Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde, who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl, won his second match at the Paris Olympics and received an even harsher reaction from the crowd on Wednesday than for his first match.
Really? You want vigilantism and lynching? Do you think that might possibly go wrong at some point?
I think it’s a little different than typical vigilantism when he’s convicted and demonstrably used his privilege to get out of it, much less when he’s in the Olympics representing his nation (of child rapists, apparently, thus the government officials defending his right to get children drunk and rape them).
You are right that France isn’t the place to do it though, the French pedophilic cabal that has infiltrated the government is their Supreme Court.
“A little different.” This time. What about all the other times? What if it’s a member of the French supreme court that it turns out that, despite you thinking they’re a pedophile, they aren’t actually a pedophile?
I mean if they’re high in the judiciary they’re already guilty of something. It’s like billionaires, you know? Probably best to just get rid of the lot. Safer.
Or are they one of the ones stopping the corruption from spreading, but the lynch mob was convinced by the corrupt one that they were the real pedophile?
Also, black people were regularly accused of that in the U.S. during the era when lynchings were common.
If they’re in the supreme court, they are the corruption.
(BTW, I don’t agree with lynching alleged or sentenced pedophiles, just wanted to get in my little jabs at the court)
Seems to me like a supreme court is kind of needed. So how do you have one if everyone on it is automatically corrupt?
Some kind of institution with final decision making ability for disputes is needed, yes.
How would I have it structured? Something along these lines:
I’m not an expert and these aren’t exhaustive or anything, just a few ideas. Obviously the rules shouldn’t be decided by a single person, they should be decided by consensus.
Wouldn’t that require everyone to have extensive knowledge of the laws of the land? There’s a reason people go to law school for years. You can’t simplify a nation’s laws enough to have your system unless there was only one law and it was ‘whatever the kind says is illegal is illegal.’ You couldn’t even establish proper courtroom procedure that way because everyone would have to know what is and isn’t legally permissible.