By Hilbert Haar
Democracy does not magically appear; you have to work for it, or, as the saying goes, if everybody plays by the rules, democracy works. Unfortunately, democracy is under pressure, not only in the United States but elsewhere in the world as well. The alternative is right around the corner: fascism.
Fascists ignore the constitution; they ridicule science and the independence of the judicial system, and they smother journalism and freedom of expression. Fair trials? Forget it.
Though I have not cast a vote in more than thirty years, I am a democrat at heart, even though I know that democracy is not a foolproof system. But if the threat of fascism is the alternative, give me democracy any day.
Call me naïve, but I firmly believe that our judicial system is fair and balanced. Sure, sometimes I wonder about the outcome of a court case – an acquittal, a sentence that is too low or too high, you name it. Then I remind myself that I have no legal training and that judges, most of the time, know best.
I know for a fact that a guilty verdict requires only one thing; irrefutable proof. If the prosecution cannot present that proof, a defendant walks. Fair enough. If you cannot prove that a crime was committed, there was no crime in the first place. Simple as that.
This is why I read with astonishment an analysis of the verdict in the Zebec case. You cannot pick and choose from an eleven-page ruling the parts that support your twisted opinion. Or maybe the opinion is influenced, to put it mildly, by the one who did end up with the short straw, in this case the unforgettable Theo Heyliger.
I read that verdict not once, but a least three times and I have no problem with the court’s conclusion that the evidence of wrongdoing by Heyliger is clear as a bell. No question about it.
Is it then proper to question why the court did not sentence other players in the Zebec-case? I think that you can only do that if you have irrefutable evidence, stuff that holds up in court, of wrongdoing by those other parties.
If you don’t have that proof, you should not ask questions that positions the one who did get sentenced as an innocent victim. Because, like it or not, irrefutable proof is the basis for that sentence.
Suggesting that the judicial system is rigged against public figures, like politicians or former politicians, smells like gnawing at the foundation of what makes our judicial system something to be proud of. We don’t have trials with a predetermined outcome. For heaven;s sake, we a not living in Russia here. I am not claiming that we don’t have judges that can be bought. This is of course always possible, but I think that in our system it is highly unlikely that this could happen without anybody noticing.
Enough of this. My kind suggestion to those who ask questions for the sole purpose of disqualifying a sentence for no good reason is this: tell the public where your bread is coming from, present irrefutable proof for the basis of your questions, or ask no questions at all.
###
Related article: Heyliger sentenced to pay $92 million to project developer Zebec
###
ADVERTISEMENT
