Indeed. Humour is subjective, but that also means we can completely ignore whether it’s humour or not because it’s not relevant. All that matters is intent, and here it was not part of some standup comedy where everybody knows it’s an act that can be taken with a big grain of salt and stops at the door. This was clearly a long time ongoing campaign meant to push an agenda of hatred and harassment.
Either the legal expert is a terrible expert or the reporter is an idiot who misunderstood him (or has an agenda).
It should also be pointed out that what De Wever says is completely irrelevant as it’s not his decision to make. It’s the federal prosecution office that acts at the request of the ICC.
The law in Belgium explicitly forbids political influence over ICC arrests, so it’s the judicial branch that orders the action to arrest, not the executive one. Furthermore, after the arrest they transfer him to the ICC where the ICC will first determine if his arrest happened in a lawful way according to international law. It’s not the Belgian courts and certainly not Belgian politicians that have any saying here.
And perhaps a final point: diplomatic immunity does not work in this case. The ICC rules override the immunity rules. This has already been established by the appeal court of the ICC. Otherwise criminals could use that as a loophole to avoid arrests.
Source: lawyer at the ICC https://www.standaard.be/buitenland/bart-de-wever-heeft-wettelijk-niets-te-zeggen-over-de-aanhouding-van-netanyahu/53096700.html