having common law rather than Roman law.
Thanks for the correction. No Habeus Corprus is a strong indicator of a shit legal system though. I was once tried and sentenced in an alimony case without even knowing there was a case against me :)
Then there is no need to defend yourself, because the 'public prosecutor' hasn't proven his case.
These people should be jailed for life after a fair trial. Not this guy, but the 'public prosecutor' and any 'judge' who go along with it.
Your argument’s fatal flaw lies in its attempt to employ logic and reason against people who are ruled by emotion and “feminine” energy. People who smile and wave “immigrants welcome” banners as their cathedrals burn and their rape rates skyrocket, people who can barely mount a lacklustre rebuttal to JD Vance without bursting into tears on the world stage.
Weak men are the most dangerous, and Europe is infested with (and ruled by) them.
The US founding fathers were hands down the strongest and smartest human beings who ever lived, they were 100% correct on everything they ever said or wrote about the old world. It’s fucking doomed.
Now we have “AI” capable of judging (generating a random opinion) for every reddit/twitter like.
Dystopian new world.
you misunderstand the european courts. Assumption of innocence and the burden of proof are not actually tenants of continental european legal systems. In fact, the defendant has an equal obligation to prove his innocence to the prosecutions obligation to demonstrate guilt in many european courts--and the european unions courts are even worse. They don't have Habeas Corpus, and place the burden of proof nearly entirely on the defendant, especially in speech cases.
That's simply not true. Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of the laws of European countries, at least on paper.
Article 6.2 ECHR (which let's be real, is trash)
That's because it's a term from common law, and European countries have civil (Roman) law.
Article 6.1 ECHR
However, the problem is that the judges are nearly all hard-left radicals, who will twist the law as much as they can to persecute their opponents.
If you compare continental (EU) speech persecutions and those in Britain, Perfidious Albion is much the worse for it. The problems that we have clearly do not stem from not having common law rather than Roman law.
Thanks for the correction. No Habeus Corprus is a strong indicator of a shit legal system though. I was once tried and sentenced in an alimony case without even knowing there was a case against me :)
Might I ask the approximate or precise location (depending on how doxxing-proof you are) of the country where that happened?
Basically, the only places that have habeas corpus are countries that are based on English common law, and thus magna carta.