The judge interrupted several times in the first few sentences, telling Olax that references to Genocide were inadmissible. Court security were then ordered to remove Olax to the cells, and the judge summed up the case and sent the jury away to deliberate without the defendant present.
Unusually, Olax was not even returned to the court to hear the verdict.
Hmmm yes much legal system, very justice.
“Israel is committing genocide” is not relevant to a charge of criminal damage. English law does not recognise “I was protesting something grievously wrong” as a general defence, and nor should it - so trying to lead the jury to be sympathetic because they agree with your message instead of finding according to the law would indeed be unjust.
EDIT: if you’re going to add yet another biting and insightful one-line reply, include with it an explanation in your own words of why a judge can exclude evidence in a trial, and whether you disagree that that’s a good thing or if not, why this differs.
nor should it
Hard disagree there. How to create such a system is a separate question though, that much I will grant.
would indeed be unjust
It wouldn’t be “correct” in the application of the law. That wouldn’t make it unjust necessarily. Law is not the same as justice, it’s just our best effort.
But it is our best effort. I don’t think even an abstract concept of justice is served by taking into account political motivation for your actions unless you apply the principle blindly. Do you think someone spraying right-wing slogans like “deport all migrants” or “traitors” or just “fuck you” on RNLI buildings should be off the hook because they think there’s an existential threat to the country from a trickle of refugees? Do you think they should be allowed to bring up those beliefs in court?
Besides assigning consequences to bad actions, justice must in the first instance be fair. I see no fair way to privilege motivations that I sympathise with (anti-Israeli-genocide) but not ones that I find detestable (anti-immigrant).
