Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde, who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl, won his second match at the Paris Olympics and received an even harsher reaction from the crowd on Wednesday than for his first match.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42 months ago

    I think it’s a little different than typical vigilantism when he’s convicted and demonstrably used his privilege to get out of it, much less when he’s in the Olympics representing his nation (of child rapists, apparently, thus the government officials defending his right to get children drunk and rape them).

    You are right that France isn’t the place to do it though, the French pedophilic cabal that has infiltrated the government is their Supreme Court.

    • Flying SquidM
      link
      English
      -22 months ago

      “A little different.” This time. What about all the other times? What if it’s a member of the French supreme court that it turns out that, despite you thinking they’re a pedophile, they aren’t actually a pedophile?

      • @sandbox
        link
        English
        -22 months ago

        I mean if they’re high in the judiciary they’re already guilty of something. It’s like billionaires, you know? Probably best to just get rid of the lot. Safer.

        • Flying SquidM
          link
          English
          5
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Or are they one of the ones stopping the corruption from spreading, but the lynch mob was convinced by the corrupt one that they were the real pedophile?

          Also, black people were regularly accused of that in the U.S. during the era when lynchings were common.

          • @sandbox
            link
            English
            -12 months ago

            If they’re in the supreme court, they are the corruption.

            (BTW, I don’t agree with lynching alleged or sentenced pedophiles, just wanted to get in my little jabs at the court)

            • Flying SquidM
              link
              English
              22 months ago

              Seems to me like a supreme court is kind of needed. So how do you have one if everyone on it is automatically corrupt?

              • @sandbox
                link
                English
                12 months ago

                Some kind of institution with final decision making ability for disputes is needed, yes.

                How would I have it structured? Something along these lines:

                • The body itself is entirely transparent with all meetings and matters of discussion open to the public
                • The body makes decisions by consensus
                • The body is created to deal with a single issue and immediately disbanded thereafter.
                • No single person can serve on such a body more than once.
                • The members of the body are chosen by some kind of open, democratic process.
                • There are otherwise no restrictions, requirements, or limitations upon the capacity of who can be on such a body (e.g. no age requirements, no citizenship requirements, etc.)

                I’m not an expert and these aren’t exhaustive or anything, just a few ideas. Obviously the rules shouldn’t be decided by a single person, they should be decided by consensus.

                • Flying SquidM
                  link
                  English
                  -12 months ago

                  Wouldn’t that require everyone to have extensive knowledge of the laws of the land? There’s a reason people go to law school for years. You can’t simplify a nation’s laws enough to have your system unless there was only one law and it was ‘whatever the kind says is illegal is illegal.’ You couldn’t even establish proper courtroom procedure that way because everyone would have to know what is and isn’t legally permissible.

                  • @sandbox
                    link
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    No, not really - these kinds of decisions would be more along the lines of finding a fair resolution to a dispute, rather than the interpretation of specific law. That sort of thing is done with the intent to oppress, rather than remediate.

                    We basically have this system already for lots of crimes in certain legal systems based on the commonwealth, it’s called a jury.