Wednesday, 15 March 2017
Gems of sorts!
Italy,
February 10, 2017 www.timesof
Israel.com
In a case dating back to March 2013, during a soccer match between Lazio and Catania, two fans of the Lazio
soccer team were filmed chanting
“giallorosso ebreo” (yellow-red Jew)-apparently directed to the Catania
team. The chant refers to Lazio’s archrival Roma, whose team colours are yellow
and red.
The
militant Lazio fans are notorious for anti-Semitic and racist behaviour. Just
weeks before this incident European soccer authorities sanctioned Lazio for
earlier anti-Semitic behaviour by fans with a suspended one game stadium ban.
In his ruling, Judge Ezio Damizia acquitted
the pair of incitement to and racial hatred, saying the term “giallorosso ebreo”
was aimed simply at ridiculing the opposing team and fell within the scope of
the long “sporting rivalry” between Lazio and Roma
Question: On
the basic same facts, save for the phrase in issue; now “Redblack [the name of
the Ottawa's football team] Jew”, how would a Canadian judge decide the case?
Germany, January
13, 2017, the Algemeiner
A
German regional court affirmed a lower court decision that a July 2014 attempt
by three Muslim men to burn down a Wuppertal synagogue constituted criticism of
Israel, rather than anti-Semitism.
According
to a Jerusalem Post report, the lower court ruling that was affirmed found that
the three German Palestinian perpetrators of the arson attempt wanted to “draw
attention” to Operation Protective Edge – the Israel’s 50-day military campaign
against terrorist groups in the Gaza strip- and were not motivated by hatred of
Jews when they hurled Molotov cocktails at the synagogue, causing 800 euros of
damages. The accused’s reward, ops! I mean punishment was suspended sentences.
Question:
Would a Canadian judge reach the same conclusion and administer the same
sentences?
France, February
22,201, JTA
Hate
crime charges have been dropped in the 2014 case of four men suspected of rape
and robbery at a Paris suburban home they acknowledged was targeted because it
belonged to Jews.
The
Magistrate responsible for conducting the investigative hearing that precedes a
criminal trial decided against including hate crime charges although his
predecessor on the case had included these charges in the draft indictment
notwithstanding the fact that the victims testified that the assailants hurled
anti-Semitic insults at them.
Question: Is
this a proper case for charging the magistrate as accessory to the hate crime?
No comments:
Post a Comment