I hope by now, dear readers, you have concluded that the recent Small Claims Court trial was a farce, and interesting mostly as an exercise is seeing Tolerism in action, and substantiating my views in the last few chapters of my internet book, Second Generation Radical. It was also useful as a form of pre-Trial discovery (assuming there will be a trial de novo at the Divisional Court), to bring the issues into sharper focus.
Were the employees of Chapters who watched silently while I was verbally attacked and shouted down by Islamists really any different ethically from the Germans who watched silently as the Nazis rounded up Jews? Yes, readers I see the principle being the same, although the degree is much less dangerous at this time and thank G-d, we are today not in such dire straights (yet...but if the Islamists were in charge, what then?)
Should Mantua appeal? How much is it worthwhile paying a lawyer? Should I pay this myself (Mantua's revenue from book sales doesn't meet the anticipated legal bill), or should I launch a campaign for a legal fund? I am a little tired of this (and it surely tries my good wife's patience) but we know how important is the principle at stake.
Please give me your thoughts.
Here is the comment from one good person:
|
newbury on 'The Court Decision'
|
||
|
Appeal the decision. Under the Courts of Justice Act, s.31 an appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a final order of the Small Claims Court in an action for the payment of money in excess of $500.00. Yours was such an action. The appeal is heard by a single judge (s. 21(2) of the Divisional Court, which means a Superior Court justice. And such appeals are heard de novo. In other words the appeal is a brand new trial. Although a Small Claims judge has a lot of discretion as to admission of evidence, the admission of affidavits, from people who could appear to testify, and the acceptance of the truth of the matters set out therein, when you could not cross-examine and your testimony is contradictory, seems to be an exercise in indiscretion. And finding YOU equally liable/responsible for repeating back the insult thrown at you is quite literally unbelievable....I guess you should not have said 'You can't call me a fucking Jew', you should have said 'You are a fucking jihadi terrorist'. At least, then, to the extent that it is not an insult, it is actually true |