For reference, this is a good take, and prompted the below (apologies for the separate email, forgot to add it in):
Germany, Not Russia, Should Answer Questions Over Navalny Case https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germany-not-russia-should-answer-questions-over-navalny-case May righteousness one day prevail in the Western nations. On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:13:03AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Speaking of "due process" and the presumption of innocence turned upside down > - to the literal presumption of guilt put upon individuals and entire nations > - the degradation of the West, the Western judicial system, the turning > upside down of fundamental principles of justice, truth and righteousness, is > all on full display by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the USA, Britain, and > also ("of course") NATO, in this Novichok redux with Navalny. > > (If Navalny got -actually- poisoned with Novichok, that tells us Navalny was > an expendable puppet literally sacrificed for the interests of the West by > his Western handlers; it is more likely it is simply another full hoax, and > that he was not poisoned and has in some way hoaxed this "poisoning".) > > > The "most generous" view of German Chancellor Angela Merkel in this instance, > is that she is either blackmailed, or in some other way compromised - > pointing the "presumption of guilt" blame finger on Russia to create this > media spectacle, is in no way in Germany's interests, and the (alleged or > actual) poisoning of Navalny is in no way in Russia's or Putin's interests. > > > Similarly for the other foreign ministers who "weighed in" to accuse Russia > and "demand answers" blah blah blah. Compromise of some sort is within those > who conduct themselves in such evil ways (public accusations, presumtpion of > guilt, demands for "immediate action" blah blah blah). > > > And similarly for the head of NATO, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, must, > logically, likewise be either blackmailed or otherwise compromised. You > don't sell your Soul for no reason... > > > How is it that one can make such assertions (that Merkel, Stoltenberg, etc > have sold their Souls) in such confidence? > > The evidence is before us: when a Western diplomat denies to a foreign > government or denies to foreign officials, their right to be presumed > innocent, and denies them their right to due process (to be presented the > "evidence" against them, to assess and refute that evidence), then it is > clear that we are witnessing evil, despotism, an inversion of justice and the > opposite of righteousness. > > > "The West" is supposedly built on principles of justice and fairness: due > process, the right to a fair hearing, the right to be presumed innocent until > otherwise proven guilty, the right to be not slandered publicly, and more. > > The reality, for whatever reasons, is that Western diplomats (who these days > are mostly anything BUT diplomatic, let alone righteous), sacrifice > righteousness, sacrifice justice, and presume guilt without presentment of > evidence, and they do all this on the alter (from the most generous possible > interpretation) of political expediency. > > This sacrifice of righteousness and sacrifice of justice (supposed "Western" > principles), is evil. We are witnessing evil in action. > > So, we witness evil actions, we witness evil words, and we suffer evil > consequences. > > > We are witnessing these precise actual evils, in the current hoax of > Navalny's hoaxed (or possible actual but no less indicting of the West) > poisoning with "Novichok". > > And because we witness each of these inversions of truth, righteousness and > justice, and we witness these evils, and these evils are done by Western > diplomats, we can see that "our" Western diplomats have become evil in their > conduct. And so "our" diplomats, our "leaders", are in fact a blight upon > the West, a blight upon us, a curse which we must remove. > > > It is sad for the West that "our" "leaders" conduct themselves in such evil > ways, speak such evil words, and treat our Russian brothers with such evil. > > The inversion of justice, the inversion of righteousness, the inversion of > truth - all these things are evil, they are abhorrent to the plain thinking > man who seeks righteousness, truth and justice. > > > The most generous possible justification of this Western evil, is "mere > political expediency". > > Political expediency is the most generous interpretation we can make of these > evils. > > In every case, this evil conduct by our Western "leaders", is abhorrent. > > This evil behaviour, implies hidden forces and implies compromises unseen - > possibly blackmails, possibly enticements (money, power), possibly merely > base greed and opportunism, possibly combinations of these evils. > > > By God Russia has the right to protect her interests in the face of Western > evil! > > In the face of the many evils of the West, we pray and pray again that Russia > does indeed protect her interests! > > May the Russian people be released from their Western constitutional chains. > > May the Russian people be spared further Western evil. > > > The interests of the West, of us all, includes most fundamentally, the > upholding of righteousness, the upholding of truth, and the upholding of > justice. > > We must rid our nations and ourselves of the evils within. > > > We must drain the swamp. > > > > > > > I am presently writing submissions in reply for a case in which the right to > > be heard (in a court case) is being demanded (by the team I am on, against > > the state), and it looks particularly challenging (read, low probability of > > success) due to the entrenched statute law which is quite explicit in this > > case. Nonetheless, in this case, the question must be asked (something like > > "when there is both a law and a regulation, each allowing the self > > represented person to appeal on an issue of "was due process afforded", and > > he chooses the law but did not know the regulation, but the law denies an > > appeal whereas the regulation allows it, should that self represented person > > be denied his right to rehearing just because he did not know the > > regulation, > > but the law section he chose by default says 'if you use this section, you > > don't get a rehearing'?").
