Site Meter

Saturday, May 07, 2011

‘Bobby dreamed of a better future’: interview with friend and former cellmate of Bobby Sands

‘Bobby dreamed of a better future’: interview with friend and former cellmate of Bobby Sands

Friday, May 6, 2011
By Emma Clancy, Belfast




On the 30th anniversary of the May 5, 1981 death on hunger strike of Irish republican prisoner Bobby Sands MP, Green Left Weekly spoke to Sands close friend, former prisoner in the Long Kesh H-Blocks along with Sands and leading Belfast Sinn Fein activist Séanna Walsh about the man who has become a revolutionary icon around the world

Discussing the impact of the 1981 Hunger Strike on the course of recent Irish history, Walsh said: “I believe that people who went through this period and had these experiences have an obligation to tell a new generation about it – to ensure that this crucial period in Irish history isn’t left to be rewritten by the ‘experts’ and academics but is actually recounted by the people who lived it.”

Walsh first met Sands on remand in Cage 8 of Long Kesh before being moved to Crumlin Road jail in January 1973.

“Although I was 16 and should have been sent to a juvenile institution, I was sent to a standard remand jail,” he said.

“Bobby wasn’t in the same hut but he sought me out when I arrived, I suppose because I was so young. Bobby was 18 and had been on remand for around four months.

“He took me for a dander around the yard explaining the daily routine of the jail, the dos and don’ts, filling me in on how to arrange visits from family and generally ‘what was what’ in the jail.

“He was very much one of ‘us’, an ordinary guy who loved a bit of craic, kicked a football, had a sleg and a laugh.

“Within a week or two I was moved to Long Kesh with the other Crumlin road prisoners on remand or awaiting trial.”

While he was in Crumlin Road jail Bobby got married and his son Gerard was born.

“Bobby was sentenced to five years and sent to Long Kesh in March or April of 1973, while I was soon to follow in May”, Walsh said.

“We met up again in autumn of that year, around September, when I was moved from Cage 18 to Cage 17 in Long Kesh.

“The warders had done away with the open layout of the Nissan huts and had partitioned them on the inside into cell-like structures. We called them cubicles or ‘cubes’. I was put into Bobby’s cubicle for around a year until we prisoners burnt the camp in October 1974.

“I was from the Short Strand and there were a lot of Short Strand guys in Cage 17. Bobby was from Rathcoole originally, and then moved to Twinbrook after the summer of 1972. He became part of our circle, those of us who were mainly from the Strand.

“We were all learning Irish together. I would have had around GCSE-level Irish before I was caught. I don’t think Bobby had any Irish when he went in but he very quickly caught up.

“A fellow prisoner was great guitarist and blues musician Rab McCullogh. He taught Bobby how to play guitar around that time. He was always down at our cubicle or else Bobby would be up in his learning how to play different tunes.

“Bobby would sing a lot of Bob Dylan, Kris Kristofferson and early Rod Stewart stuff during this period, as well as a lot of songs in Irish.

“He read and absorbed books hungrily - political and historical books about British involvement in our country and the resulting resistance to that involvement, as well as the struggles of other oppressed peoples throughout the world, throughout history. But he also read novels.

“When Bobby was released in early 1976 he was coming out determined to reorganise the republican base in his area, Twinbrook.

“He reorganised the army, the auxies [auxilleries], na Fianna [republican youth group] and Sinn Féin, but then he took things a step further.

“He organised republican involvement in the tenants’ associations and pushed republicans to become involved in the everyday battles with the British Direct Rule administration and unionists on Lisburn Council.

“After six short months, however, he was back inside and I was already there too, waiting on him coming back.

“The rules were different this time though, with the denial of political status after March 1976 the prison warders were attempting to impose a punitive regime of criminal status on us.”

Resisting criminalisation

“Bobby was at the forefront of resistance to Britain’s criminalisation policies on remand in Crumlin Road jail and then once sentenced, in the H-Blocks,” Walsh said.

“He had been involved in writing a local weekly news-sheet before recapture and he decided to continue writing for it in jail. After a while he started writing for Republican News, soon to become An Phoblacht/Republican News.

“He was now like a man possessed; it was his job to tell the story of every brutal assault, every sadistic attack on the naked prisoners in the H-Blocks.

“The horrendous conditions in which we suffered meant nothing if the world outside of our immediate families knew nothing about them. Bobby was central to getting the word out, first of all to the republican base and then to the wider community.

“As the crisis in the H-Blocks dragged on from 1979 into 1980 and we went through different avenues to move the British on the political status issue, it became clear that we would be left with one last option – the hunger strike.

“The hunger strike of 1980 ended with British doublespeak and bad faith and it quickly became apparent to a number of us that a second hunger strike was inevitable.

“With Bobby leading the charge in the face of justified concerns and worries from the army leadership outside, we pressed our case. We were successful.

“Bobby organised for himself to be the first man on the strike, the first then to die, the two-week gap before Francie Hughes joined him giving the British space to move, to make concessions once Thatcher had her pound of flesh.”

Election campaign

Walsh recounted the events that led to Bobby Sands being elected as MP for Fermanagh/South Tyrone while on hunger strike.

“When it was announced in 1979 that Bernadette McAliskey was to stand on an Anti H Block/Armagh Platform in the European elections, we discussed the decision in jail and put out a public statement voicing concerns that the election campaign a distraction from the task of mobilising people in the street campaign in support of political status for republican prisoners.

“We viewed it as a distraction from the armed struggle.

“However, when Bobby’s name was put forward for the 1981 by-election in Fermanagh/South Tyrone, we vigorously seized on that notion and weighed in behind it, not as an alternative to the armed struggle at the time, but as a way of mobilising people around the issue of political status.

“It was a means of allowing people to publicly claim their support for the prisoners.

“The media was ignoring or downplaying the street campaign in support of status, so in that context the election campaign seemed like a good way to put it on public record that there was a high level of support for the prisoners and for our demand for political status.

“Once the idea was raised to put Bobby’s name forward for the Fermanagh/South Tyrone by-election, there wasn’t universal support for the move in the jail.

“Some prisoners were concerned that the election campaign would be a distraction from the street campaign in support of political status, or that participating in the electoral system would somehow contaminate our republican credentials.

“Others were concerned not about the question of participating in the election, but of the prospect that Bobby might not win the seat, which would allow the British to present the outcome as a rejection of our decision to embark on the hunger strike, a rejection of the legitimacy of the protest and the five demands, and a rejection of the wider republican struggle.

“We were very clear about the dangers of the tactic of putting Bobby forward. Overall however, the majority verdict was ‘Yes, let’s go’.

“During the first hunger strike in 1980, and in the lead-up to it, we wrote to everybody we could think of – schools, credit unions, GAA clubs [Gaelic Athletic Association, which organizes tradition Irish sports], residents’ associations, celebrities and sports personalities.

“When the second hunger strike started we began the letter-writing campaign again. Once Bobby allowed his name to go forward for the Fermanagh/South Tyrone by-election, we went into overdrive. There was a huge effort by the prisoners.

“Despite initial reservations about the tactic among some prisoners, there was rapid acceptance and understanding of the value of using this tactic once we had made the decision.

“When Bobby began his hunger strike, I was certain that he was going to die. He was certain of this too.

“But when he was elected as MP, I started to hope the situation had changed – that the British could not allow him to die.

“I don’t believe Bobby was in that frame of mind though. Despite his election, he didn’t allow himself to have heightened expectations about the outcome of the hunger strike.”

Political machine

“We hoped that Bobby’s election, and the clear signal this sent that republicans had significant public support, would put pressure on the British to meet the prisoners’ demands,” Walsh said.

“It’s hard to put yourself back in that mind-frame without viewing events through the prism of the past 30 years. But undoubtedly a major lesson for republicans at the time from Bobby’s election in April 1981 was that the nationalist people in the North were willing to support and vote for republicans.

“That didn’t mean people were at that stage voting to support the armed campaign, or even a United Ireland. But given the right set of circumstances, the nationalist people would vote for republicans and our politics.

“It was, as I said, a major lesson. It indisputably opened up that arena to a generation of republicans who previously had no regard, no expectations, and no aspirations to do anything around electoral politics.

“It hadn’t entered our world, but after Bobby’s election our world had changed.”

“During the long, dark days of the blanket protest, we kept up morale by learning Irish and sing-songs and some of the guys even ingeniously fashioned a game of bingo out the door to keep the wing entertained.

“Our other main preoccupation was with politics – discussing, arguing, and debating the politics of the world, and the politics and history of republicanism,” Walsh said.

“It was apparent for us during these discussions in the jail that in 1972, when the IRA had forced the British through force of arms to the negotiating table, we didn’t know what to do when we got there.

“In 1974 and 1975 when the IRA had again forced the British to the negotiating table, we didn’t have the political machine nor the political operation in place that would allow us to move into that space once the IRA had created it.

“There was an acknowledgement of these limitations in the mid to late 1970s, not right throughout the movement but certainly within a section of it.

“Among a section of prisoners in Long Kesh there was an understanding that regardless of what the IRA did in the armed struggle, in the short, medium and long term there was a need to build a political vehicle, an effective political machine, and to build up an alternative political infrastructure in our communities.”

Comradeship

Walsh described the “blanket protest” that developed after the removal of political status as being “like a political crucible, or a pressure cooker in which all of the politics, the mayhem of that period of the late 1970s and early 1980s was concentrated”.

He said: “This experience created a very strong comradeship and a bond among the prisoners. It created a determination among many of us to see this struggle through to the end – throughout the twists and turns of the struggle, a sense that you would never walk away from it.

“It produced a caucus of politicised, committed, determined lifelong activists.

“The prison protests, and what men and women went through during those days, also caused immense damage to a lot of people in Long Kesh and Armagh jail.

“I believe that the brutality and indignities of that experience left deep scars across the entire republican and nationalist communities. It was not only the prisoners who were suffering but visiting relatives including children who endured the indignities of searches, the taunts of the warders and the sectarianism and petty-mindedness of the whole prison system.

“There is a reservoir of trauma under the surface and this is an aspect of the conflict that is still not recognised and rarely talked about. This needs to change if we are to cope with these problems individually and as a community.”

Bobby’s vision

“I was speaking earlier about Bobby’s love for music. When we were on the blanket protest after political status was removed, of course we had no musical instruments.

“Bobby was one of a couple of guys – him, Bik [Brendan McFarlane] and couple of others – who would get up and sing. They’d have a repertoire of around 30 songs or so and could sing away for an hour easily.

“The rest of the wing would be very quiet during those sing-songs, you’d close your eyes and listen and it’d take you away for awhile.

“Bobby used to sing a lot of Simon and Garfunkel and Leonard Cohen songs during that period, and a guy called Loudon Wainwright III.

“I was talking to Tom Hartley recently about that period – about the period of the hunger strike, Bobby’s election campaign and where we are today – and I was remembering the lines of one of those Loudon Wainwright songs that Bobby sang.

“We’ve come a long way since we last shook hands
Still got a long way to go
We couldn’t see the flowers when we last shook hands
Couldn’t see the flowers on account of the snow

“For me these lines are a metaphor about the distance we’ve come. From where we were when Bobby used to sing those words, to where we are today – it’s just a world of difference.

“It’s also a reminder of how, despite the fact that things can be so bleak at a given time, they can change, change utterly, for the better.

“That oft-quoted line from Bobby’s writings – ‘Our revenge will be the laughter of our children’ – is in the same spirit as this song, and I think it really does sum up Bobby’s vision – of daring to dream of a better future and of struggling for it with every ounce of his being.

“Building on Bobby’s example, his courage and single-mindedness, how can we fail to create a better Ireland? A better future?”

Friday, May 06, 2011

Hull City Council: Labour wins control from Lib Dems

Hull City Council: Labour wins control from Lib Dems

Labour has taken control of Hull City Council from the Liberal Democrats.

Grim-faced Liberal Democrats watch the count reach its climax at Hull council

The Lib Dem leader of Hull City Council, Carl Minns, has also lost his seat to Labour.

Labour won 34 seats, up 11 on the previous election, while the Lib Dems took 22 seats, 10 fewer than last time. The Conservatives still hold two seats.

Mr Minns had earlier held a news conference at which he said he would be "gobsmacked" if Labour did not make significant gains in Hull.

'Something seismic'

Labour's Hull West and Hessle MP Alan Johnson said it was "extraordinary" that Mr Minns had conceded defeat before the votes had been counted.

"There is a feeling around here that something seismic is happening in Hull," he said.

Asked why voters had rejected the Lib Dems, Mr Minns said: "It's multiple reasons, it's not one reason; national circumstances, local decisions and a couple of areas of probably bad long-term campaigning on the ground.

"[The incoming Labour group] has made a lot of rash promises and now it's got to try and deliver them with less money.

"At the end of the day I'd like more money not to cut services, but the bottom line is the bottom line and when you're a council leader, you have to deal with things as they are not how you'd like them to be."

Labour gains

Meanwhile, North East Lincolnshire Council remains under no overall control, although Labour has overtaken the Conservatives as the party with the most seats.

It gained seven seats to 19, while the Tories lost one seat and now have 14 councillors. the Lib Dems also took a hit, dropping from 14 to nine seats.

The national alternative vote referendum has also taken place, the first nationwide referendum since 1975.

Counting will either take place Thursday night or on Friday, with the count for the referendum on the alternative vote system beginning on Friday afternoon.

Can 'physically ill' David Cameron find a cure for his European law allergy?

Can 'physically ill' David Cameron find a cure for his European law allergy?

In spite of the prime minister's expression of anger on prisoners' votes, the government is expected to do as it is told




Alex Aldridge
guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 May 2011 13.01 BST

David Cameron says the prospect of giving votes to prisoners makes him feel 'physically ill' but the European court of justice ruling cannot be ignored. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

In 1979, John Hirst killed his landlady with an axe. During 25 subsequent years in prison, he became Britain's most litigious prisoner, submitting up to nine written complaints a day – including one about the UK's ban on prisoners voting.

This grievance was to have a far-reaching effect. Hirst's eventual victory at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg – where he had appealed after losing his case in the high court – has seen the UK ordered to overturn the ban. David Cameron says the prospect of doing so makes him feel "physically ill".

The prime minister's scope for manoeuvre is limited, though. Although the ECtHR is not technically part of the European Union, its decisions are treated as such by the main European court, the European court of justice. The close relationship between the two bodies was further enshrined by the Lisbon treaty, which incorporated ECtHR case law into EU law in 2009 . To defy the ECtHR's orders would have major repercussions – not just in Strasbourg, but also in Brussels.

Accordingly, in spite of Cameron's public expression of anger, the government is expected to do as it is told, with senior figures such as attorney general Dominic Grieve and justice secretary Ken Clarke impressing the importance of the UK meeting its legal obligations.

This has left many concerned about the extent to which British national sovereignty is compromised by our European commitments. Last month, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society (Civitas) released a report calling for "urgent reform of human rights legislation to keep European judges from deciding British law".

It is not an issue on which Europhiles like to dwell, with most viewing national sovereignty as an awkward sacrifice – ideally not mentioned too much – on the road to a single Europe. This attitude was borne out at this week's conference called Building a European Area for Justice, which was held in Brussels by the European commission and the European Journalism Centre to publicise a host of policies being driven by Viviane Reding, the European commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship.

When the topic of sovereignty was broached, speakers tended to bristle. Asked about member state objections to the imposition of an EU-wide framework to counter discrimination against the Roma community – an area over which Reding recently clashed with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy – Sixto Molina of the Council of Europe responded tetchily: "This is a simple question of whether you believe human rights to be universal or not. I hope everyone does."

Others, such as Laura Corrado, deputy head of the commission's data protection unit, stuck cautiously to the official EU line that sovereignty flare-ups could be minimised by "achieving consensus between member states and the EU at the policy-making stage".

The reality, however, is that much of Reding's forward-thinking, yet controversial, agenda is destined for a rough ride from member states keen to preserve their own decision-making powers. Alongside greater protection for Roma, she is promoting pan-EU divorce law rules and a campaign to increase the numbers of women on corporate boards.

The women on boards campaign, in particular, looks likely to stir up tension on these shores. Reding has suggested she will push for legislation to force publicly listed companies to increase the proportion of women in their boardrooms to 30% by 2015 and 40% by 2020 if they fail to respond to her calls to do so voluntarily.

"I will assess the situation and see whether there is significant progress in enhancing women's participation in decision-making," she said. "If this has not happened, I will be ready to present measures at EU level."

With just 12.5% of UK board positions currently held by women, and a strong prevailing sentiment against positive discrimination, a Brussels-imposed gender quota could cause a backlash similar to the one that has greeted prisoners' votes.

Of course, the EU, with its democratically elected parliament, has a remit to legislate in a way the ECtHR does not. But the fundamental problem facing any steps towards "building a European area of justice" is the same: many of us don't like being told what to do by Europe.

Certainly, it is easy to feel protective towards good old Blighty after spending a few days listening to aloof Eurocrats utter Eurotruisms inside a building dotted with conspicuously expensive modern art.

On the whole, though, co-operation beats the conflict that defined European relations in the centuries that preceded European union. And with the UK due to assume chairmanship of the Council of Europe (of which the ECtHR is a part) later this year, the government's stated aim of reform from within looks realistic.

Indeed, the 140,000-strong backlog of cases faced by the ECtHR – a situation widely regarded as unsustainable – means Cameron and co could find themselves with the leverage to enact substantial changes.

"Physically ill" Dave's conspicuous demonstration of alliance with the public mood on prisoners' votes may turn out to be a clever primer. Coming soon: "Better again" Dave, heroic tamer of those pesky, interfering Europeans.

Alex Aldridge is a freelance journalist who writes about law and education

Teenagers' deaths in custody are needless

Teenagers' deaths in custody are needless

The teenage lives lost in custody are due to systemic failures that must be addressed

Deborah Coles, The Guardian, Friday 6 May 2011




The tragic news that five teenagers have apparently taken their own lives in custody underlines the need for a complete overhaul of the way we treat young people in conflict with the law. These latest are not isolated cases. Since 1990 we have seen the deaths of 31 children aged 14–17 and 117 aged 18-19, the majority self-inflicted.

Our work with bereaved families through arranging their legal representation at inquests has made a significant contribution to exposing what happens behind the closed doors of custody.

We now know, from previous cases, that Joseph Scholes, a 16-year-old with known mental health problems, was incarcerated in brutal conditions that after nine days propelled him to acts of self-harm. In an ultimate act of despair, he made a noose from a bed sheet and attached it to his cell bars.

Gareth Myatt, a 15-year-old boy, died after three members of staff restrained him. They continued despite his protests that he could not breathe and was going to defecate, which he did.

Adam Rickwood, at 14 the youngest child to die in custody, was found hanging hours after being hit on the nose by staff using a painful state-sanctioned "nose distraction technique", subsequently found to be unlawful.

Liam McManus, a 15-year-old serving one month and 14 days for breach of licence, was found hanging from his cell bars, a death the inquest jury decided was due to "systemic failings".

Our research, based on case studies of children, examined the policy issues raised by these deaths and the investigations. It looked at the social and political context and argued for the abolition of penal custody for children, and the need for radical alternatives.

The lives of children and young people in custody are characterised by social inequality, educational failure, drug, alcohol and mental health problems, experience of abuse, bereavement and neglect. Their custodial experience exacerbates and compounds this vulnerability.

We have witnessed inquest after inquest where the same failings are revealed. The starting point is that extremely young people are being remanded and sentenced to custody (sometimes at great distances from home) in institutions that do not have the resources, facilities or trained staff to keep them safe and deal with their complex needs. And yet vulnerable children are still being placed in penal custody, and there has been a reduction in the more child-centred approach offered by secure children's homes. High reconviction rates illustrate the failure of this approach.

Indifference to these deaths has coincided with increasing demonisation and criminalisation of young people and the use of punitive political rhetoric. "Antisocial" young people are seen as undeserving and in need of control, discipline and punishment rather than care and support.

Many of these tragedies were entirely preventable and amount to a failure by the state in its duty of care. Investigations and inquests are case specific, held in isolation, subject to serious delay and do not ensure that lessons are learned.

The youth justice system needs more profound scrutiny and there is an urgent need for a holistic inquiry, in public, to examine the wider systemic and policy issues. Such an inquiry could look at the similarities between cases as well as focusing on child welfare and youth justice policy.

The fact that successive governments have not seen fit to hold such an inquiry smacks of unaccountability and makes it impossible to learn from failures that have cost children and young people their lives. We can only hope that the deaths of five teenagers in prison and young offenders' institutions in as many weeks shocks the government into decisive action.

Obama: No pictures!

Obama: No pictures!

Clegg: If a picture paints a thousand words

Clegg: If a picture paints a thousand words



Source: Link.

MP accused of hiding 'own shame' behind superinjunction

MP accused of hiding 'own shame' behind superinjunction

Commons debate renews calls for parliament to consider passing a privacy law to give courts clearer guidance



An MP has taken out a superinjunction, allegedly to prevent embarrassing details about his life being exposed, it has been alleged during a debate in the Commons.

Neither the identity, nor the party, of the MP said to have resorted to the law for a gagging order was revealed.

The issue emerged at Westminster as MPs discussed whether to debate the impact of judge-made privacy laws and the increased use of superinjunctions and anonymity orders in the courts.


Comment: This is not the Zac Goldsmith injunction, but a totally separate issue. It may well be that this is the leading AV supporter previously mentioned on the media, which cuts down the search to identify the culprit.

Laid back cat on a road trip

Laid back cat on a road trip

Click on image to enlarge and better appreciate

Source: Link.

Legacy of Bobby Sands endures 30 years after his death on hunger strike

Legacy of Bobby Sands endures 30 years after his death on hunger strike

DAN KEENAN, The Irish Times - Friday, May 6, 2011

Bobby Sands: IRA hunger striker and MP who died in 1981

Election of Sands to Westminster led to republicans’ ‘armalite and ballot-box’ strategy

THE 30TH anniversary of Bobby Sands’s death has passed quietly, with republicans concentrating on maximising their vote in the political process that the hunger strikes helped to launch.

Sands, the first to commence a hunger strike, died on the 66th day of the prison protest which sought the so-called “five demands”. These included rights to wear non-prison clothing, freedom of association, the right to refuse prison work, to remission and other privileges. But in truth the republican prisoners and previous British governments under both Margaret Thatcher and James Callaghan had been at loggerheads since special category status had been controversially withdrawn.

The first of 10 hunger strikers from the IRA and INLA to die, Sands could not have foreseen that his dramatic election to Westminster was to kick-start republicans’ dual “armalite and ballot-box” strategy and, eventually an unarmed struggle centred solely on politics.

Some 60 others died on the streets of Northern Ireland as the H Blocks dispute escalated and prisoners lost their lives before the campaign was called off in late 1981. The hunger strikes showed the republican leadership outside the Maze prison that it was possible for the nationalist electorate to unite in support of an IRA prisoner despite a deep split over the IRA’s tactics.

The same held true in the Republic, where Kieran Doherty was to win election to the Dáil, thus promoting Sinn Féin’s electoral drive across both parts of Ireland.

Sands’s victory in Fermanagh- South Tyrone over former Ulster Unionist leader Harry West effectively ended his career. His death, on May 5th, 1981, and Britain’s handling of the prison dispute pushed Dublin-London relations to a new low not witnessed since Bloody Sunday more than eight years previously. It was a rift that was not fully repaired for another 4½ years with the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Despite the enormity of the events of 1981, Sinn Féin’s leaders have opted to concentrate on yesterday’s Assembly and local government elections in the North – mentioning the Sands’s anniversary only in passing.

Canvassing recently in Fermanagh, Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams said: “The people of this constituency showed the power of their vote when over 30,000 of them came out and elected Bobby as their MP. It was a democratic action that shaped the course of history.”

Speaking to An Phoblacht/ Republican News after the Dáil elections, Martin McGuinness also stressed the legacy of Sands’s election victory.

“The hunger strikers and Bobby’s participation, with Kieran Doherty and other hunger strikers, in the elections was a seminal moment in the development of Irish republicanism,” he said.

“From then to now, we have steadily built Irish republicanism on this island, with enormous success in the North,” he added before admitting that Sinn Féin’s political development in the Republic had not “kept pace” with the strides being taken north of the Border.

Why David Cameron will be even more physically iller

Why David Cameron will be even more physically iller

"The CJEU upholds the Union’s founding principles such as the rule of law and respect for human rights, values common to all the Member States" (Article 2 TEU).

For example, it is a rule of law that Member States abide by ECtHR judgments, and respect convicted prisoners human right to vote.

Member States must also abide by Treaty obligations.

"The Court can impose heavy fines on a Member State for failure to comply with a Treaty obligation. For example, in the case of the UK, this could result in a daily penalty of between €13,194 and €791,640 [£701,923.7]. The basic lump sum which could be suggested against the UK would be €10,995,000 [= £9.74894028m]".

Thursday, May 05, 2011

The Workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The European Court of Human Rights: the election of judges

The European Court of Human Rights: the election of judges

The European Court of Human Rights: the election of judges snia-05949

Supreme muddle: Europe’s highest courts can be annoying, but they do more good than harm

Supreme muddle

Europe’s highest courts can be annoying, but they do more good than harm

May 5th 2011

By Charlemagne




NO WONDER Europeans find their institutions so bewildering. What is the difference between the European Council and the Council of Europe? It is not just syntax. The first is the European Union’s top decision-making body, made up of the 27 national leaders. The second is the grandfather of European clubs, which has 47 members (among them Russia and Turkey) and plods along in Strasbourg. Even more confusing, the EU and the Council of Europe share the same blue flag with a circle of 12 stars and the “Ode to Joy” as their anthem. And both have similar-sounding courts. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) sits in Luxembourg and ensures compliance with EU law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), under the Council of Europe, is guardian of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

Both courts annoy most national politicians some of the time and infuriate some most of the time. Take Italy. The ECJ irritated it recently by ruling against its policy of jailing illegal migrants who do not obey expulsion orders. The ECHR, meanwhile, belatedly reversed its decision to ban crucifixes in Italian schools. Or consider Britain. The ECJ recently decided that insurance companies were not allowed to charge women drivers (less of an accident risk) a lower premium than all those impetuous men. The ECHR, for its part, caused apoplexy in London by ruling that Britain could not deny all convicted prisoners the right to vote.

To critics this is judicial activism gone mad, overturning the will of elected parliaments; European judges (not much distinction is made between the two courts) serving in the vanguard of the march towards federalism. Time to reverse course, they say. But how? Many would like to halt or turn back part of the European project. Italy’s interior minister, Roberto Maroni, recently suggested abandoning the EU altogether. “Better alone than in bad company,” he declared after a row over Tunisian boat-people. Yet leaving the EU after decades of economic and political intertwining is easier said than done (and became explicitly possible only under the 2009 Lisbon treaty).

Pulling out of the EU might mean falling back on the Council of Europe. That is, after all, the home of other non-EU European democracies such as Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. The council is the sort of body that even Eurosceptics ought to like: it is inter-governmental rather than communautaire, so that each member wields a veto, and its parliamentary assembly is made up of national MPs who mostly exercise only moral persuasion. In contrast, the ever more powerful European Parliament is directly elected, voting on budgets and most EU laws. Yet the council is still a poor alternative to the EU. A country that wants to trade freely with the rest of Europe has to comply with its market rules. And even if it escapes the court in Luxembourg, it is bound by the one in Strasbourg (with judges from such dodgy places as Ukraine and Azerbaijan).

Others, especially some British Tories, want an alternative rupture: to withdraw from the ECHR, with domestic courts becoming supreme arbiters. If that means leaving the Council of Europe, so what? The trouble is that it also raises questions about EU membership. Accession to the human-rights convention is compulsory for EU applicants, though it is fuzzier for existing EU members. The Lisbon treaty gives legal effect to the charter of fundamental rights, which incorporates ECHR case-law (though some EU members have a partial opt-out). The EU is taking on more trappings of statehood—it has just won the right to speak in its own name at the United Nations—and is preparing to sign up to the human-rights convention, with rights akin to those for full members of the Council of Europe. The EU’s actions, say in freezing foreigners’ assets, may become subject to external legal scrutiny, with the ECHR acting as the EU’s “supreme court”.

To Eurosceptic purists, there is only one safe answer: to leave both the EU and the Council of Europe. But that would imply a degree of isolation that surely few voters would enjoy. Jean-Paul Costa, president of the ECHR, notes that the only country ever to withdraw from the convention was Greece under its junta. Today only Belarus stays clear of the Council of Europe.

Fight from within

A more pragmatic option is to stay in and push for reform. That may be frustrating but is not hopeless. The EU is discovering limits to integration. Under pressure from France, Italy and others, the European Commission has proposed allowing members of the Schengen passport-free area temporarily to impose border controls if neighbours are flooded with migrants. Even those who are less dreamy about European unification have a vital interest in the EU’s single market. Making it more open—even just preserving it—requires a dose of supranational power.

The ECHR, too, needs reform, Ministers meet this week to discuss how to clear a backlog of 140,000 (mostly frivolous) cases, improve the quality of some of its judges and restrain them from straying too far into domestic matters. Yet all countries gain from a democratic Europe, one pillar of which is the human-rights convention. Even democratic governments benefit from a degree of judicial restraint. And the ECHR operates in some dark areas that others cannot reach. Russia is often forced to pay compensation to victims of abuse in, say, Chechnya. The court has helped to improve the state of Turkey’s prisons.

Judicial nonsense should be restrained wherever possible but may be a price worth paying for the protection of Europe’s prosperity and freedom. And for those who resent the intrusion of supranational courts, but do not want to break up the institutions, there is hope. When the EU accedes to the human-rights convention, it is possible that judges in Strasbourg will restrain Eurocrats in Brussels and the court in Luxembourg, too.

Comment: I would say that it tends to be the British rather than Europeans who are bewildered by it all. It would help matters if the author got the Court of Justice of the Europan Union (CJEU) right rather than its old name, and referred to the European Court of Human Rights as ECtHR rather than ECHR which tends to be used instead for the Convention. I would have liked to have seen an explanation why it is that there is judicial activism on the part of the ECtHR, for example, because of the Interlaken process and the need to get Member States to toe the line. Apart from these minor criticisms, it is a pretty damned good article.

Zac Goldsmith, Tory MP for Richmond, obtains latest super injunction

Zac Goldsmith, Tory MP for Richmond, obtains latest super injunction



I suspect it is against Channel 4 and relates to their investigation into his general election campaign spending.

UPDATE: Source at Ch4 confirms ZG injunction but states its not against them...

Zac Goldsmith and Alice Rothchild

The above photo is "old news" so I am not confident that this is the reason for the super injunction.

These super injunctions show why we need a new tory government to restore our freedoms. I'll definitely be voting for Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) I'm sure he'll vote to ban super injunctions.

- Sam Johnson, London England, 14/10/2009 17:51
LOL!

This is it.

Link to Court judgment.

UPDATE: Hacker of emails is a woman...

Twitter

Jemima_Khan Jemima Khan

@EdRoyaltyMag @MrHarryCole @NickBuck The hacker was not wealthy and her anonymity is protected for reasons I can't divulge.

UKIP — “Give prisoners the vote, yes"!

UKIP — “Give prisoners the vote, yes"!

Link.

Bobby Sands MP: In memoriam

Bobby Sands MP: In memoriam

Thirty years on, Bobby Sands's stature has only grown

On this day in 1981, a poet, revolutionary and people's MP died. Those hunger strikes energised Irish republicanism


A mural dedicated to Bobby Sands on the Falls Road in west Belfast Photograph: Paul Faith/PA Archive/Press Association Ima

I last saw Bobby Sands alive in December 1980. He had long greasy hair and a matted beard as a result of the no-wash prisoners' protest. He had spent a third of his 27 years behind bars. At the end of the visit I was banned from the prison. I next saw him in his coffin, after his death exactly 30 years ago, before 100,000 people gathered for his funeral in Belfast. By then he'd spearheaded the hunger strike campaign for political status for IRA prisoners – and in the process gained massive international recognition after being elected an MP.

When I first saw him it was a freezing wintry night in hut 17, Long Kesh prison. It was 1973 and he was 18 years old.

I, like 2,000 others around that time, had been interned – neither charged nor sentenced. We were in Long Kesh as a result of what happened in 1969, when the unionist government had suppressed the nationalists' civil rights movement and triggered major civil strife. The British army, sent in as "peacekeepers", turned out to be even greater oppressors. As a result, the IRA's call to arms seemed the solution. Bobby was imprisoned for possession of four handguns and was treated as a prisoner of war. It was while in Long Kesh that the famous smiling photograph of him, which was to become iconic, was taken.

Released in 1976, he was at liberty for a year and when I met him he was full of enthusiasm about setting up a tenants' association in Twinbrook where he lived. Months later he was arrested on active service and was sentenced to 14 years for possessing one handgun.

But now he was sent to the H-blocks – really just an extension of Long Kesh – because the government had withdrawn "special category status" in an attempt to criminalise the prisoners and the cause of Irish freedom. Here he joined hundreds of others on the "blanket protest" – refusing to wear a prison uniform and call warders "sir". He was beaten regularly and was often in solitary confinement, punished with a bread and water diet (ruled illegal by the European court). After visiting the H-blocks, the Catholic archbishop Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich compared the conditions to "the sewer pipes in the slums of Calcutta".

Bobby wrote to me in smuggled letters, sending me his poetry and short stories which I published. Throughout 1980 I visited him weekly as frantic attempts were made to avoid a hunger strike. He had one of the sharpest intellects I have ever come across. In 1981 he and nine comrades could no longer watch the younger prisoners being beaten and felt that they had no option but to hunger strike to the death, to establish in the eyes of the world that they were political prisoners fighting a just cause.

Margaret Thatcher, then prime minister, had said: "How can I talk to them [the prisoners] when they have no support, no mandate?" Yet when Bobby Sands was elected by the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, with more votes than Thatcher in Finchley, she became even more intransigent. She refused to negotiate and changed the law to prevent any other prisoner standing for election.

Over a period of seven months nine other men followed Bobby, dying on a hunger strike that Thatcher described as "the IRA's last card". How wrong she was. Recruits flocked to the IRA. Its support multiplied. Its operations intensified. Later that year, speaking at Sinn Féin's annual conference, I used the phrase "the Armalite and the ballot box" to sum up the new duel strategy of engaging in armed struggle and simultaneously contesting elections.

Bobby Sands's election was undoubtedly the springboard for Sinn Féin's subsequent successes, which have seen it emerge as the largest party in the north of Ireland, with the former IRA commander Martin McGuinness as joint first minister, and Gerry Adams becoming the leader of 14 TDs in the Republic's Dáil Éireann.

After the hunger strike, the British government recognised the political status of the prisoners and eventually granted their early release under the 1998 Good Friday agreement. Had such an agreement been signed back in 1969, not one of the thousands who died in the conflict would have lost their lives.

Songs have been written about Bobby Sands, films made, streets named after him. He was a poet, a revolutionary, and – in the words of singer Christy Moore – the "People's Own MP".

His and his comrades' sacrifices energised and inspired republicans. Bobby spoke of revenge not in terms of one side triumphing over another but said: "Our revenge will be the laughter of our children." Rather than diminishing over the passage of time, the stature of Bobby Sands in history has only increased.

The drug infestation in our prisons

The drug infestation in our prisons



Despite the focus on the government’s controversial plans to reduce the prison population, the troubled Prison Service continues to cause headaches for Ministers in another way — by failing to get on top of the security problems plaguing the estate In the 1990s, when Michael Howard was in Ken Clarke’s position, the concern of ministers was escaping inmates. The Prison Service has made huge strides on this, despite ongoing issues with the open prison estate and day-release of some inmates. But now the ever-present problem is lax internal security and especially drug-infestation. The jailing this week, for two years, of a prison officer based at Feltham Young Offenders Institution is just one example of the problem.

As Channel 4 News reports tonight, we obtained — through a Freedom of Information request — an internal assessment of the prison drug problem which casts new light on the issue. The document admits that:
“Research consistently indicates that the most common types of staff corruption are the trafficking of drugs and mobile phones and that the scale of the threat is considerable…
...Reducing prison drug supply is a constant battle. As one route is closed, it does not take long for another to open.”

This document confirms what our own research uncovered last year, although at the time the Ministry dismissed our findings. The prison drug market is huge, estimated to be worth up to £100m, which is driving a lot of the supply:
“There is growing evidence of carefully organised attempts to traffic drugs into prisons, with great efforts made by criminals to overcome improved security measures in order to exploit the potential profits to be made in doing so.”
The nature of the drugs being smuggled also explains the difficulty of stemming supply routes when such small quantities can maintain so many addicted prisoners. The document reveals that:
“[T]hree tablespoons’ worth of heroin (3 ounces/84 grams) — a quantity that could easily be concealed in a prisoner or visitor’s body cavities — equates to around 1000 doses: this amount is sufficient to sustain the illegal drugs trade in a prison for around a month”
There are many reasons why illegal drugs get into prisons, and a lot relies on police detection of criminal activity. However, the reality that this document accepts is more disturbing. The sheer size and impact of the problem can only be explained by entry routes predominately opened and maintained by corrupt prison staff. Contraband lobbed over prison walls is not driving this. As the document states:
“The unpalatable but inevitable conclusion is that corrupt staff constitutes a significant supply route for drugs into prisons.”
How to address staff corruption is a key issue, and it is separate from how regimes might be reordered to limit the possibility of drugs getting through, including more screening of staff and more closed visits — with inmate and visitor divided by screens — which are common features of prisons in the United States. Such measures are unpopular with staff and offend those concerned about rehabilitation and family contact, but security has to take priority.
The Ministry of Justice is committed to “drug-free wings” — a concept the public find baffling, and hardly a sign of real ambition. Surely all prisons should be free of drugs? Reassuringly, in response to the disclosure, the new head of the Prison Service, Michael Spurr, was not defensive and resolved to give the issue the attention it deserves: “I am absolutely clear there are corrupt staff; I am absolutely clear we have to tackle that and not pretend it doesn't exist.”

We need to learn from other countries that have tackled this problem because, if we don't, there is no hope of creating the more purposeful prison service that will deliver the Coalition Government’s laudable rehabilitation drive. You cannot have drug-free, employable, ex-prisoners while you have drug infested prisons.

Blair Gibbs is the Head of Crime & Justice at the think-tank Policy Exchange.

Vote Yes to AV

Vote Yes to AV

The Sun ain't gonna shine anymore

The Sun ain't gonna shine anymore

According to today's The Sun

"The Yes campaign was dealt a further setback when axe killer John Hirst - who is leading the campaign for prisoners to get the vote - gave it his backing".

I am putting my faith in the people to end the corrupt practice of the first past the post system. Because Fortress Britain is our Alcatraz and the people have a duty to escape.

"To escape, but of what? From prison? Exactly. The prison that is the status quo."

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Gordon Ramsey latest celebrity to get a gagging order

Gordon Ramsey latest celebrity to get a gagging order



Story here.

Photos of 3 of the dead in Osama Bin Laden compound

Photos of 3 of the dead in Osama Bin Laden compound







Source: Link

Clearer images from slightly different angle...







Source: Link

UPDATE: The middle photo appears to have been taken in "Bin Laden's bedroom". If this is the case, then the assumption was that the blood shown before the body was removed was Bin Laden's. The US report mentions no other man in the bedroom, just Bin Laden and his wife. Could it be that Bin Laden was captured alive and is either in or on his way to Gitmo?

Prison Service admits considerable staff corruption threat

Prison Service admits considerable staff corruption threat

As a prison officer in London is jailed for two years for corruption, Channel 4 News obtains an internal prison service document warning about the scale of the threat.



Mohammed Mirza, a 24 year-old who worked as a prison officer at Feltham Young Offenders Insititute, was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court for conspiring with a prisoner and the prisoner's mother to smuggle three mobile phones into the prison.

Mirza stood to gain £500 for his efforts - a prison officer's starting salary is £17,187.

His case is just one example of a corruption problem which is affecting prisons across England and Wales.

Channel 4 News has obtained an internal prison service document which gives one of the most candid assessments yet of the scale of the threat. The document titled 'Prison Drugs Supply Reduction - A Good Practice Guide' was obtained by think-tank Policy Exchange through a Freedom of Information request.

In a chapter headed 'Staff Corruption', the prison service admits the threat of corruption of prison staff is "considerable". It goes on to say: "The unpalatable but inevitable conclusion is that corrupt staff constitutes a significant supply route for drugs into prisons."

Tackling the problem

The Ministry of Justice gave Channel 4 News figures which they say show they are tackling the problem.

In the last three years, 92 prison staff have been dismissed, 78 convicted, and 167 staff who work for other agencies within the prison service have been excluded from such work.

A unit within the Metropolitan Police was set up three years ago to deal exclusively with prison corruption issues in London: the first of its kind in the country.

Head of the Prison Service Michael Spurr told Channel 4 News: "I am absolutely clear there are corrupt staff; I am absolutely clear we have to tackle that and not pretend it doesn't exist. I'm clear that we must work through what intelligence we've got about the potential for corruption - and then identify those involved and take action."

Lincolnshire Police unlawfully harass the public

Lincolnshire Police unlawfully harass the public

When the police start bothering people who are not engaged in a criminal activity, then it is unlawful. It amounts to harassment. Instead of the super rich getting super injunctions, this is the kind of activity which warrants the courts issuing injunctions to prevent the abuse of power.

Jonathan Sumption, QC, the odd man out!

Jonathan Sumption, QC, the odd man out!



At a time when the UK is attacking the legitimacy of the highest court in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights. One of the accusations being that some of the judges lack prior judicial experience. The UK appoints a lawyer with no prior judicial experience to the highest court in the UK, the United Kingdom Supreme Court!

Why?

It exposes hypocrisy of the highest order. It means that the UK's criticism of the ECtHR is unjustified. It leaves a taste in the mouth that this is a political appointment. Is the UK so short of judges with the necessary judicial experience for the UKSC that it has to appoint a lawyer who has no judicial experience whatsoever over qualified judges?

Security breach let huge quantity of drugs into prison

Security breach let huge quantity of drugs into prison

By Tom Pugh, PA

Wednesday, 4 May 2011


Huge quantities of drugs and mobile phones filtered into a prison because of a "serious compromise" in security, an independent report has revealed.

The security breach was uncovered at the mobile temporary unit at Camp Hill on the Isle of Wight last year but has since been dealt with.

The rise in the amount of drugs and mobile phones at the Category C site had an impact on the regime and the level of violence, the prison's Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) report said.

Drug debts and substance abuse leads to intimidation, bullying and violence, and roof-top protests were sparked by inmates scared of violence and wanting to be moved, it added.

The board said it was concerned about the number of roof-top incidents at Camp Hill, resulting in specialist teams from the mainland being deployed at high cost.

More than 100 vulnerable spots where prisoners could gain access to out-of-bounds areas were identified in a recent survey at Camp Hill. But this was not deemed unusual as it is a Category C level jail, the board said.

HMP Isle of Wight was formed following the merging of the former Parkhurst, Albany and Camp Hill prisons in April 2009 in an effort to cut overall budget costs.

The report said: "The amount of drugs freely available, especially in Camp Hill site, is wholly unacceptable, and causes bullying and prisoners living in real fear of their safety.

"Parkhurst and Albany sites suffer from illegal drugs less, but the sale of prescribed drugs, by one prisoner to another, causes great problems and funds should be provided in order to properly control the issue and taking of prescribed medication."

The board said it found it "totally unacceptable and unbelievable" that, in an establishment housing almost 1,700 prisoners, there was only one dog handler.

"Taking normal working hours, annual leave and training into account, this leaves the jail unprotected for a cumulative total of over 130 days a year," the report went on.

It urged ministers to review the situation urgently.

The IMB praised prison and police intelligence for foiling an elaborate escape plan using a helicopter last summer.

Murderer Brian Lawrence, who was convicted of killing a friend of his ex-lover and hiring a hitman to kill two others, used letters, Sudoku puzzles and writing in lemon juice as invisible ink to disguise his plans.

The operation was thought to involve using a nearby pop concert as diversion tactics because musicians regularly arrived and left by helicopter.

A Prison Service spokesman said: "We thank the Independent Monitoring Board at HMP Isle of Wight for their report, which will be fully considered by ministers. We will respond to the board in due course."

Sovereignty not dead, but Quebec 'decided to get some air': experts

Sovereignty not dead, but Quebec 'decided to get some air': experts

By Philip Authier, Montreal Gazette May 3, 2011 9:29 PM


Sovereigntists are licking their wounds, shocked and not sure really where to turn now that they have been reduced to a tiny rump of four MPs in the House of Commons. Photograph by: Christinne Muschi, Reuters

MONTREAL — It was all supposed to happen like clockwork.

Re-elect the Bloc Quebecois in Ottawa. Elect the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City.

After that, "Everything again becomes possible," Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe boldly announced May 15 when he spoke to PQ delegates at a policy convention.

The bravado is gone now. So are the seats. And the money.

Instead, sovereigntists are licking their wounds, not sure really where to turn now that they have been reduced to a rump of four MPs in the House of Commons.

Is it all over? It does not look good for the Bloc, that's for sure.

Gone are the generous federal research budgets, paid staff, chauffeur-driven cars, the right to stand up daily and try and discredit the federal system in the name of defending Quebec's interests.

All that was useful to the PQ and its ultimate goal. After nearly two decades and five successful election campaigns, it's got to hurt.

Duceppe, who quit the party leadership Monday evening in the wake of the debacle, had planned a news conference Tuesday but it was cancelled at the last minute.

After vanishing, he quietly deactivated his campaign Twitter and Facebook accounts. Bloc officials stopped returning calls.

Under media pressure, Bloc vice-president Vivian Barbot issued a statement in which she said the Bloc is not dead and will continue to represent Quebecers' interests in Ottawa "with the same rigour which has always characterized us," Barbot said.

She added that despite the loss of seats, the Bloc nonetheless won 24 per cent of the popular vote.

"Our party thus remains a significant political tool for a good number of Quebecers," said Barbot.

"You know people have often spoken of the disappearance of the Bloc but it has never disappeared," said Louis Plamondon, one of only four Bloc MPs who survived the NDP slaughter Monday.

But back at the sovereigntist mother ship, the Parti Quebecois, the mood was grim, the spin machine was in full swing to downplay what many say was a setback by "the cousins" in Ottawa.

Even if the Bloc was virtually wiped off the map Monday, PQ leader Pauline Marois denied Quebecers were turning their backs on sovereignty.

She argued the Bloc meltdown does not matter because sovereignty was not an issue in the election.

"Sovereignty is just as alive as it ever was," Marois said at a news conference in Quebec City.

She said the Bloc's 23 per cent share of the vote is still well below the usual score sovereignty gets in polls — about 40 per cent — so all is not lost.

Asked by a reporter point blank if the Bloc is dead, Marois dodged.

"Listen, we're going to take a little time to let the dust settle," she said.

Was the federalist side crowing? Premier Jean Charest played it cool, avoiding any kind of preachy triumphalism.

"Quebecers have shown an interest in re-involving themselves in the affairs of the country," Charest said.

"At the same time, sovereignty remains the legitimate choice of a significant number of Quebecers. As the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party and premier, it is a choice which I recognize and respect. The debate will continue essentially in Quebec."

Analysts interviewed by The Gazette said Tuesday that to conclude that Monday's elections means the end of sovereignty would be naive and simplistic.

The Quebec voter is a much more complex animal, as shown in this campaign.

On the other hand, there is food for thought for the movement in the way the campaign unfolded and in the results.

Universite de Sherbrooke political science professor Jean-Herman Guay said that for the first time in a long time, Quebec voters "were seduced without the seducer draping himself in blue."

What that means is NDP leader Jack Layton won Quebecers' hearts without promising a thing in the way of reforms to the federation. Layton made only a vague promise in the campaign that he would seek the "winning conditions," for Quebec to one day sign the Constitution.

Layton was equally fuzzy when Duceppe tried to box him in on the NDP's pledge to one day apply the Charter of the French Language to federal institutions.

"Over the weeks, the Quebec question, far from being a positive stake, became a source of boredom," Guay said in an analysis published in La Presse Tuesday.

"The Bloc's idea that it could maintain its legitimacy by posing as the only ones who could speak for Quebec, instead became a source of irritation."

Quebecers' desire for change also worked against the Bloc.

After 20 years in Ottawa and the same leader for 14 of them, "the Bloc became, for many, an old party which seemed to be marking time in the role of victim, constantly accusing the others of not respecting Quebec."

Universite Laval political communications expert, Thierry Giasson, said the tired worn-out impression was further reinforced when the Bloc trotted out such sovereigntist warhorses as former PQ leader Jacques Parizeau and union leader Gerald Larose in the dying days of the campaign in an attempt to stir up its sovereignty base.

Giasson said that was a mistake because the Bloc has always done its best among voters when it didn't talk too much about sovereignty.

Quebecers were happy to vote Bloc because they never saw it as a vote for separation. That is a provincial matter.

"I think Quebecers looked at this and said, 'I don't think I want to get aboard,' " Giasson said. "There was a definite backlash effect."

"People sensed panic. The Bloc trotted out this kind of forced line that they are sovereigntists and Quebecers and patriotic which seems to have repulsed many people.

"People said, 'No, no, I am a Quebecer. I am quite comfortable with my identity, I am proud of my roots, I'm French, I'm nationalist but I won't vote for you."

Giasson said that is a reaction the sovereignty movement will need to analyze carefully because it does not bode well for the future. The Bloc has already announced for a post-mortem caucus and executive meeting to figure out how it went so wrong.

Giasson adds sovereigntists have always had an affinity with the social democratic NDP because it resembles the left-leaning Bloc and PQ.

The vote was an easy transfer for many under the circumstances because people could vote NDP as the same time as sticking to their separatist convictions.

"I think they (Quebecers) aspired to something else and the NDP was deft enough to present an alternative of openness and the Layton line, 'give us a try," caught on like wildfire.

And nowhere did the line spread faster than during that old-fashioned social networking system known as the Easter weekend where families ate and talked about the campaign.

It fell right after the French debate when Layton performed so well, notes Jean-Francois Lisee, a former PQ adviser to Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard.

"At first, it (voting Jack) was almost a joke," Lisee says. "Then a challenge. In the end, why not? At Easter, over the chocolate, we were only talking about this.

'So you think this too? My uncle, who is red, does too. My brother-in-law who is blue, is going to. Soon enough, all of Quebec seemed up for it. Why not us?"

Lisee, who makes the argument on his blog, adds people need to consider the context surrounding the campaign, too.

Quebec's Liberal government is detested, so is the Conservative government in Ottawa. In Montreal, people want to flush the mayor out of power.

Why did they vote NDP?

"To escape, but of what? From prison? Exactly. The prison that is the status quo."

"Where will the escape lead us? Quebecers don't know. They think Jack is a good guy. He seems to understand Quebec.

"Are Quebecers less nationalist, less sovereigntist than before? Well, no. They just did what they felt like doing.

"The Quebec voter decided to get some air, lots of air. They have broken out of the routine, old habits, but they are still prisoners of Canada."

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Osama Bin Laden shot as he surrendered!

Osama Bin Laden shot as he surrendered!

US Navy Seals supposedly engaged in a 40 minute firefight killed bin Laden, his courier, son and one of his wives.

What took them so long?

Were any of them even armed?

Was the unarmed Osama murdered because he resisted by engaging in a pillow fight?

UPDATE: Security officials have told Channel 4 News that Osama bin Laden was captured alive and shot dead by US special forces. The claims were apparently made by bin Laden's daughter.

Osama Bin Laden executed by US death squad

Osama Bin Laden executed by US death squad

"US officials suggest that, when confronted at the high-security complex in Abbottabad, Bin Laden did not have a weapon and did not fire at his assailants. With some questions being raised as to why Bin Laden was shot dead, and whether he was executed, rather than taken into custody".

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: Legitimacy Report

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: Legitimacy Report

European Court of Human Rights: Legitimacy Report

Obama the Codfather: Osama sleeps with the fishes!

Obama the Codfather: Osama sleeps with the fishes!

Osama Bin Laden was held in CIA secret prison in Pakistan for 10 years!

Osama Bin Laden was held in CIA secret prison in Pakistan for 10 years!

Diagram of the CIA secret prison in Abbottabad, an area with a military garrison, in Pakistan.

During the Battle of Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001, Osama Bin Laden was wounded and taken prisoner in the mountains by allied forces and handed over to the CIA for interrogation.

World Press Freedom Day

World Press Freedom Day

Strasbourg/London, 03.05.2011


Council of Europe and PEN International call for stronger protection of freedom of expression



The Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, and the President of PEN International, John Ralston Saul, today made the following joint statement to mark World Press Freedom Day on 3 May. They added that they are making this joint statement to express their concern over the growing threats to freedom of expression.

“Journalists and writers across the world are imprisoned and silenced every year for saying or writing things that did not please those in power. Now we are witnessing the imprisonment of bloggers, citizen journalists, web-activists – even simple Internet users, for legitimately exercising their right to freedom of expression.

It has never been easier to exercise our rights to expression and information, but it has also never been easier to interfere with them.

When freedom of expression cannot be exercised fully by media professionals or by writers, the freedom of each of us, of every citizen, is endangered. Our rights to receive information and to freely form and to hold views and opinions are limited. Our right to informed participation is eroded. Ultimately, democracy is compromised.

Freedom of speech is one of the essential pillars of a genuine democracy, it requires extraordinary protection. This is enshrined in Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

We urge all governments, civil society actors, technical communities and the private sector to work together to protect freedom of expression in our common interest” Mr. Jagland and Mr. Saul said. “The Council of Europe and PEN International, drawing on our respective strengths, are currently looking at ways that we can cooperate to this end.”

***

The Council of Europe is a political organisation set up in 1949. The Council of Europe promotes human rights, democracy and the rule of law throughout the continent. It develops common responses to social, cultural and legal challenges in its 47 member States, which are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights rules on individual or state applications alleging violations of the rights and freedoms it protects.

PEN International celebrates literature and promotes freedom of expression. Founded in 1921, its global community of writers now spans more than 100 countries. Its programmes, campaigns, events and publications connect writers and readers wherever they are in the world. PEN International operates in all five continents, with 144 PEN Centres in 102 countries. In 2010 it monitored over 700 cases worldwide of writers and journalists killed, disappeared, attacked, threatened or on trial.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Osama Bin Laden looking the worse for wear

Osama Bin Laden looking the worse for wear



Obituary: Osama Bin Laden

"Will we see pictures of the dead Bin Laden? When Saddam's sons were killed, pictures of their corpses were released by the American military, on the grounds that it was crucial for Iraqis to believe they were no more. This time, we're told that Bin Laden has already been buried at sea, the Saudis having refused to repatriate his body. The CIA say they have pictures from yesterday's assassination, and that the pictures of Bin Laden circulating right now (which have been picked up by some of the British media) are fake".

Osama Bin Laden looking the worse for wear or is that because of a photoshop?

Story behind fake photo

Surely some mistake?

Surely some mistake?

"At one point 32 fire engines from the 39 stations in the county were out on calls, a Lancashire Fire and Rescue spokeswoman said".

It does not add up...

No to Diana Johnson: Yes to AV

No to Diana Johnson: Yes to AV

Diana Johnson, a former minister, who just managed to beat a Liberal Democrat, Denis Healy, challenge in Hull North by 641 votes would have lost her seat under AV.

Vote yes to AV for Denis Healy

Diana Johnson who was criticised for her involvement in the expenses scandal.

Revealed: the 29 anti-reform MPs who would lose their seats under the AV system

Many people have died for the right to vote

Many people have died for the right to vote

Put an end to election apathy and show your solidarity with protesters around the world by casting a ballot, write Ronald F. Caza, Sara Ulmer and Yan Zawisza.

Utpal Baruah, REUTERS
Photograph by: UTPAL BARUAH, REUTERS




Recent events in North Africa and the Middle East, which still dominate the news, force us to realize the importance of exercising our own right to vote.

In the past several months, the voices of Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and the people of many other nations have cried out in unison for the right to elect representative governments which, in many places for the first time, would determine by democratic means the destiny of these countries and their citizens. In fact, all over the world, be it in Haiti, Sudan, Iraq or Afghanistan, we have seen the images of citizens ready to die, and far too many that have, for the right to express themselves on a very fundamental question: Who will make the important decisions affecting their lives and those of their families? So much is expressed in the most simple of gestures: casting a ballot.

The rise of these democratic movements prompts us to recall the very beginnings of our democracy.

In Athens in the sixth century B.C., male citizens were free to attend and speak at the assembly and to vote on the laws presented.

These democratic principles, which disappeared with the fall of the Athenian Empire, re-emerged centuries later in Europe, thanks in large part to European philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries. In England, John Locke instigated the idea that government did not derive its authority from divine will, but rather through a contract between individuals and society. In France, Jean-Jacques Rousseau insisted on the principle of general will and the responsibility of each citizen to protect the life and liberty of all.

Armed with these ideas, citizens fighting for the right to participate in the political process and to shape their own destinies were able to free themselves from the rule of two of the most powerful empires of that period (as a result of the American Revolution in 1775 and the French Revolution in 1789).

Countless individuals sacrificed their lives so that in the future, all of us could be free from authoritarian rule. And let us never forget that the first step taken by an oppressive regime motivated by hate and the desire to retain power is to eliminate its citizens’ “right to vote.”

In Canada, before Confederation, authority rested in the hands of only a few influential people who could count on the support of the Governor General, representative of the English monarch. Gradually over time, citizens united to make their voices heard. Finally in 1848, Nova Scotia was the first colony in British North America to achieve responsible government, that is, a government requiring the support of its citizens. In the years that followed, the concept of responsible government made its way across the colonies, although it remained effectively a shadow of the system of voting we know today.

At the time of Confederation in 1867, only 11 per cent of the population was allowed to vote. The fundamental criteria were that the voter be male and 21 years of age or older. However, rules varying from province to province could also require a minimum of property or income and sometimes even limited the right to vote based on profession or ethnicity.

In 1916, what was called “universal manhood suffrage” was largely achieved when most men aged 21 and over were allowed to vote.

In 1918, women obtained the right to vote in federal elections, but it was only in 1951, when the Northwest Territories granted women the right to vote, that women could finally vote in all elections in Canada. Asian-Canadians, prevented from voting for extensive periods of time in some parts of the country, were only permanently given this right for good in 1949. And finally, as astonishing as it may seem, aboriginal people were only granted the right to vote in federal elections in 1960, and in all provinces only in 1969.

Since that time, the right to vote has only continued to expand. In 1970, the minimum voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 years of age. Since 1982, Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes that: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly.” The Supreme Court of Canada, which had already described voting as “the most important democratic duty which most Canadians will undertake in their lives: their choice as to who will govern them” and qualified it as a “sacred democratic function as a citizen,” invoked Section 3 to declare unconstitutional a provision of the Canada Elections Act that prevented prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more from voting.

Since this 2002 decision, all Canadian citizens possess the right to vote, with the exception of the chief electoral officer and assistant chief electoral officer. Now, all Canadian citizens, from billionaires to the homeless, have the right to vote, and each of those votes are equal.

Unfortunately, while the right to vote has been recognized as a fundamental right and in essence a duty, a new problem has emerged over the past several years: more and more Canadians are choosing not to vote.

During the 2008 elections, only 59 per cent of electors voted and less than 40 per cent of those aged between 18 and 24 cast a ballot. If this trend continues, our government will soon be elected by a minority of its citizens. Will we then still be able to speak of a representative government?

Why is it so important to vote in federal elections? From a practical point of view, the party that will be called on to form the next government will have the authority to take, on behalf of all of us, fundamental decisions that will significantly impact our lives. This is not simply a question of financial issues, as important as those are, but also of issues such as whether to send our citizens to war and of nominating the next justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, who will decide on matters affecting the fundamental rights of citizens vis-à-vis the state for decades to come.

We should not lose sight of the fact that once elected, a majority government is not legally bound by its campaign promises. We must therefore ensure that the party elected to lead this country reflects the values and visions of the majority of Canada’s citizens.

To explain why they haven’t voted, some say that their vote has no impact on the final result, but this is simply false. History shows us that a handful of votes can make all the difference. In 2008, one member of Parliament was elected by a margin of 17 votes and another by a margin of 22 votes. In simple terms, this means that if only nine and 11 voters respectively had voted for the second place candidate rather than the winner, those few votes would have changed the result. The vote of each person can have a profound impact on the results of the elections.

That is why, although voting requires only a simple gesture, it is the most important tool by which to participate in the future of our country.

Exercising your right to vote couldn’t be easier. All the information you need to vote, including where to vote, can be found on Elections Canada’s website (elections.ca) or by calling 1-800-463-6868.

Given current events, the least we can do is to vote in solidarity with those in North Africa and the Middle East who are literally dying to vote. Let us make sure that the politicians hear our voices, as a sign of respect for the families of those who have given their lives this year in the hopes of obtaining that same democratic right.

It is time to stand up and be counted.

Ronald F. Caza is a partner and Sara Ulmer and Yan Zawisza are students-at-law at the law firm Heenan Blaikie.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Sunday, May 01, 2011

Interlaken process: The carrot and the stick

Interlaken process: The carrot and the stick



Ministerial conference in Interlaken



Interlaken Conference/Interlaken Declaration/Interlaken process

STATUTE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Article 3

Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.

Article 8

Any member of the Council of Europe which has seriously violated Article 3 may be suspended from its rights of representation and requested by the Committee of Ministers to withdraw under Article 7. If such member does not comply with this request, the Committee may decide that it has ceased to be a member of the Council as from such date as the Committee may determine.

Following on from the Interlaken Conference...



Council of Europe conference adopts the ''Izmir Declaration'' on the future of the European Court of Human Rights

Ministry of Justice press release

Clarke: European Court should allow for genuine differences of national approach

26 April 2011


It is arguable that a reading of other Member States to the Council of Europe speechs at the Izir Conference run contrary to Ken Clarke sticking out a British stiff upper lip.

The UK is acting like a stubborn mule.



The UK must get past its sticking point. And fully comply with Hirst v UK (No2).

Kenneth Clarke admits the UK is a failing State

Kenneth Clarke admits the UK is a failing State

"The substantive articles contained in the HRA are exactly the same as in the ECHR. However two of the Articles are not included, Article 1 and Article 13. Under Article 1 of the ECHR rights and freedoms included in the Convention shall be secured to all people within the jurisdiction. Article 13 is the Right to an Effective Remedy. The Government felt it was not necessary to incorporate these Articles as the HRA means that convention rights are secured though domestic courts available to all and this in itself provides the effective remedy".

The Government may well have thought it was not necessary to incorporate the following Articles into the HRA 1998, I contend that it is necessary to amend the Act to include the omissions.

"Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights

The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity
".

What is wrong with the Government view is that it appears to be an attempt to get out of oblgations made under international law by way of domestic legislation. And, access to the courts is not necessarily the same as getting an effective remedy. It cannot be assumed that judges will necessarily reach a fair verdict. Especially by way of judicial review in cases of the Individual v the State. Prison case law is littered with cases where High Court judges have decided to prop up the State.

This calls into question the doctrines of the Separation of Powers and Supremacy of Parliament.

A solution to this problem may well be found in the European law principle of subsidiarity.

Particularly as Kenneth Clarke had this to say in his speech at the Izir Conference (26 – 27 April 2011):

"In Britain, it is going to be really quite difficult to persuade Parliament to pass legislation to comply with the Court’s judgment on vote for prisoners. This is regarded by our Parliament as a domestic political issue, on which there are valid arguments on both sides".

I cannot accept that being British is an excuse for ignoring to fully comply with a ECtHR judgment. For example, in 2006 the Republic of Ireland in response to Hirst v UK (No2) passed legislation to allow all prisoners to have postal votes. In addition Labour under Tony Blair's leadership brought in the HRA, and then made a statement in the Commons that prisoners would not get the vote under a Labour Government. This is proof that it is not difficult to persuade Parliament to legislate when it wants to.Blair's 'frenzied law making' : a new offence for every day spent in office.

So, the issue is not that it is difficult rather it is the lack of will to change the law which is the real problem. The question whether convicted prisoners should be allowed the vote was answered in the affirmative by the ECtHR. Because the UK allows individual petition to the ECtHR, the UK is surrendering sovereignty on the issue of determining human rights to the ECtHR. Therefore this approach is outdated: "This is regarded by our Parliament as a domestic political issue, on which there are valid arguments on both sides". The issue of human rights is an international legal and political issue. The UK is trying to forget that it is in the dock in this Individual v the State case. And that the UK submitted its arguments to the Court and lost the case, therefore any arguments submitted at the time have lost any validity. Only the winning side's arguments remain valid. This is what Parliament has difficulty with, that an individual could beat the State in a fair legal fight.

What Kenneth Clarke appears to fail to appreciate is that he is admitting that the UK is failing to deliver on its promise to deliver human rights to all its citizens. That there is a systemic failure. That there is an underlying structural fault. The UK is a failing nation State. If the UK is saying it cannot cope then it is inviting Strasbourg to provide the solution. So, instead of doing things a British way then it will have to be done a European way. Either the UK adopts the subsidiarity principle willingly or forcibly, or the UK will be forced to leave the Council of Europe and EU.

Should the European Court be allowed to dash my hopes of a cure?

Should the European Court be allowed to dash my hopes of a cure?

An imminent European ruling on stem cell research would deprive me, and others who have currently uncurable medical conditions, of hope, says Alasdair Palmer.

By Alasdair Palmer 7:00PM BST 30 Apr 2011



Comment:

"The European Court is at it again. No, not the court that has determined that Britain must give prisoners the vote, whatever our domestic law says – that's the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The villain this time is the Court that interprets EU directives for member states, and it's in Brussels, not Strasbourg".

I think that it is a good idea that disabled people, like Alasdair Palmer, are employed by the Daily Telegraph and Channel 4. However, just because someone is disabled does not give them a right to attack another national minority, that is, those with the social status of prisoners.

Why Alasdair Palmer should attack prisoners is beyond me. The villain of the piece is not the ECtHR but the UK which is in the dock and was found guilty of violating convicted prisoners human right to the vote.

If he was to find himself in prison, it would be the other prisoners who would look after him and not the system. When writing this woe is me, self-pitying, piece I think he should have left the prisoners out of it all together because they are not to blame for his condition. He just comes across as an angry, bitter and twisted bloke not deserving of pity.

The happy couple

The happy couple

Chris Riddell on coalition nuptuals