Moreover his so-called 3 judges of international eminence and vast experience had their identities carefully hidden, and all that is known about them is they come from Belgium, Jamaica and South Africa respectively. How bizarre to choose a judge from South Africa, which was the very state claiming genocide against Israel to the ICJ. And even more bizarre for a tribunal charged merely with determining if there was a prima facie case to answer, in order to decide whether or not to launch a full investigation, to direct itself that the proof beyond reasonable doubt test applies at that stage. It all stinks of a cover-up designed to clear Khan. This is even before the claim that Qatar is funding his legal bills and paying high-powered investigators to smear the woman.
As I reported here last month, the New York Times named them on 25 March as Paul Lemmens, a former judge in the Belgian Council of State and the European Court of Human Rights; Seymour Panton, retired president of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica; and Leona Theron, a judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa.
His strange choice of forum in which to attempt to clear himself is telling in itself. Any press outlet in the world would grasp at this opportunity, instead of which he chooses to give it to an Islamist apologist called Mehdi Hassan.
This is the problem with "victim" ideology in a nutshell. The allegations have become the "evidence". But everyone with any common sense would say an allegation is NOT evidence. But the so-called "justice system" has now made allegations equivalent to evidence where as once an allegation would have been referred to correctly as testimony. I believe and Joshua can correct me if I am wrong, when a rape complainant speaks in court it is witness testimony and not evidence?
This is the insanity of how in today's world of "me-too / victim" ideology, a man can go to prison for a crime that never occurred - because uncorroborated he-said she-said allegations could be as likely false as true, how they are evidence of anything? and what "facts" can be determined from uncorroborated he-said she-said accusations?
The whole thing is 1-sided presumption of guilt based on ideology and weaponisation of the so-called justice system mainly against men
Moreover his so-called 3 judges of international eminence and vast experience had their identities carefully hidden, and all that is known about them is they come from Belgium, Jamaica and South Africa respectively. How bizarre to choose a judge from South Africa, which was the very state claiming genocide against Israel to the ICJ. And even more bizarre for a tribunal charged merely with determining if there was a prima facie case to answer, in order to decide whether or not to launch a full investigation, to direct itself that the proof beyond reasonable doubt test applies at that stage. It all stinks of a cover-up designed to clear Khan. This is even before the claim that Qatar is funding his legal bills and paying high-powered investigators to smear the woman.
As I reported here last month, the New York Times named them on 25 March as Paul Lemmens, a former judge in the Belgian Council of State and the European Court of Human Rights; Seymour Panton, retired president of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica; and Leona Theron, a judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa.
My piece: https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/a-rules-based-order (see update)
NYT piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/world/europe/sexual-harassment-international-criminal-court-khan.html
I missed that sadly but the point remains that the ICC itself and Khan in his interview have anonymized the 3 judges.
Yes indeed. And the public might have assumed they were ICC judges, who can at least be regarded as criminal specialists.
His strange choice of forum in which to attempt to clear himself is telling in itself. Any press outlet in the world would grasp at this opportunity, instead of which he chooses to give it to an Islamist apologist called Mehdi Hassan.
This is the problem with "victim" ideology in a nutshell. The allegations have become the "evidence". But everyone with any common sense would say an allegation is NOT evidence. But the so-called "justice system" has now made allegations equivalent to evidence where as once an allegation would have been referred to correctly as testimony. I believe and Joshua can correct me if I am wrong, when a rape complainant speaks in court it is witness testimony and not evidence?
This is the insanity of how in today's world of "me-too / victim" ideology, a man can go to prison for a crime that never occurred - because uncorroborated he-said she-said allegations could be as likely false as true, how they are evidence of anything? and what "facts" can be determined from uncorroborated he-said she-said accusations?
The whole thing is 1-sided presumption of guilt based on ideology and weaponisation of the so-called justice system mainly against men