The Circus of Justice

Many things have been said about this symbol. At least, I’ve been told many meanings of it.

To the most depraved, well, we that are NOT that depraved can easily see in which direction simplicity might take imagination. Did I just call you a pervert? No, I won’t apologise because I thought the same, one time or another.

As said, that is simplicity. There are other ways to look at it. For example, I’ve heard that it's about feminine and masculine energies, although I was never told where which category each color represented. Only that black was bad. Mean, evil, bad. White, good, pure.

Never have I been told why is black related with negativity. It’s just a colour, or scientifically, the absence of it. Nothing else, nothing more. Yet, we each have a dark (bad) side and there are white (good) witches.

Bigoted social mind-formatting that we all are victims of, exploiting the fear that darkness instills in us.

Yes, I could go racial, using the same bigotry. Out of all, for me, the best explanation/interpretation for this symbol is the one that states that the more you’re something the nearer you are to become its exact opposite.

Place yourself in the circle, rotating along its edge, and you can check that whenever you’re placed where the color is largest, it’s also where you’re nearer to its opposite. This identifies quite clearly where Portuguese Justice stands.

Written by so many so-called intellectuals with the clear intent of it being more humane, just and fairest of all, it has ended up exactly the opposite of that.

Linking this to the trial about Gonçalo Amaral’s book, let’s look at the hard facts. Free of any reason outside the theoretical model.

An event happened, a child disappeared. Killed, abducted, whatever. The adequate party, the Portuguese Legal System, BASED ON WHAT IS KNOWN, came OFFICIALLY to the conclusion that there was NO wrong-doing or ill-faith, and thus decided to stop at once any further expenditure of its resources on the subject, or, for the common human being, archived the process, ceasing any investigation until NEW evidence is presented that is to justify the re-use of the aforementioned resources.

Somebody then publishes a book, with THE SAME information that IS KNOWN, that basically contradicts the above findings, conclusions, and most important, decisions.

That person is obviously challenging the legal establishment. Its then legitimate for the system to react and defend itself, as it's assumed that the referred system is right as it is the one that has set the whole rules in the first place.

Forget about the McCanns. Imagine that YOU were WRONGLY charged with shoplifting. The Police, after investigating thoroughly, found out that there wasn’t any evidence to support the charges against YOU.

Somebody then decides to publish a book where YOU are accused of the referred shoplifting. For Justice, before its blindfolded eyes, somebody (YOU) is being accused, privately, of what she, Justice, whilst representing adequately society, already has examined and decided upon that there should be NO accusation.

Based on this rationale, the McCann claim is quite legitimate. And, as is written, the Portuguese Justice has to attend to it, as it has. And most likely condemn Amaral accordingly. I see no other option, praying that I'm wrong.

Otherwise the establishment will have to recognize that, with the KNOWN INFORMATION, it decided wrongly. And will have to explain why. A big no, no.

The book in question contains no lies. From the author, that is. Us, who’ve read it, know that it’s quite clarifying in a very polite and peaceful way. The truth is easy to explain. The lies are all imbedded upstream, where they should have never been in the first place. But are.

The McCanns have exploited this very well. They know all too well (one cannot help wondering how and why...) the flaws of the system and explore them to the limit. Example of that is Portuguese “justice secret”. Nothing is more ridiculous. Created to protect the investigation, has ended up, instead, protecting, in a completely legal manner, the criminals no matter how big a crime they have committed.

No one has used it this mechanism as well as the Jekyll & Hyde from Rothley have. I dare say that without it, the scum would have lost right off from square one.

Another ridiculous legal mechanism is this thing called "injuction". The Portuguese Legal System is so inefficient that, by its creation, recognizes, all on its own, its total inability to provide what it is supposed to provide: Justice. Basically, all it says is: “we cannot provide you with a timely answer for your problem, but in case that we LATER find out that you are guilty we'll start condemning you as of NOW”.

That’s presumption of guilt in system supposed to protect the presumption of innocence to the utmost.

If, like I hope, the Court finds no reason to stop the sale of the book, nobody will assume the losses of sales between the time of the injunction and of the final decision. That's unjust.

If it finds reason to condemn, nothing justifies this preemptive condemning action. Unjust it is.

The Legal System in any society exists to demonstrate, in clear and concise terms, to its every single member that any and all infringement of the set rules, by itself, will be sanctioned accordingly, adequately and with justice.

The Portuguese have tried so hard to reach this end-state, that they have reached exactly the opposite.

The message sent out from the McCann case is quite clear: YES, YOU MAY KILL YOUR OWN CHILD. If this isn’t perverse, I don’t know what is.

This unintentional James Bond's kind of licence to kill is, whatever consequences I may suffer with the statement, the blunt truth. You just have to have the right friends. Ask any Portuguese about what they think, and that is the answer you’ll get. They may not put it as bluntly as I, but, bottom line, that’s what they’ll say.

And that’s why the McCanns felt the need to enter the Court through the side door. They know exactly what the Portuguese think of them. They know that the Portuguese had access to the information they desperately are trying to hide.

This said, I don’t condemn the ongoing Court procedures. It's just something the Law allows, and nobody is jumping the fence here. What I do condemn is the fact that it's allowed what is allowed.

It’s sad that Humanity having overcome two millenniums and a decade, placed a man on the moon, elected a black man as President of its most powerful nation, is still discussing a content of a book. Any book. Be it Salman Rushdie or José Saramago. Or Gonçalo Amaral. Very sad. Specially if you’re a part of the system that is doing it.

ANY country, in this day and age, should be ashamed to be discussing the legality of the content of any book (I’m obviously excluding child-pornography and those incentivizing violence and terrorism).

But, on the disgraceful scale, Portugal is, in my opinion, wrongly discussing it, while in UK it is being hidden. Much worse, and completely absurd. This is what justice has become:
 
Post Scriptum – Where is the linkage, that I cannot see, about Maddie, the “abducted” child, and a "state secret"? Specially when, for the common citizen, there is none between the child, its parents, its parent’s friends, anybody else around the child and whichever state.

So, as it has been requested, it’s completely pertinent to be assumed as FACT that THERE IS a connection. One that only a privileged few know what it is.

So, subsequent FACT is that only a privileged few know what exactly happened. And cannot speak about it. As an assumption, one could imagine that Maddie was abducted to jeopardize UK’s national interests and is this state now being blackmailed by the kidnappers. Or should I say, TERRORISTS. No,

I’m not being delusional. This is the only way I can honestly link Maddie with any possible “national security”, using the abduction crap.

If somebody knows any other way, please do enlighten me. Things are so self-evident that only the willing blind PRETEND not to see. And for these there isn't any medical miracle that can give them the eyesight that they don't wish to have anyway.

Yes, the King walks stark naked, and yet it's insisted, endlessly, that the cloth was handmade by the most skilled craftsmen.