Up to eleven times Oriol Junqueras said, active or passive, that he is a pacifist and that there was no violence in the fall of 2017.
The problem with these affirmations is that they convince those who know him for a long time, even if they disagree with him. Oriol J. is not violent.
But - in case of trial - if those proclamations do not submit to the principle of contradiction, to the contrast of the evidence, to the verification of the court, they only convince by religious or empathic way. And the judges are not priests or friendly debaters.
This is the key issue of this view. Or there was violence. And enough violence to configure the great possible crime to be examined. Or there was not, and there was no rebellion. For that reason, the ex-Minister of Interior Quim Forn, in the hands of lawyer Javier Melero, was much more successful in this nuclear issue.
He dared to face the prosecutor, sharp people. And he obtained that the presiding magistrate Manuel Marchena took out to him this -suaviter in mode- six yellow cards, for ethereal or extemporaneous questions.
And then he showed off data. It will cost the prosecution to destroy their story in the testimonies. Well, although with very good passages, he did not use lyrics, but official papers.
Unless proven otherwise, he documented that the Mossos were the only police force that prepared a plan of action before the referendum on time. And that the general command, Colonel Perez de los Cobos, suppressed the four coordination meetings of the same 1-O.
Also that not only the magistrate of the Catalan High Court demanded that the police work be deployed "without affecting the normal citizen coexistence". He did, in addition, in writing, the Secretary of State for the Interior, José Antonio Nieto, to claim 29-S prioritize the "security" of citizens to the "efficiency" in dissolving them.
In short, he established the presumption (contrary to that of the prosecutors) that the Mossos complied. If that ends up being sculpted as official truth, the criminal type of rebellion based on which there was a political use of an armed force (the Mossos) that due to their inaction and potential violence contributed to culminate the illegality, will be touched.
In return, both acknowledged in mute having incurred disobedience. Junqueras, because when he drew up his budgets, "the referendum" was not, then, "prohibited". And because although it was suspended by the Constitutional Court (TC), the Government "had the obligation to protect citizens in their right to vote." Forn, because he received a TC request, although "only one".
After all, disobedience is, in terms of a religious standard, a venial sin. And rebellion, on the other hand, mortal sin.
There was also a slogan rhetoric: "Voting is not a crime," Junqueras argued. Well, then, nor make money or have sex.
It depends on how it is done.
The problem with these affirmations is that they convince those who know him for a long time, even if they disagree with him. Oriol J. is not violent.
But - in case of trial - if those proclamations do not submit to the principle of contradiction, to the contrast of the evidence, to the verification of the court, they only convince by religious or empathic way. And the judges are not priests or friendly debaters.
This is the key issue of this view. Or there was violence. And enough violence to configure the great possible crime to be examined. Or there was not, and there was no rebellion. For that reason, the ex-Minister of Interior Quim Forn, in the hands of lawyer Javier Melero, was much more successful in this nuclear issue.
He dared to face the prosecutor, sharp people. And he obtained that the presiding magistrate Manuel Marchena took out to him this -suaviter in mode- six yellow cards, for ethereal or extemporaneous questions.
And then he showed off data. It will cost the prosecution to destroy their story in the testimonies. Well, although with very good passages, he did not use lyrics, but official papers.
Unless proven otherwise, he documented that the Mossos were the only police force that prepared a plan of action before the referendum on time. And that the general command, Colonel Perez de los Cobos, suppressed the four coordination meetings of the same 1-O.
Also that not only the magistrate of the Catalan High Court demanded that the police work be deployed "without affecting the normal citizen coexistence". He did, in addition, in writing, the Secretary of State for the Interior, José Antonio Nieto, to claim 29-S prioritize the "security" of citizens to the "efficiency" in dissolving them.
In short, he established the presumption (contrary to that of the prosecutors) that the Mossos complied. If that ends up being sculpted as official truth, the criminal type of rebellion based on which there was a political use of an armed force (the Mossos) that due to their inaction and potential violence contributed to culminate the illegality, will be touched.
In return, both acknowledged in mute having incurred disobedience. Junqueras, because when he drew up his budgets, "the referendum" was not, then, "prohibited". And because although it was suspended by the Constitutional Court (TC), the Government "had the obligation to protect citizens in their right to vote." Forn, because he received a TC request, although "only one".
After all, disobedience is, in terms of a religious standard, a venial sin. And rebellion, on the other hand, mortal sin.
There was also a slogan rhetoric: "Voting is not a crime," Junqueras argued. Well, then, nor make money or have sex.
It depends on how it is done.
His mystical story may soften if you forget the trampled rights of millions of non-independents.
The strategy is lame: he claims only of the "democratic principle" and not of "legality".
If one fails, democracy fails.
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment