Lawyers ‘Scared’ to Do Their Jobs After Charges Against Palestine Action Barrister

Comments

• tedd_deireadh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  This quote really says it all.

  “It is starting to feel like it’s about the politics of the subject matter of the trial, rather than the core principles of how a barrister represents his client.”

  As an aside, this is an amazing title.

  Former shadow attorney general Baroness Shami Chakrabarti also expressed her concern about Menon’s prosecution…

  source

  • Semjeza@fedinsfw.app ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    “Shadow” means you had the role for the opposition.

    So she was the Attorney General for the opposition party, rather than the incumbent.

    Former means she is now no longer an attorney general of any sort.

    Yes, it is a great title and apologies if explaining it lessens the magic.

    source

    • tedd_deireadh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It absolutely doesn’t lessen it! Thanks for explaining!

      source
• Maeve@kbin.earth ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  That's the point, isn't it?

  source

  • Tango@piefed.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Juries can practice jury nullification if they want and nobody can stop them, but barristers aren’t supposed to suggest it. Imagine if, say, a prosecutor told an Israeli jury that they didn’t technically need evidence to arrive at a “guilty” verdict for a Palestinian defendant, just “their conscience”. Jury nullification can’t become just another trial strategy, or the whole legal system becomes worthless.

    source

    • Maeve@kbin.earth ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      This is so wildly general, I can't comment in good faith. As it stands, the whole legal system does seem to be worthless, unless one has plenty of money for legal fees and social status, and even then, as long as they are arguing the "preferred" view.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      That doesn’t really work. The right wing aggressors will always see the purpose of law is to punish their enemies (which it is). The idea that it contains a technicality for the sake of fairness that you’re literally not allowed to tell people about so its not entirely one sided is not the same.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• melsaskca@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The status chasing and money chasing establishment esquires are afraid, the freedom fighters with a law degree say “Bring that shit on you motherfuckers!”.

  source

  • Maeve@kbin.earth ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    As much as I wish that were true, it isn't. People have families and lawyers, prosecution and defense, often make enemies with potential safety consequences, plus the financial considerations you mentioned, which include legal fees, student loans, , mortgages, children to keep fed, clothed, and in school. People with regular jobs don't want to take a weekday off work for peaceful protest in designated "free speech zones" and the like (dependent on country, obviously), for fear they'll lose their jobs, face arrest and legal fees, lose their homes, much less anything like France's Yellow Vest protests or Germany's anti-nuclear waste on rails protests. But even with those instances, things I mentioned are still real risks. Britain was arresting elderly people and the United States has a long history of arresting clergy.

    source
• BrightCandle@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Really they all need to down tools until its revoked. Every one of them is risking criminal charges for doing their job, that is unacceptable.

  source
• Flamekebab@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Granted. Council, he is fined fifty pounds for turning up.

  source