CLEAN : Former HSBC employee accused of economic espionage holds presser

The speaker discusses the right to oppose laws one disagrees with and explains their decision not to attend a trial involving a bank that avoided judgment by paying. They emphasize that their stance is not emotional or ideological but a personal contestation of the Swiss position and the trial's attempt to preserve respectability. The speaker feels a duty to challenge these appearances.

What does the speaker believe about following laws they disagree with?

• They can be ignored if one disagrees.

• They should be followed only if convenient.

• They are optional for everyone.

• They must always be followed.

Why does the speaker choose not to attend the trial?

• They believe the trial is unnecessary.

• They disagree with the legitimacy of the trial.

• They are unable to attend due to personal reasons.

• They want to avoid legal consequences.

What is the speaker's view on the bank's role in the trial?

• The bank is seeking justice.

• The bank is unaware of the trial.

• The bank is trying to avoid judgment.

• The bank is supporting the speaker.

How does the speaker describe their stance on the trial?

• Neutral and factual.

• Emotional and ideological.

• Aggressive and confrontational.

• Supportive and understanding.

What does the speaker believe about the appearances maintained by the trial?

• They are irrelevant to the trial.

• They are misleading and should be challenged.

• They are genuine and necessary.

• They are beneficial for all parties involved.