Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Facebook

Type the topic in any language to check out real time results of Who's Talking on Social Media Sites


Trending Topics: PerinaFree#MileyGravidaNoMixDiario#PerformSledgehammerInTheUKWhat Nasty#5SeneSonraBen#Çehreganlı_GüneyAzerbaycandırAcigaGoreDagilim AslanPayiSinifinObsesifProfil İs Back#KurtuluşHaydarBaştaWWWyerineTTT LütfiElvanLiterally When#TheDogShow#XlargeClubDaCumaGecesi#EdSheeranNoBrasilDevletBahçeli TunceliYolundaヌマクローよくモテ普通にしたら#MentionPeopleYouAreThankfulFor#MilliLiderErdoğanSean Abbott#CameronMustGoJoaquim Levyマホトくん#MattsNewVideoBakanlarKurulundan Bransa40BinAtama#MTVStarsニーハイの日#plebgateテストMirallasCat Powerありがとう#CHIvsDET衆院選Andrew MitchellBlack FridayWolfsburgノイタミナ#blackfridayGobble GobbleHappy Thanksgiving#HaksızlıkKardeşliğiBitirirSeninleBütünKalpler SaldırFenerbahçeÜlker#çıksınortaya#samsjams東金さんBefore You ExitMac & CheeseBrasilAmaAngelicaValeNew TomRIP Bobby Shmurda霜月PD JamesMatthew Espinosa - Teaser Trailer#HangoutwithUnionJ#DontPerformBOSSInTheUKWeCanBeliebers#AtrêLuanetes霜月ちゃんPenguins of Madagascarcranberry sauceDarren Wilson interviewTurkey Brine RecipeScott StappLymphomaMeghan TrainorJanel ParrishJurassic WorldChuck HagelTurkey BrineFox NewsRichard Shermanhow to cook a turkeyDallas CowboysCNNFergusonAl Sharptonnew orleans saintsDancing With the StarsMore

Most recent 20 results returned for keyword: Human Rights Act (Search this on MAP)

https://plus.google.com/113693759207225060778 Tim Evanson : Marion Barry dies at 78.  He was a ferocious civil rights activist, one of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s...
Marion Barry dies at 78.  He was a ferocious civil rights activist, one of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s top aides.  He fought for home rule, and won.  He was the city's first elected mayor, and pushed the city's Human Rights Act through in 1976, built a convention center, created a jobs program for youth, and engaged in a series of public works the like of which hadn't been seen since the 1920s.

And then he began taking cocaine, and then crack in the 1980s.  By 1988, his rule had become a joke.  The city was in ruins.  It took a half decade to force him from office -- and even then, he was able to return, triumphantly, after just four years in the wilderness.

Old habits die hard and Barry bankrupted the city within four years.  Driven from the mayor's office, he sought and won a seat on the city council from poverty-stricken Ward 8 -- where people elected him by huge margins, rewarding him for the battles he'd won in the 1960s and 1970s and not quite caring that he never did anything for them today.

Marion Barry.  Dead at 78.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/marion-barry-dies-4-term-dc-mayor-the-most-powerful-local-politician-of-his-generation/2014/11/23/331ad222-c5da-11df-94e1-c5afa35a9e59_story.html
Marion Barry dies at 78; 4-term D.C. mayor was the most powerful local politician of his generation
The most powerful local politician of his generation, he was a national symbol of self-governance and home rule for urban blacks, even as his personal and public life was fraught with the high drama of a drug arrest and jail sentence.
4 days ago - Via Community - View -
https://plus.google.com/113693759207225060778 Tim Evanson : Marion Barry dies at 78.  He was a ferocious civil rights activist, one of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s...
Marion Barry dies at 78.  He was a ferocious civil rights activist, one of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s top aides.  He fought for home rule, and won.  He was the city's first elected mayor, and pushed the city's Human Rights Act through in 1976 -- the first law to protect sexual orientation in the country.  He ensured it could not be amended by referendum or ballot initiative.  "Mob rule" had to be cooled through the saucer of legislation -- by electing a majority on the city council, and having the council change the HRA.

And then he began taking cocaine, and then crack in the 1980s.  But 1988, his rule had become a joke.  The city was in ruins.  It took a half decade to weasel him out of office -- and even then, he was able to return, triumphantly, after just four years in the wilderness.

Old habits die hard and Barry bankrupted the city within four years.  Driven from the mayor's office, still on drugs and womanizing ferociously, he sought and won a seat on the city council from poverty-stricken Ward 8 -- where people rewarded him endlessly for the battles he'd won in the 1960s and 1970s and didn't quite care that he never did anything for them today.

Marion Barry.  Dead at 78.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/marion-barry-dies-4-term-dc-mayor-the-most-powerful-local-politician-of-his-generation/2014/11/23/331ad222-c5da-11df-94e1-c5afa35a9e59_story.html
Marion Barry dies at 78; 4-term D.C. mayor was the most powerful local politician of his generation
The most powerful local politician of his generation, he was a national symbol of self-governance and home rule for urban blacks, even as his personal and public life was fraught with the high drama of a drug arrest and jail sentence.
4 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/115981282882693132873 Dol Eee Gong : North Korea must disappear from our world. Respectable all adults in freedom countries. First of all...
North Korea must disappear from our world.
Respectable all adults in freedom countries. First of all, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Jun-Goo Jung. I'm a man Republic of Korea. I take thanksful to all old adults in freedom countries,and I admire you with all my heart. Our Korea young people live in freedom country freely due to all old adults in freedom countries. When Korea was war with Noth Korea between 1950 and 1953. U.S.A,United Kingdom, Turkey, Australia, Philippine, Thailand, Holland, Colombia,Greece, New Zealand, Ethiopia, Beligum, France, South Africa, Luxembourg, India, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Italy helped our Korea, and many old adults dead for freedom and capitaism. Our Korea young people remember appreciation about all old adults in freedom countries for history,now. Thank you very much with all my heart. We are all brother countries. And I take thanksful to Germany,because many Korean adults lived hardly before president Park Jeong Hee time but our Korea grow rich with helf of Germany and many freedom countries, nowday. We will remember appreciation of all old adults in freedom country, forever. Nowday, North Korea disappear from our world. I admire pass North Korea Human Rights Act of UN. Nowdays, many fisherman kidnaped to Noth Korea and Korean War Pows detained in North Korea don't return back to our Republic of Korea. North Korea reader Kim Jeong Eun must take sb to court. If North Korea will disappear from our world, maybe many people of freedom countries will live with smile. Thank you sir and mem of all freedom countries.
4 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/118301199568026317703 marouane derfoufi : Wannabe activists take over ‘A letter a day’ FB group Posted   by  Mike Sivier   in   Media ,   People...
Wannabe activists take over ‘A letter a day’ FB group
Posted   by  Mike Sivier   in   Media ,   People ,   Politics Keith Lindsay-Cameron: This photo was taken on the day he reported Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Freud to the police for breaching the Human Rights Act with their Claimant Commitment for jobseekers....
Wannabe activists take over ‘A letter a day’ FB group ~ Vital Voter Views
How pathetic is this? A group of wannabe political activists called'Anonymous is in the United Kingdom' (not affiliated to Anonymous but actively opposed to it, so you can guess their point of view) has taken over Keith Lindsay-Cameron's 'A Letter A Day To Number 10′ Facebookgroup and started ...
5 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/114061695127478484641 Trinity Chambers : #FunLawFriday There was once a law allowing the people of Chester to kill Welsh visitors. Fortunately...
#FunLawFriday

There was once a law allowing the people of Chester to kill Welsh visitors.

Fortunately for the Welsh, murder and manslaughter laws and the Human Rights Act superseded it.
6 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/116975498487257697181 YM CHOI : South Korea's National Assembly enact the North Korean Human Rights Act !
South Korea's National Assembly enact the North Korean Human Rights Act !
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-fpJyYyGJOtg/VG89NbSSLuI/AAAAAAAAg_k/BfjuDQD2TTM/w506-h750/10712555_566539133445784_938637257711020732_o.jpg
6 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/110582165856337999179 SOLOMON, OLUSEYI, BANK' ADELEYE : MODERN FORM OF SLAVERY: BANALITY OF EVIL EUROPEANS OFTEN JUSTIFIED THIS USING THE CONCEPT OF THE "WHITE...
MODERN FORM OF SLAVERY: BANALITY OF EVIL
EUROPEANS OFTEN JUSTIFIED THIS USING THE CONCEPT OF THE "WHITE MANS BURDEN"

AN OBLIGATION TO "CIVILISE" THE PEOPLES OF AFRICA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/justifications.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/modern/law.shtml

ARTICLE 5 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IS AGAINST:

"THE ACT OF MUTILATING, BRANDING OR OTHERWISE MARKING A SLAVE OR PERSON OF SERVILE STATUS IN ORDER TO INDICATE HIS STATUS, OR AS A PUNISHMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON"

In My Case "THE MICROCHIP",

The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (1948) States That;

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE BORN FREE AND EQUAL IN DIGNITY AND RIGHTS"

(Article 1) and that "no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms" (Article 4).

What's Good For The "Goose Is Good For The Gander": The Law Applies To Everyone, Black, Yellow, Green, Brown Or White!

HIGHEST JUDGES AND MASTER OF THE ROLLS FINDINGS:

INTELLIGENCE "DEVIOUS AND COMPLICIT ON TORTURE";

*DID NOT RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS

*THEY CONTINUE TO USE "COERCIVE TECHNIQUES" {evident in my case}

*THEY "DELIBERATELY" MISLED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND PEERS ON THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO SCRUTINISE ITS WORK

*THEY HAVE A "CULTURE OF SUPPRESSION" IN ITS DEALINGS WITH FOREIGN SECRETARY AND THE COURT {abuse of power also evident in my case}

ALSO

"The European Court of Human Rights recently held that the UK was in breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to have specific legislation in place which criminalised domestic slavery"

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-4-no-slavery-or-forced-labour

"As a result of colonialism and imperialism, Africa lost not only its sovereignty, but also control of its natural resources like gold and rubber.

EUROPEANS OFTEN JUSTIFIED THIS USING THE CONCEPT OF THE "WHITE MANS BURDEN"

AN OBLIGATION TO "CIVILISE" THE PEOPLES OF AFRICA

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says in Article 8:

No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
No one shall be held in servitude.
No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

ARTICLE 7 OF THE SAME DOCUMENT PROTECTS ALL HUMAN BEINGS FROM "TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT, THUS OUTLAWING SOME OF THE MOST DETESTABLE PRACTICES OF ENSLAVEMENT"

Your "MICROCHIP" And Continued Failure And Refusal To Remove The Foreign Body Causing Me "Severe Excruciating Marked Pain" Is Described As:

"TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT"

Your Continued "Wishful Thinking" For It To "Blow Away" Is Foolhardy!
MY GOD IS A PATIENT GOD, PLEASE READ THE BIBLE, LEARN FROM OTHERS WHO HAVE "ABUSED POWERS"!

Article 7 of the same document protects all human beings from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, thus outlawing some of the more detestable practices of enslavement.

Article 12 of the same document gives people the rights of liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence, both of which are incompatible with slavery.

Article 16 states that "Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." Article 26 similarly says "All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law." These provisions outlaw many of the discriminations faced by slaves and ex-slaves.

"THE WHITE MANS BURDEN": THE POEM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Man%27s_Burden#The_Poem

Take up the White Man's burden, Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-
Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden, In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit, And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden, The savage wars of peace-
Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden, No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper, The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark[14] them with your living, And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard-
The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-
"Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden, Ye dare not stoop to less-
Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden, Have done with childish days-
The lightly proferred laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood, through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Man%27s_Burden#The_Poem

The European Court of Human Rights recently held that the UK was in breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to have specific legislation in place which criminalised domestic slavery.

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/11/28/uk-not-doing-enough-to-combat-human-trafficking-and-domestic-slavery/

Critics say that the process of African decolonization from the 1950s to the 1970s turned what were relatively well-ordered and peaceful territories administered by the efficient bureaucracies and legal traditions of the Western European empires into violent, inefficient and corrupt socialist dictatorships or right-wing family dictatorships with little regard for international rule of law and human rights and riddled with civil-turf wars, barbaric political purges, mass refugee crises, famines and ethnic conflict.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization_of_Africa

THEY SAY:
"CLEANLINESS IS 'NOT' NEXT TO GODLINESS"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanliness#See_also

"NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH 'CLEANLINESS OR CLEANING'"

Cleanliness is both the abstract state of being clean and free from dirt, and the process of achieving and maintaining that state.

Cleanliness may be endowed with a moral quality, as indicated by the aphorism "cleanliness is next to godliness,"[1] and may be regarded as contributing to other ideals such as health and beauty.

In emphasizing an ongoing procedure or set of habits for the purpose of maintenance and prevention, the concept of cleanliness differs from purity, which is a physical, moral, or ritual state of freedom from pollutants.

Whereas purity is usually a quality of an individual or substance, cleanliness has a social dimension, or implies a system of interactions.

"Cleanliness," observed Jacob Burckhardt, "is indispensable to our modern notion of social perfection."

A household or workplace may be said to exhibit cleanliness, but not ordinarily purity; cleanliness also would be a characteristic of the people who maintain cleanness or prevent dirtying.

On a practical level, cleanliness is thus related to hygiene and disease prevention.

Washing is one way of achieving physical cleanliness, usually with water and often some kind of soap or detergent.

Procedures of cleanliness are of utmost importance in many forms of manufacturing.

As an assertion of moral superiority or respectability, cleanliness has played a role in establishing cultural values in relation to social class, humanitarianism, and cultural imperialism."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanliness#See_also

MODERN SLAVERY IS UPON US, ITS HAPPENING UNDER THE GUISE OF;
"NATIONAL SECURITY", AND USING THE RIPA ACT LAW TO INVOKE "OPPRESSION"
"RACE HATE"
"SUPPRESSION"
"VICTIMISATION" AND "PERSECUTION"

USING OUR LAW COURTS TO FIND SOMEONE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE HE IS NOT AWARE OF, IN ABSENTIA;
HE WAS REFUSED "REPRESENTATION" BY POLICE.

THE COURTS FAILED TO ASK HIM IF HE WAS WILLING TO BE REPRESENTED!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmpublic/modernslavery/memo/ms01.htm

IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ABOVE, I AM BEEN SUBJECTED TO A "DRACONIAN AND AUTHORITARIAN" FORM OF SLAVERY!

My Wheelchair, Is What I Use To Get Around Because Of My Disability, The Authorities "Surreptitiously" Stole My Wheelchair Making It Impossible For Me To Get Around;
MY MEDICATION IS CRIMINALLY TAMPERED WITH
MY FOOD DELIVERED HAS GIVEN ME FOOD POISONING 6 TIMES
MY LEFT HAND IS SWOLLEN SOMETIMES INFECTED

Whenever I Try To Report This I Am Discouraged By Sussex Police And The Metropolitan Police
THIS CAN "ONLY" BE DEFINED AS;

"A SURREPTITIOUS OR COVERT FORM OF MODERN SLAVERY"

OUR HIGHEST JUDGES IN THE UK INCLUDING "MASTER OF THE ROLLS" SPOKE ABOUT THE

The horrors of the slave trade were most pronounced during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Wherever a raid on a village took place, death and destruction followed.

Many more people died defending their homes and families, or as a result of the starvation and disease which usually followed such violence, than were ever actually enslaved, let alone sold at the coast.

One shudders to think of the most diabolical ways in which the poor natives of Africa were captured, separated from their kith and kin, carried away and treated as worse than animals. We shall now give a short account from the books of Western authors themselves on how the slaves were treated and what cruel methods were employed by the slave hunters. Their methods were at once crude and wasteful, because they were robbers, not warriors. “Their practice was to surround some villages which they have marked down for their prey, and approach it silently at night. The village was usually a collection of primitive mud huts thatched with bamboo's and palm leaves, all highly inflammable, which they set alight without compunction, generally at dawn.

As the inhabitants woke to the cracking of flames and struggled into the open, they were rounded up and made prisoners. Any of them who resisted were cut down, as the slave hunters had no mercy for them. They had no use for the old or infirm or for babes who were all killed on the spot, and only men and women in their prime, and young boys and girls, were spared, to be carried off into slavery, leaving behind the dead bodies and dying ashes, where once there had been happy homes and flourishing settlements. The waste was out of all proportion to the prize. But waste, wanton waste, was the hall-mark of the negro slavery, from its first moments to the last. Wherever it reared its head, death, disease and destruction were its invariable concomitants...

“Those captured far inland were less fortunate, for they had to march to the coast on their feet - a dreary trudge over many miles of thick forest and rough desert.
They walked almost naked, with no protection against sharp thorns, and jagged stones.

To prevent escape, they had heavy forked poles fastened round their necks; their hands, if they were troublesome, might be secured through holes in a rough wooden board, and they were fettered with chains on their ankles.

Linked together by ropes, the long lines known as coffles, they trudged miserably on towards their terrifying fate; for all Africans knew that the white were fed on the negros bought from the barracoons.

Their captors drove them relentlessly forward, ignoring wounds and lacerations, and physicking their energy by plentiful flicks of the whips.

If any succumbed, he was thrown on one side; if any of them became too ill, they were left to die or more mercifully knocked on the head.”

“The lot of plantation slave was really very hard. The job assigned to him was, from his point of view, skilled; he was to cultivate a crop unknown to him - for the most part sugar in the West Indies, cotton or tobacco in America - and, in that his work was novel, he endured a heavier burden than his counterpart in Greece or Rome or among the serfs of Europe..

All was new and strange to him; he had, therefore, to be broken in; he had to be taught his new duties; he had to be seasoned' as the saying was. 'Seasoning' was a euphemism for a harsh discipline, which was reckoned by the opponents of slavery to carry off not less than twenty per cent of those who underwent it.

May be that was over the mark, but it must nonetheless be admitted that large numbers died. The discipline was painful, and there was little to ameliorate and much to embitter its seventy.

The slaves had to pass through terrible stages of suffering. The cumulative effect of all the hardships was disastrous.

To quote Sherrard again, “this was particularly true of the 'seasoning', for beyond doubt a large proportion of those who died under its discipline would have died in any event from the effects of the middle passage. Experience showed that the greater number of those who were weak or emaciated on arrival died soon afterwards whatever they did.

The medical authorities put this down to 'long confinement in slave-houses previous to embarkation, want of CLEANLINESS AND VENTILATION while on hoard the slave-ships, alterations in dress, food and habits, and, not the least, change of climate' (Buxton, p. 188)."



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/11/binyam-mohamed-torture-missing-paragraph

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-torture-mi5

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/11/miliband-mi5-terrorism-war-chilcot


THE TORTURE MEMOIRS
BANALITY OF EVIL IS EVERYWHERE
THE TORTURE MEMOIRS SHOW HOW ILLEGAL WARS TURN EVEN THE NICEST PEOPLE BAD

THE DECEIT, THE SLAUGHTER, THE TORTURE, THE ATROCITY, THE ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

THE TORTURE MEMOIRS SHOW HOW ILLEGAL WARS TURN EVEN THE NICEST PEOPLE BAD

TODAY, HANNAH ARENDT'S:
BANALITY OF EVIL IS EVERYWHERE


SOMETHING IS WRONG.

A SENSIBLE, CLEAN-LIVING CHAP SUCH AS DAVID MILLIBAND WANTS NOTHING MORE SINISTER THAN TO LEAD THE LABOUR PARTY;

YET HE FINDS HIMSELF CONSORTING WITH SPIES, LAWYERS, RENDITION MERCHANTS AND TORTURERS.

HIS ONLY EXPERIENCE OF COERCION WAS WATER-BOARDING BRITISH SCHOOL TEACHERS WITH TARGETS AND RED TAPE.

NOW HE MUST DEFEND THE INTERROGATORS OF GUANTANAMO AND EXPLAIN THE BLOODSTAINED CELLS OF PAKISTAN AND

Whatever Plaudits Were Due To ­Foreign Office Lawyers During The ­CHILCOT Inquiry Have Been Expunged By This Week's Revelation Of Their Antics In Trying To Conceal Details Of Post-9/11 ­Torture By British Agents
The security services were clearly implicated in the brutal questioning of the Guantánamo inmate, Binyam Mohamed – treatment so bad as to render his trial unsafe and force his release.

Papers revealed by the high court depict a Foreign Office running about stamping on a stream of embarrassing disclosures, largely because Miliband was desperate not to seem a wimp in front of his hero, Hillary Clinton.

We now know that both Miliband and the head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, told an untruth in asserting, as the latter said last October, that British security services do not practise torture, "nor do we collude in torture or solicit others to torture people on our behalf".

While the definition of torture is moot, at least five relevant incidents in Guantánamo are admitted. On Wednesday, Miliband was forced to hire the maestro of Whitehall autocracy, Jonathan Sumption QC, to demand that the Master of the Rolls censor his damning judgment of Miliband to avoid giving further pain to ministers. We must assume that Miliband did not trust his own lawyers to do this dirty work. All this is because Britain believes that publishing details of what interrogators did to its residents would lead Washington to retaliate by not warning of an ­impending terror attack on London. The belief is absurd.

How did we reach this pass? The answer has taxed philosophers from Socrates to Hannah Arendt. Even the nicest people go to the bad when caught up in ill-conceived, illegal or unjust wars. Socrates wrestled with the duty of obedience to a stupid state. Arendt noted how easily officials drift down the path of horror when they lose sight of the point where morality calls on them to say no. They sink, she said, into "the banality of evil".

The so-called war on terror saw a politically weak American president seek popularity in redefining a criminal act as a "war between states". Tony Blair agreed. His assertion to the Chilcot inquiry that "9/11 changed everything" was self-serving. The attack was just the latest in a line of attempted terrorist atrocities by Islamist extremists, albeit one that succeeded horrifically.

To call such crimes acts of war gives them rhetorical force, but in no sense did al-Qaida or its imitators threaten the integrity or security of a western state. These countries are too strong for such threat to be meaningful. The only damage they can do beyond sudden carnage is self-inflicted, by governments that decide to react with exaggerated fear. Yet the pretence of "going to war" has unleashed two of the most destructive, costly and prolonged state-on-state aggressions in half a century.

What is extraordinary is the reluctance of British politics to bring a sense of proportion to the terrorist threat. Every agency of democracy, from parliament to the army, the police and the media, is directed at exaggerating the status and menace of al-Qaida – and thus at doing Osama bin Laden's work for him.

Some politicians have clearly had doubts. At Chilcot, Jack Straw claimed to have proposed supporting, but not joining, America in Iraq. As it was, his overt backing for the war was, he boasts, critical since "if I had refused, the UK's participation in the military action would not in practice have been possible". Given his doubts and the weight of legal advice coming his way, it is hard to see him as anything but a man who lacked the courage of his convictions.

Other cabinet ministers are lining up to express their own doubts about Iraq, as they will one day do about Afghanistan. They say that war is "not my department", that they "made Tony aware of my reservations", that it was all America's fault. Yet such was the deceit of these wars, such has been the ­slaughter, the atrocity against civilians, the torture of prisoners, the abuse of human rights – and so few the resignations – that Arendt's banality of evil seems everywhere.

Tuesday's Spectator debate on Afghanistan at the Royal Geographical Society, much attended by soldiers, had the jingoistic quality of Joan Littlewood's Oh, What A Lovely War!. To the oft-repeated question, why are we there, speakers such as General Lord Guthrie and the historian Andrew Roberts pleaded the party line. It was "to make the streets of London safe", to create a stable democratic state in Afghanistan that gave no house-room to al-Qaida, even if it took decades and even if the terrorists "moved elsewhere".

Since this sounded like trying to empty the sea with a spoon, the case for war shifted over the course of the debate. It was to enable Britain "to be a real Nato force", "to show itself to the world", "to cut some ice". The war became a manifestation of patriotism and national potency. Would it not be terrible to be another Germany, France, Sweden, Japan? War did not need just cause, or even efficacy, merely a noble epithet.

The case for being in Afghanistan has become an exercise in verbal sophistry. To Guthrie, we are killing Taliban "to stop them killing us". To Roberts we are doing so to stop them setting off a dirty nuclear bomb, which would "spread cancer over a 30-mile radius", a terrorist-appeasing fantasy debunked in John Mueller's recent Atomic Obsession.

The truth is that mission creep has made this war largely ideological – witness constant ministerial references to Kabul ­corruption, to opium, warlordism and the treatment of women. The streets of London are not being saved in the plains of Helmand, any more than they would be if the fight went to the mountains of Waziristan or the hills of Yemen. To the war party, ­Islam is the problem. It is the regime that must be changed.

Yet an enemy that poses no concerted threat to western territory or western interests has been allowed to damage the west's liberal tradition. Bush and Blair were brazenly unconcerned with international law. We now have it confirmed that they do not care for the Geneva conventions. Such hard-won restraints on the practice of war, such as not bombing civilian targets, not assassinating leaders, respecting cultural sites, treating prisoners humanely, and sustaining the rule of law back home, have been casually set aside.

In seven paragraphs, the proof of MI5 complicity in torture of Binyam Mohamed
The information that foreign secretary David Miliband fought to keep out of court judgments – and its significance


Below are the seven paragraphs in full which the Foreign Office published hours after the court of appeal judgment. Under the paragraphs is an explanation of their significance.

1 It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

MI5 had known since at least ­January of that year that US authorities were mistreating detainees held in the ­so-called war on terror.

Legal advice was issued to its officers that month to allow them to continue questioning people they believed were suffering ­mistreatment – although it is unclear how lawful that advice was. "New strategy" appears to be a ­euphemism for such mistreatment.


2 It was reported that at some stage during that further interview ­process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

The court says Witness B (a MI5 agent) "probably" read the documents before he travelled to Pakistan to question Mohamed, and that others in MI5 ­certainly had, so MI5 would have known Mohamed was being subjected to sleep deprivation before their interrogation. Mohamed's lawyers say this amounts to complicity in torture.It is also clear that the CIA, on whose behalf the Pakistanis were holding Mohamed, was ­monitoring the effects upon Mohamed.

3 It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and 'disappearing' were played upon.

Mohamed was being threatened with rendition. Three months later the CIA flew him to Morocco, where he says he suffered worse treatment – ­including having his genitals slashed with a razor. The US courts have accepted this as true. Speaking in the Commons today, Miliband highlighted the fact that there is no mention of razors in the seven paragraphs he was forced to release – but that may be only because that torture had not begun.

4 It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate ­tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews.

More evidence, Mohamed's lawyers would say, that MI5 was aware of Mohamed's state of mind before Witness B interrogated him.

5 It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

Yet further evidence that MI5 was made aware of Mohamed's suffering before it questioned him. But the legal advice drawn up four months earlier said its officers were under no obligation to intervene to prevent Mohamed's ­mistreatment, as he was not in British custody. Experts in international law say this advice did not meet the requirements of the UN convention against torture. Those rules were changed – with the full awareness of Tony Blair – in 2004, but there is evidence to show that they subsequently allowed MI5 to effectively sub-contract ­torture overseas.

6 We regret to have to conclude that the reports provided to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

The two high court judges are expressing their regret that SyS – the Security Service, or MI5 – knew exactly what was happening to Mohamed before Witness B interrogated him.

7 The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972.

Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities.

The judges are pointing out that what was happening to Mohamed was banned in Britain by the Heath government. The ban was imposed when Ireland began proceedings against the UK in the European courts"

IN THE SPACE OF 14 YEARS THE ABOVE TREATMENT AND WORSE HAS BEEN DEPLOYED AT ME IN THE UK

THE "MICROCHIP" DEPLOYED IN MY LEFT HAND IS:
"A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY"

THE DECEIT: DECEPTION, HATE AND CONSPIRACY, CONTINUOUSLY USED OVER 14 YEARS TO "COVER-UP" THIS "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY" IS VAST AND AIMED AT "DEFAMATION OF MY CHARACTER, SMEAR AND ENSLAVERY!

The Above Has Been Proven To Be Their Modus Operandi {See The Stephen Lawrence Case}
ITS TORTURE, ITS DELIBERATE, ITS UNACCEPTABLE!




________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Binyam Mohamed:
Torture and the missing paragraph
This is a desperately serious state of affairs, whatever spin the government puts on it


Governments of every type make mistakes, what distinguishes the good from the bad – and the free from the tyrannical – is the facility to learn from them. The legal manoeuvring in the case of Binyam Mohamed which emerged yesterday is thus deeply chilling. The torture of this British resident, who was last year released without charge by the US after years of alleged brutish caging which left him feeling "dead", is fast becoming established fact. The allegations that certain UK agents knew about this are also becoming firmer. But rather than confront these disturbing matters, the government has scrambled to conceal them at every stage – draping the "national security" blanket over American actions, British knowledge and, indeed, over the very motives for wanting to keep everything secret.

The "war on terror" is nowadays consigned to the rhetorical dustbin, but even as the Chilcot inquiry attempts to make retrospective sense of one of its messiest campaigns, the court of appeal has found itself called to active service on another of its gory fronts. While retired Foreign Office lawyers queue up to tell Chilcot that their advice on Iraq was ignored, their hardline successors have pushed their attempts to suppress the truth about torture all the way to the final judgment – and beyond.

Still in some sense his master's apprentice, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, yesterday turned in a Commons performance of such audacity that Tony Blair himself would have been proud. No matter that he had just been forced to release the previously censored views of a lower court that the UK knew that the Americans were stressing, shackling and subjugating Mr Mohamed in a manner that "would clearly have been in breach of the [anti-torture] undertakings given by the United Kingdom", Mr Miliband carried on as if he had won some form of victory – simply because the judges had given a nod to some familiar principles which govern the handling of intelligence. He claimed quite definitively that without recent American rulings the decision would have gone the other way. And in a truly Tonyesque twist he defied his accusers by proclaiming his innocence of a sin with which he was not charged, shrugging off the blame for keeping the public in the dark by pointing out that he had never attempted to restrict the information available for Mr Mohamed's defence.

After the country's top three appeal justices had circulated their views among interested parties – a custom designed to allow for the correcting of minor inaccuracies – the government's barrister launched an unusual bid to erase the most damning passage. He succeeded, too, although his victory was pyrrhic thanks to the leaking of his letter which – helpfully to the public, although not to his client – provides a singularly acute precis of exactly what he wanted struck out and why. The court was effectively about to rule, Mr Sumption revealed, that MI5 had treated basic rights with contempt and had lied to the parliamentary watchdog which provides its only oversight. In Mr Sumption's summary, a senior judge had initially found that there was such a "culture of suppression" within MI5 that it undermined any government assurances on its behalf.

This devastating verdict upon a secret intelligence agency – contained in the original paragraph 168 of the Master of the Rolls's judgment – was drastically watered down in the published judgment, though Lord Neuberger later admitted he may have been "over hasty" in submitting to Mr Sumption's critique of his original words. The court should now agree to the publication of the original paragraph so that the public can judge the three versions of it now in circulation. Parliament cannot claim to exercise effective oversight of MI5 if (as one of our most senior judges apparently believed) it has been "deliberately misled". This is a desperately serious state of affairs, whatever spin Mr Miliband puts on it.


----_________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top judge: Binyam Mohamed case shows MI5 to be devious, dishonest and complicit in torture
Legal defeat plunges Security Service into crisis over torture evidence, and it is revealed that judge removed damning verdict after Foreign Office QC's plea

• Breakdown of David Miliband's Commons statement

• Read the letter that reveals the draft ruling


Richard Norton-Taylor and Ian Cobain
The Guardian, Wednesday 10 February 2010 21.40 GMT

Binyam Mohamed, left, and foreign secretary David Miliband. Photograph: PA
MI5 faced an unprecedented and damaging crisis tonight after one of the country's most senior judges found that the Security Service had failed to respect human rights, deliberately misled parliament, and had a "culture of suppression" that undermined government assurances about its conduct.

The condemnation, by Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls, was drafted shortly before the foreign secretary, David Miliband, lost his long legal battle to suppress a seven-paragraph court document showing that MI5 officers were involved in the ill-treatment of a British resident, Binyam Mohamed.

Amid mounting calls for an independent inquiry into the affair, three of the country's most senior judges – Lord Judge, the lord chief justice, Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Lord Neuberger – disclosed evidence of MI5's complicity in Mohamed's torture and unlawful interrogation by the US.

So severe were Neuberger's criticisms of MI5 that the government's leading lawyer in the case, Jonathan Sumption QC, privately wrote to the court asking him to reconsider his draft judgment before it was handed down.

The judges agreed but Sumption's letter, which refers to Neuberger's original comments, was made public after lawyers for Mohamed and media organisations, including the Guardian, intervened.

They argued that Neuberger had privately agreed with Sumption to remove his fierce criticisms without giving then the chance to contest the move.

In his letter, Sumption warned the judges that the criticism of MI5 would be seen by the public as statements by the court that the agency:

• Did not respect human rights.

• Had not renounced participation in "coercive interrogation" techniques.

• Deliberately misled MPs and peers on the intelligence and security committee, who are supposed to scrutinise its work.

• Had a "culture of suppression" in its dealings with Miliband and the court.

Sumption described Neuberger's observations in his draft judgment as "an exceptionally damaging criticism of the good faith of the Security Service as a whole".

His letter also refers to the MI5 officer known as Witness B, who is understood to have interrogated Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan in 2002. Witness B gave evidence in the hearings and is now at the centre of a Scotland Yard investigation. Sumption's letter implies that Neuberger did not believe that Witness B was acting alone and that the judge believed that Witness B's conduct was "characteristic of the service as a whole".

The court's final ruling forced the Foreign Office to publish a seven-paragraph summary of 42 classified CIA documents that were handed to MI5 before Witness B travelled to Pakistan to interrogate Mohamed. These show that MI5 was aware that Mohamed was being continuously deprived of sleep, threatened with rendition and subjected to previous interrogations that were causing him "significant mental stress and suffering". If administered in the UK, the summary says, it would clearly be in breach of undertakings about interrogation techniques made by the British government in 1972.

The three judges referred to a recent case in a US court where the judge found Mohamed's claims about how he was tortured to be truthful. This vindicated his assertion that "UK authorities had been involved in and facilitated the ill-treatment and torture to which he was subjected while under the control of the USA authorities".

There were renewed calls tonightfor an inquiry into MI5's involvement in torture overseas and into government policies after the 9/11 attacks.

Miliband told MPs that the ruling was leading to a "great deal of concern" in the US. In a statement to the Commons he said he had fought to prevent the release of the information to defend the "fundamental" principle that intelligence shared with the UK would be protected.

The Foreign Office claimed tonightthat the criticisms in the draft judgment had been "unsubstantiated", and denied that Sumption's approach to the court had been intended to suppress criticism of MI5. Nevertheless, the court is to convene tomorrow to reconsider whether to publish all or parts of the 21-line paragraph from the draft judgment in which the criticisms appear.

The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, wrote to the court after the Sumption letter came to light on Monday night. He said today: "It is good news that – after a challenge from the Guardian and other news organisations – the courts have finally ordered the government to reveal evidence of MI5 complicity in torture. This is a watershed in open justice in an area in which it is notoriously difficult to shine a light. But it was extremely disturbing that the government's lawyers made a successful last-ditch attempt to get the master of the rolls to rewrite his judgment."

FINALLY
"At Article 5 the Convention tried to reduce the harm that slavery involved where it still existed when it outlawed:

"THE ACT OF MUTILATING, BRANDING OR OTHERWISE MARKING A SLAVE OR PERSON OF SERVILE STATUS IN ORDER TO INDICATE HIS STATUS, OR AS A PUNISHMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON"

Finally, at Article 6, the Convention said that:

The act of enslaving another person or of inducing another person to give himself or a person dependent upon him into slavery, or of attempting these acts, or being accessory thereto, or being a party to a conspiracy to accomplish any such acts, shall be a criminal offence
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions Similar to Slavery (1956)
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court characterizes 'enslavement' as a crime against humanity falling within the jurisdiction of the Court , and describes 'enslavement' as:

the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
It also categorises "Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" as crimes against humanity.

The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children makes it a crime to traffic people "for the purpose of exploitation" and adds:

Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children"

JUST TO MAKE IT "EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAR":
"MICROCHIPS" DEPLOYED IN MY HAND, UNDER FALSE AUSPICES OF 'K WIRES', FOR AN ALLEGED 'SCAPHOID' FRACTURE, IS A "VICIOUS CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY"

YOUR CONTINUED DELAY, USING 'DRACONIAN AND AUTHORITARIAN' REASONS IS TYPICAL!

I SERVE THE ALMIGHTY GOD:
GOD OF ABRAHAM
GOD OF ISAAC
GOD OF ISRAEL

JUSTICE SHALL PREVAIL IN GODS WAY AND HIS TIMING

TO GOD BE THE GLORY FOREVERMORE


6 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/110582165856337999179 SOLOMON, OLUSEYI, BANK' ADELEYE : MODERN FORM OF SLAVERY: BANALITY OF EVIL EUROPEANS OFTEN JUSTIFIED THIS USING THE CONCEPT OF THE "WHITE...
MODERN FORM OF SLAVERY: BANALITY OF EVIL
EUROPEANS OFTEN JUSTIFIED THIS USING THE CONCEPT OF THE "WHITE MANS BURDEN"

AN OBLIGATION TO "CIVILISE" THE PEOPLES OF AFRICA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/justifications.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/modern/law.shtml

ARTICLE 5 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IS AGAINST:

"THE ACT OF MUTILATING, BRANDING OR OTHERWISE MARKING A SLAVE OR PERSON OF SERVILE STATUS IN ORDER TO INDICATE HIS STATUS, OR AS A PUNISHMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON"

In My Case "THE MICROCHIP",

The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (1948) States That;

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE BORN FREE AND EQUAL IN DIGNITY AND RIGHTS"

(Article 1) and that "no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms" (Article 4).

What's Good For The "Goose Is Good For The Gander": The Law Applies To Everyone, Black, Yellow, Green, Brown Or White!

HIGHEST JUDGES AND MASTER OF THE ROLLS FINDINGS:

INTELLIGENCE "DEVIOUS AND COMPLICIT ON TORTURE";

*DID NOT RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS

*THEY CONTINUE TO USE "COERCIVE TECHNIQUES" {evident in my case}

*THEY "DELIBERATELY" MISLED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND PEERS ON THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO SCRUTINISE ITS WORK

*THEY HAVE A "CULTURE OF SUPPRESSION" IN ITS DEALINGS WITH FOREIGN SECRETARY AND THE COURT {abuse of power also evident in my case}

ALSO

"The European Court of Human Rights recently held that the UK was in breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to have specific legislation in place which criminalised domestic slavery"

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-4-no-slavery-or-forced-labour

"As a result of colonialism and imperialism, Africa lost not only its sovereignty, but also control of its natural resources like gold and rubber.

EUROPEANS OFTEN JUSTIFIED THIS USING THE CONCEPT OF THE "WHITE MANS BURDEN"

AN OBLIGATION TO "CIVILISE" THE PEOPLES OF AFRICA

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says in Article 8:

No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
No one shall be held in servitude.
No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

ARTICLE 7 OF THE SAME DOCUMENT PROTECTS ALL HUMAN BEINGS FROM "TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT, THUS OUTLAWING SOME OF THE MOST DETESTABLE PRACTICES OF ENSLAVEMENT"

Your "MICROCHIP" And Continued Failure And Refusal To Remove The Foreign Body Causing Me "Severe Excruciating Marked Pain" Is Described As:

"TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT"

Your Continued "Wishful Thinking" For It To "Blow Away" Is Foolhardy!
MY GOD IS A PATIENT GOD, PLEASE READ THE BIBLE, LEARN FROM OTHERS WHO HAVE "ABUSED POWERS"!

Article 7 of the same document protects all human beings from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, thus outlawing some of the more detestable practices of enslavement.

Article 12 of the same document gives people the rights of liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence, both of which are incompatible with slavery.

Article 16 states that "Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." Article 26 similarly says "All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law." These provisions outlaw many of the discriminations faced by slaves and ex-slaves.

"THE WHITE MANS BURDEN": THE POEM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Man%27s_Burden#The_Poem

Take up the White Man's burden, Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-
- Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden, In patience to abide,-
- To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride;-
-By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain

- To seek another's profit, And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden, The savage wars of peace-
Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden, No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper, The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark[14] them with your living, And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard-
The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-
"Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden, Ye dare not stoop to less-
- Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness;-
By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do,
- The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden, Have done with childish days
The lightly proferred laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood, through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Man%27s_Burden#The_Poem

The European Court of Human Rights recently held that the UK was in breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to have specific legislation in place which criminalised domestic slavery.

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/11/28/uk-not-doing-enough-to-combat-human-trafficking-and-domestic-slavery/

Critics say that the process of African decolonization from the 1950s to the 1970s turned what were relatively well-ordered and peaceful territories administered by the efficient bureaucracies and legal traditions of the Western European empires into violent, inefficient and corrupt socialist dictatorships or right-wing family dictatorships with little regard for international rule of law and human rights and riddled with civil-turf wars, barbaric political purges, mass refugee crises, famines and ethnic conflict.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization_of_Africa

THEY SAY:
"CLEANLINESS IS 'NOT' NEXT TO GODLINESS"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanliness#See_also

"NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH 'CLEANLINESS OR CLEANING'"

Cleanliness is both the abstract state of being clean and free from dirt, and the process of achieving and maintaining that state.

Cleanliness may be endowed with a moral quality, as indicated by the aphorism "cleanliness is next to godliness,"[1] and may be regarded as contributing to other ideals such as health and beauty.

In emphasizing an ongoing procedure or set of habits for the purpose of maintenance and prevention, the concept of cleanliness differs from purity, which is a physical, moral, or ritual state of freedom from pollutants.

Whereas purity is usually a quality of an individual or substance, cleanliness has a social dimension, or implies a system of interactions.

"Cleanliness," observed Jacob Burckhardt, "is indispensable to our modern notion of social perfection."

A household or workplace may be said to exhibit cleanliness, but not ordinarily purity; cleanliness also would be a characteristic of the people who maintain cleanness or prevent dirtying.

On a practical level, cleanliness is thus related to hygiene and disease prevention.

Washing is one way of achieving physical cleanliness, usually with water and often some kind of soap or detergent.

Procedures of cleanliness are of utmost importance in many forms of manufacturing.

As an assertion of moral superiority or respectability, cleanliness has played a role in establishing cultural values in relation to social class, humanitarianism, and cultural imperialism."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanliness#See_also

MODERN SLAVERY IS UPON US, ITS HAPPENING UNDER THE GUISE OF;
"NATIONAL SECURITY", AND USING THE RIPA ACT LAW TO INVOKE "OPPRESSION"
"RACE HATE"
"SUPPRESSION"
"VICTIMISATION" AND "PERSECUTION"

USING OUR LAW COURTS TO FIND SOMEONE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE HE IS NOT AWARE OF, IN ABSENTIA;
HE WAS REFUSED "REPRESENTATION" BY POLICE.

THE COURTS FAILED TO ASK HIM IF HE WAS WILLING TO BE REPRESENTED!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmpublic/modernslavery/memo/ms01.htm

IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ABOVE, I AM BEEN SUBJECTED TO A "DRACONIAN AND AUTHORITARIAN" FORM OF SLAVERY!

My Wheelchair, Is What I Use To Get Around Because Of My Disability, The Authorities "Surreptitiously" Stole My Wheelchair Making It Impossible For Me To Get Around;
MY MEDICATION IS CRIMINALLY TAMPERED WITH
MY FOOD DELIVERED HAS GIVEN ME FOOD POISONING 6 TIMES
MY LEFT HAND IS SWOLLEN SOMETIMES INFECTED

Whenever I Try To Report This I Am Discouraged By Sussex Police And The Metropolitan Police
THIS CAN "ONLY" BE DEFINED AS;

"A SURREPTITIOUS OR COVERT FORM OF MODERN SLAVERY"

OUR HIGHEST JUDGES IN THE UK INCLUDING "MASTER OF THE ROLLS" SPOKE ABOUT THE

The horrors of the slave trade were most pronounced during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Wherever a raid on a village took place, death and destruction followed.

Many more people died defending their homes and families, or as a result of the starvation and disease which usually followed such violence, than were ever actually enslaved, let alone sold at the coast.

One shudders to think of the most diabolical ways in which the poor natives of Africa were captured, separated from their kith and kin, carried away and treated as worse than animals. We shall now give a short account from the books of Western authors themselves on how the slaves were treated and what cruel methods were employed by the slave hunters. Their methods were at once crude and wasteful, because they were robbers, not warriors. “Their practice was to surround some villages which they have marked down for their prey, and approach it silently at night. The village was usually a collection of primitive mud huts thatched with bamboo's and palm leaves, all highly inflammable, which they set alight without compunction, generally at dawn.

As the inhabitants woke to the cracking of flames and struggled into the open, they were rounded up and made prisoners. Any of them who resisted were cut down, as the slave hunters had no mercy for them. They had no use for the old or infirm or for babes who were all killed on the spot, and only men and women in their prime, and young boys and girls, were spared, to be carried off into slavery, leaving behind the dead bodies and dying ashes, where once there had been happy homes and flourishing settlements. The waste was out of all proportion to the prize. But waste, wanton waste, was the hall-mark of the negro slavery, from its first moments to the last. Wherever it reared its head, death, disease and destruction were its invariable concomitants...

“Those captured far inland were less fortunate, for they had to march to the coast on their feet - a dreary trudge over many miles of thick forest and rough desert.
They walked almost naked, with no protection against sharp thorns, and jagged stones.

To prevent escape, they had heavy forked poles fastened round their necks; their hands, if they were troublesome, might be secured through holes in a rough wooden board, and they were fettered with chains on their ankles.

Linked together by ropes, the long lines known as coffles, they trudged miserably on towards their terrifying fate; for all Africans knew that the white were fed on the negros bought from the barracoons.

Their captors drove them relentlessly forward, ignoring wounds and lacerations, and physicking their energy by plentiful flicks of the whips.

If any succumbed, he was thrown on one side; if any of them became too ill, they were left to die or more mercifully knocked on the head.”

“The lot of plantation slave was really very hard. The job assigned to him was, from his point of view, skilled; he was to cultivate a crop unknown to him - for the most part sugar in the West Indies, cotton or tobacco in America - and, in that his work was novel, he endured a heavier burden than his counterpart in Greece or Rome or among the serfs of Europe..

All was new and strange to him; he had, therefore, to be broken in; he had to be taught his new duties; he had to be seasoned' as the saying was. 'Seasoning' was a euphemism for a harsh discipline, which was reckoned by the opponents of slavery to carry off not less than twenty per cent of those who underwent it.

May be that was over the mark, but it must nonetheless be admitted that large numbers died. The discipline was painful, and there was little to ameliorate and much to embitter its seventy.

The slaves had to pass through terrible stages of suffering. The cumulative effect of all the hardships was disastrous.

To quote Sherrard again, “this was particularly true of the 'seasoning', for beyond doubt a large proportion of those who died under its discipline would have died in any event from the effects of the middle passage. Experience showed that the greater number of those who were weak or emaciated on arrival died soon afterwards whatever they did.

The medical authorities put this down to 'long confinement in slave-houses previous to embarkation, want of CLEANLINESS AND VENTILATION while on hoard the slave-ships, alterations in dress, food and habits, and, not the least, change of climate' (Buxton, p. 188)."



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/11/binyam-mohamed-torture-missing-paragraph

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-torture-mi5

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/11/miliband-mi5-terrorism-war-chilcot


THE TORTURE MEMOIRS
BANALITY OF EVIL IS EVERYWHERE
THE TORTURE MEMOIRS SHOW HOW ILLEGAL WARS TURN EVEN THE NICEST PEOPLE BAD

THE DECEIT, THE SLAUGHTER, THE TORTURE, THE ATROCITY, THE ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

THE TORTURE MEMOIRS SHOW HOW ILLEGAL WARS TURN EVEN THE NICEST PEOPLE BAD

TODAY, HANNAH ARENDT'S:
BANALITY OF EVIL IS EVERYWHERE


SOMETHING IS WRONG.

A SENSIBLE, CLEAN-LIVING CHAP SUCH AS DAVID MILLIBAND WANTS NOTHING MORE SINISTER THAN TO LEAD THE LABOUR PARTY;

YET HE FINDS HIMSELF CONSORTING WITH SPIES, LAWYERS, RENDITION MERCHANTS AND TORTURERS.

HIS ONLY EXPERIENCE OF COERCION WAS WATER-BOARDING BRITISH SCHOOL TEACHERS WITH TARGETS AND RED TAPE.

NOW HE MUST DEFEND THE INTERROGATORS OF GUANTANAMO AND EXPLAIN THE BLOODSTAINED CELLS OF PAKISTAN AND

Whatever Plaudits Were Due To ­Foreign Office Lawyers During The ­CHILCOT Inquiry Have Been Expunged By This Week's Revelation Of Their Antics In Trying To Conceal Details Of Post-9/11 ­Torture By British Agents
The security services were clearly implicated in the brutal questioning of the Guantánamo inmate, Binyam Mohamed – treatment so bad as to render his trial unsafe and force his release.

Papers revealed by the high court depict a Foreign Office running about stamping on a stream of embarrassing disclosures, largely because Miliband was desperate not to seem a wimp in front of his hero, Hillary Clinton.

We now know that both Miliband and the head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, told an untruth in asserting, as the latter said last October, that British security services do not practise torture, "nor do we collude in torture or solicit others to torture people on our behalf".

While the definition of torture is moot, at least five relevant incidents in Guantánamo are admitted. On Wednesday, Miliband was forced to hire the maestro of Whitehall autocracy, Jonathan Sumption QC, to demand that the Master of the Rolls censor his damning judgment of Miliband to avoid giving further pain to ministers. We must assume that Miliband did not trust his own lawyers to do this dirty work. All this is because Britain believes that publishing details of what interrogators did to its residents would lead Washington to retaliate by not warning of an ­impending terror attack on London. The belief is absurd.

How did we reach this pass? The answer has taxed philosophers from Socrates to Hannah Arendt. Even the nicest people go to the bad when caught up in ill-conceived, illegal or unjust wars. Socrates wrestled with the duty of obedience to a stupid state. Arendt noted how easily officials drift down the path of horror when they lose sight of the point where morality calls on them to say no. They sink, she said, into "the banality of evil".

The so-called war on terror saw a politically weak American president seek popularity in redefining a criminal act as a "war between states". Tony Blair agreed. His assertion to the Chilcot inquiry that "9/11 changed everything" was self-serving. The attack was just the latest in a line of attempted terrorist atrocities by Islamist extremists, albeit one that succeeded horrifically.

To call such crimes acts of war gives them rhetorical force, but in no sense did al-Qaida or its imitators threaten the integrity or security of a western state. These countries are too strong for such threat to be meaningful. The only damage they can do beyond sudden carnage is self-inflicted, by governments that decide to react with exaggerated fear. Yet the pretence of "going to war" has unleashed two of the most destructive, costly and prolonged state-on-state aggressions in half a century.

What is extraordinary is the reluctance of British politics to bring a sense of proportion to the terrorist threat. Every agency of democracy, from parliament to the army, the police and the media, is directed at exaggerating the status and menace of al-Qaida – and thus at doing Osama bin Laden's work for him.

Some politicians have clearly had doubts. At Chilcot, Jack Straw claimed to have proposed supporting, but not joining, America in Iraq. As it was, his overt backing for the war was, he boasts, critical since "if I had refused, the UK's participation in the military action would not in practice have been possible". Given his doubts and the weight of legal advice coming his way, it is hard to see him as anything but a man who lacked the courage of his convictions.

Other cabinet ministers are lining up to express their own doubts about Iraq, as they will one day do about Afghanistan. They say that war is "not my department", that they "made Tony aware of my reservations", that it was all America's fault. Yet such was the deceit of these wars, such has been the ­slaughter, the atrocity against civilians, the torture of prisoners, the abuse of human rights – and so few the resignations – that Arendt's banality of evil seems everywhere.

Tuesday's Spectator debate on Afghanistan at the Royal Geographical Society, much attended by soldiers, had the jingoistic quality of Joan Littlewood's Oh, What A Lovely War!. To the oft-repeated question, why are we there, speakers such as General Lord Guthrie and the historian Andrew Roberts pleaded the party line. It was "to make the streets of London safe", to create a stable democratic state in Afghanistan that gave no house-room to al-Qaida, even if it took decades and even if the terrorists "moved elsewhere".

Since this sounded like trying to empty the sea with a spoon, the case for war shifted over the course of the debate. It was to enable Britain "to be a real Nato force", "to show itself to the world", "to cut some ice". The war became a manifestation of patriotism and national potency. Would it not be terrible to be another Germany, France, Sweden, Japan? War did not need just cause, or even efficacy, merely a noble epithet.

The case for being in Afghanistan has become an exercise in verbal sophistry. To Guthrie, we are killing Taliban "to stop them killing us". To Roberts we are doing so to stop them setting off a dirty nuclear bomb, which would "spread cancer over a 30-mile radius", a terrorist-appeasing fantasy debunked in John Mueller's recent Atomic Obsession.

The truth is that mission creep has made this war largely ideological – witness constant ministerial references to Kabul ­corruption, to opium, warlordism and the treatment of women. The streets of London are not being saved in the plains of Helmand, any more than they would be if the fight went to the mountains of Waziristan or the hills of Yemen. To the war party, ­Islam is the problem. It is the regime that must be changed.

Yet an enemy that poses no concerted threat to western territory or western interests has been allowed to damage the west's liberal tradition. Bush and Blair were brazenly unconcerned with international law. We now have it confirmed that they do not care for the Geneva conventions. Such hard-won restraints on the practice of war, such as not bombing civilian targets, not assassinating leaders, respecting cultural sites, treating prisoners humanely, and sustaining the rule of law back home, have been casually set aside.

In seven paragraphs, the proof of MI5 complicity in torture of Binyam Mohamed
The information that foreign secretary David Miliband fought to keep out of court judgments – and its significance


Below are the seven paragraphs in full which the Foreign Office published hours after the court of appeal judgment. Under the paragraphs is an explanation of their significance.

1 It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

MI5 had known since at least ­January of that year that US authorities were mistreating detainees held in the ­so-called war on terror.

Legal advice was issued to its officers that month to allow them to continue questioning people they believed were suffering ­mistreatment – although it is unclear how lawful that advice was. "New strategy" appears to be a ­euphemism for such mistreatment.


2 It was reported that at some stage during that further interview ­process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

The court says Witness B (a MI5 agent) "probably" read the documents before he travelled to Pakistan to question Mohamed, and that others in MI5 ­certainly had, so MI5 would have known Mohamed was being subjected to sleep deprivation before their interrogation. Mohamed's lawyers say this amounts to complicity in torture.It is also clear that the CIA, on whose behalf the Pakistanis were holding Mohamed, was ­monitoring the effects upon Mohamed.

3 It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and 'disappearing' were played upon.

Mohamed was being threatened with rendition. Three months later the CIA flew him to Morocco, where he says he suffered worse treatment – ­including having his genitals slashed with a razor. The US courts have accepted this as true. Speaking in the Commons today, Miliband highlighted the fact that there is no mention of razors in the seven paragraphs he was forced to release – but that may be only because that torture had not begun.

4 It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate ­tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews.

More evidence, Mohamed's lawyers would say, that MI5 was aware of Mohamed's state of mind before Witness B interrogated him.

5 It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

Yet further evidence that MI5 was made aware of Mohamed's suffering before it questioned him. But the legal advice drawn up four months earlier said its officers were under no obligation to intervene to prevent Mohamed's ­mistreatment, as he was not in British custody. Experts in international law say this advice did not meet the requirements of the UN convention against torture. Those rules were changed – with the full awareness of Tony Blair – in 2004, but there is evidence to show that they subsequently allowed MI5 to effectively sub-contract ­torture overseas.

6 We regret to have to conclude that the reports provided to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

The two high court judges are expressing their regret that SyS – the Security Service, or MI5 – knew exactly what was happening to Mohamed before Witness B interrogated him.

7 The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972.

Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities.

The judges are pointing out that what was happening to Mohamed was banned in Britain by the Heath government. The ban was imposed when Ireland began proceedings against the UK in the European courts"

IN THE SPACE OF 14 YEARS THE ABOVE TREATMENT AND WORSE HAS BEEN DEPLOYED AT ME IN THE UK

THE "MICROCHIP" DEPLOYED IN MY LEFT HAND IS:
"A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY"

THE DECEIT: DECEPTION, HATE AND CONSPIRACY, CONTINUOUSLY USED OVER 14 YEARS TO "COVER-UP" THIS "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY" IS VAST AND AIMED AT "DEFAMATION OF MY CHARACTER, SMEAR AND ENSLAVERY!

The Above Has Been Proven To Be Their Modus Operandi {See The Stephen Lawrence Case}
ITS TORTURE, ITS DELIBERATE, ITS UNACCEPTABLE!




________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Binyam Mohamed:
Torture and the missing paragraph
This is a desperately serious state of affairs, whatever spin the government puts on it


Governments of every type make mistakes, what distinguishes the good from the bad – and the free from the tyrannical – is the facility to learn from them. The legal manoeuvring in the case of Binyam Mohamed which emerged yesterday is thus deeply chilling. The torture of this British resident, who was last year released without charge by the US after years of alleged brutish caging which left him feeling "dead", is fast becoming established fact. The allegations that certain UK agents knew about this are also becoming firmer. But rather than confront these disturbing matters, the government has scrambled to conceal them at every stage – draping the "national security" blanket over American actions, British knowledge and, indeed, over the very motives for wanting to keep everything secret.

The "war on terror" is nowadays consigned to the rhetorical dustbin, but even as the Chilcot inquiry attempts to make retrospective sense of one of its messiest campaigns, the court of appeal has found itself called to active service on another of its gory fronts. While retired Foreign Office lawyers queue up to tell Chilcot that their advice on Iraq was ignored, their hardline successors have pushed their attempts to suppress the truth about torture all the way to the final judgment – and beyond.

Still in some sense his master's apprentice, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, yesterday turned in a Commons performance of such audacity that Tony Blair himself would have been proud. No matter that he had just been forced to release the previously censored views of a lower court that the UK knew that the Americans were stressing, shackling and subjugating Mr Mohamed in a manner that "would clearly have been in breach of the [anti-torture] undertakings given by the United Kingdom", Mr Miliband carried on as if he had won some form of victory – simply because the judges had given a nod to some familiar principles which govern the handling of intelligence. He claimed quite definitively that without recent American rulings the decision would have gone the other way. And in a truly Tonyesque twist he defied his accusers by proclaiming his innocence of a sin with which he was not charged, shrugging off the blame for keeping the public in the dark by pointing out that he had never attempted to restrict the information available for Mr Mohamed's defence.

After the country's top three appeal justices had circulated their views among interested parties – a custom designed to allow for the correcting of minor inaccuracies – the government's barrister launched an unusual bid to erase the most damning passage. He succeeded, too, although his victory was pyrrhic thanks to the leaking of his letter which – helpfully to the public, although not to his client – provides a singularly acute precis of exactly what he wanted struck out and why. The court was effectively about to rule, Mr Sumption revealed, that MI5 had treated basic rights with contempt and had lied to the parliamentary watchdog which provides its only oversight. In Mr Sumption's summary, a senior judge had initially found that there was such a "culture of suppression" within MI5 that it undermined any government assurances on its behalf.

This devastating verdict upon a secret intelligence agency – contained in the original paragraph 168 of the Master of the Rolls's judgment – was drastically watered down in the published judgment, though Lord Neuberger later admitted he may have been "over hasty" in submitting to Mr Sumption's critique of his original words. The court should now agree to the publication of the original paragraph so that the public can judge the three versions of it now in circulation. Parliament cannot claim to exercise effective oversight of MI5 if (as one of our most senior judges apparently believed) it has been "deliberately misled". This is a desperately serious state of affairs, whatever spin Mr Miliband puts on it.


------_________________-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top judge: Binyam Mohamed case shows MI5 to be devious, dishonest and complicit in torture
Legal defeat plunges Security Service into crisis over torture evidence, and it is revealed that judge removed damning verdict after Foreign Office QC's plea

• Breakdown of David Miliband's Commons statement

• Read the letter that reveals the draft ruling


Richard Norton-Taylor and Ian Cobain
The Guardian, Wednesday 10 February 2010 21.40 GMT

Binyam Mohamed, left, and foreign secretary David Miliband. Photograph: PA
MI5 faced an unprecedented and damaging crisis tonight after one of the country's most senior judges found that the Security Service had failed to respect human rights, deliberately misled parliament, and had a "culture of suppression" that undermined government assurances about its conduct.

The condemnation, by Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls, was drafted shortly before the foreign secretary, David Miliband, lost his long legal battle to suppress a seven-paragraph court document showing that MI5 officers were involved in the ill-treatment of a British resident, Binyam Mohamed.

Amid mounting calls for an independent inquiry into the affair, three of the country's most senior judges – Lord Judge, the lord chief justice, Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Lord Neuberger – disclosed evidence of MI5's complicity in Mohamed's torture and unlawful interrogation by the US.

So severe were Neuberger's criticisms of MI5 that the government's leading lawyer in the case, Jonathan Sumption QC, privately wrote to the court asking him to reconsider his draft judgment before it was handed down.

The judges agreed but Sumption's letter, which refers to Neuberger's original comments, was made public after lawyers for Mohamed and media organisations, including the Guardian, intervened.

They argued that Neuberger had privately agreed with Sumption to remove his fierce criticisms without giving then the chance to contest the move.

In his letter, Sumption warned the judges that the criticism of MI5 would be seen by the public as statements by the court that the agency:

• Did not respect human rights.

• Had not renounced participation in "coercive interrogation" techniques.

• Deliberately misled MPs and peers on the intelligence and security committee, who are supposed to scrutinise its work.

• Had a "culture of suppression" in its dealings with Miliband and the court.

Sumption described Neuberger's observations in his draft judgment as "an exceptionally damaging criticism of the good faith of the Security Service as a whole".

His letter also refers to the MI5 officer known as Witness B, who is understood to have interrogated Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan in 2002. Witness B gave evidence in the hearings and is now at the centre of a Scotland Yard investigation. Sumption's letter implies that Neuberger did not believe that Witness B was acting alone and that the judge believed that Witness B's conduct was "characteristic of the service as a whole".

The court's final ruling forced the Foreign Office to publish a seven-paragraph summary of 42 classified CIA documents that were handed to MI5 before Witness B travelled to Pakistan to interrogate Mohamed. These show that MI5 was aware that Mohamed was being continuously deprived of sleep, threatened with rendition and subjected to previous interrogations that were causing him "significant mental stress and suffering". If administered in the UK, the summary says, it would clearly be in breach of undertakings about interrogation techniques made by the British government in 1972.

The three judges referred to a recent case in a US court where the judge found Mohamed's claims about how he was tortured to be truthful. This vindicated his assertion that "UK authorities had been involved in and facilitated the ill-treatment and torture to which he was subjected while under the control of the USA authorities"

There were renewed calls tonightfor an inquiry into MI5's involvement in torture overseas and into government policies after the 9/11 attacks.

Miliband told MPs that the ruling was leading to a "great deal of concern" in the US. In a statement to the Commons he said he had fought to prevent the release of the information to defend the "fundamental" principle that intelligence shared with the UK would be protected.

The Foreign Office claimed tonightthat the criticisms in the draft judgment had been "unsubstantiated", and denied that Sumption's approach to the court had been intended to suppress criticism of MI5. Nevertheless, the court is to convene tomorrow to reconsider whether to publish all or parts of the 21-line paragraph from the draft judgment in which the criticisms appear.

The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, wrote to the court after the Sumption letter came to light on Monday night. He said today: "It is good news that – after a challenge from the Guardian and other news organisations – the courts have finally ordered the government to reveal evidence of MI5 complicity in torture. This is a watershed in open justice in an area in which it is notoriously difficult to shine a light. But it was extremely disturbing that the government's lawyers made a successful last-ditch attempt to get the master of the rolls to rewrite his judgment."

FINALLY
"At Article 5 the Convention tried to reduce the harm that slavery involved where it still existed when it outlawed:

"THE ACT OF MUTILATING, BRANDING OR OTHERWISE MARKING A SLAVE OR PERSON OF SERVILE STATUS IN ORDER TO INDICATE HIS STATUS, OR AS A PUNISHMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON"

Finally, at Article 6, the Convention said that:

The act of enslaving another person or of inducing another person to give himself or a person dependent upon him into slavery, or of attempting these acts, or being accessory thereto, or being a party to a conspiracy to accomplish any such acts, shall be a criminal offence
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions Similar to Slavery (1956)
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court characterizes 'enslavement' as a crime against humanity falling within the jurisdiction of the Court , and describes 'enslavement' as:

the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
It also categorises "Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" as crimes against humanity.

The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children makes it a crime to traffic people "for the purpose of exploitation" and adds:

Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children"

JUST TO MAKE IT "EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAR":
"MICROCHIPS" DEPLOYED IN MY HAND, UNDER FALSE AUSPICES OF 'K WIRES', FOR AN ALLEGED 'SCAPHOID' FRACTURE, IS A "VICIOUS CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY"

YOUR CONTINUED DELAY, USING 'DRACONIAN AND AUTHORITARIAN' REASONS IS TYPICAL!

I SERVE THE ALMIGHTY GOD:
GOD OF ABRAHAM
GOD OF ISAAC
GOD OF ISRAEL

JUSTICE SHALL PREVAIL IN GODS WAY AND HIS TIMING

TO GOD BE THE GLORY FOREVERMORE


6 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/110582165856337999179 SOLOMON, OLUSEYI, BANK' ADELEYE : MODERN FORM OF SLAVERY: BANALITY OF EVIL EUROPEANS OFTEN JUSTIFIED THIS USING THE CONCEPT OF THE "WHITE...
MODERN FORM OF SLAVERY: BANALITY OF EVIL
EUROPEANS OFTEN JUSTIFIED THIS USING THE CONCEPT OF THE "WHITE MANS BURDEN"

AN OBLIGATION TO "CIVILISE" THE PEOPLES OF AFRICA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/justifications.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/modern/law.shtml

ARTICLE 5 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IS AGAINST:

"THE ACT OF MUTILATING, BRANDING OR OTHERWISE MARKING A SLAVE OR PERSON OF SERVILE STATUS IN ORDER TO INDICATE HIS STATUS, OR AS A PUNISHMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON"

In My Case "THE MICROCHIP",

The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (1948) States That;

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE BORN FREE AND EQUAL IN DIGNITY AND RIGHTS"

(Article 1) and that "no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms" (Article 4).

What's Good For The "Goose Is Good For The Gander": The Law Applies To Everyone, Black, Yellow, Green, Brown Or White!

HIGHEST JUDGES AND MASTER OF THE ROLLS FINDINGS:

INTELLIGENCE "DEVIOUS AND COMPLICIT ON TORTURE";

*DID NOT RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS

*THEY CONTINUE TO USE "COERCIVE TECHNIQUES" {evident in my case}

*THEY "DELIBERATELY" MISLED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND PEERS ON THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO SCRUTINISE ITS WORK

*THEY HAVE A "CULTURE OF SUPPRESSION" IN ITS DEALINGS WITH FOREIGN SECRETARY AND THE COURT {abuse of power also evident in my case}

ALSO

"The European Court of Human Rights recently held that the UK was in breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to have specific legislation in place which criminalised domestic slavery"
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-4-no-slavery-or-forced-labour

"As a result of colonialism and imperialism, Africa lost not only its sovereignty, but also control of its natural resources like gold and rubber.

EUROPEANS OFTEN JUSTIFIED THIS USING THE CONCEPT OF THE "WHITE MANS BURDEN"

AN OBLIGATION TO "CIVILISE" THE PEOPLES OF AFRICA

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says in Article 8:

No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
No one shall be held in servitude.
No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

ARTICLE 7 OF THE SAME DOCUMENT PROTECTS ALL HUMAN BEINGS FROM "TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT, THUS OUTLAWING SOME OF THE MOST DETESTABLE PRACTICES OF ENSLAVEMENT"

Your "MICROCHIP" And Continued Failure And Refusal To Remove The Foreign Body Causing Me "Severe Excruciating Marked Pain" Is Described As:

"TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT"

Your Continued "Wishful Thinking" For It To "Blow Away" Is Foolhardy!
MY GOD IS A PATIENT GOD, PLEASE READ THE BIBLE, LEARN FROM OTHERS WHO HAVE "ABUSED POWERS"!

Article 7 of the same document protects all human beings from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, thus outlawing some of the more detestable practices of enslavement.

Article 12 of the same document gives people the rights of liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence, both of which are incompatible with slavery.

Article 16 states that "Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." Article 26 similarly says "All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law." These provisions outlaw many of the discriminations faced by slaves and ex-slaves.

"THE WHITE MANS BURDEN": THE POEM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Man%27s_Burden#The_Poem

Take up the White Man's burden, Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-
Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden, In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit, And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden, The savage wars of peace-
Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden, No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper, The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark[14] them with your living, And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard-
The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-
"Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden, Ye dare not stoop to less-
Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden, Have done with childish days-
The lightly proferred laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood, through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Man%27s_Burden#The_Poem


Critics say that the process of African decolonization from the 1950s to the 1970s turned what were relatively well-ordered and peaceful territories administered by the efficient bureaucracies and legal traditions of the Western European empires into violent, inefficient and corrupt socialist dictatorships or right-wing family dictatorships with little regard for international rule of law and human rights and riddled with civil-turf wars, barbaric political purges, mass refugee crises, famines and ethnic conflict.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization_of_Africa

THEY SAY:
"CLEANLINESS IS 'NOT' NEXT TO GODLINESS".....

"CLEANLINESS IS NEXT TO BEING ENSLAVED OR BEING ASSIMILATED"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanliness#See_also

"NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH 'CLEANLINESS OR CLEANING'"

Cleanliness is both the abstract state of being clean and free from dirt, and the process of achieving and maintaining that state.

Cleanliness may be endowed with a moral quality, as indicated by the aphorism "cleanliness is next to godliness," and may be regarded as contributing to other ideals such as health and beauty.

In emphasizing an ongoing procedure or set of habits for the purpose of maintenance and prevention, the concept of cleanliness differs from purity, which is a physical, moral, or ritual state of freedom from pollutants.

Whereas purity is usually a quality of an individual or substance, cleanliness has a social dimension, or implies a system of interactions.

"Cleanliness," observed Jacob Burckhardt, "is indispensable to our modern notion of social perfection."

A household or workplace may be said to exhibit cleanliness, but not ordinarily purity; cleanliness also would be a characteristic of the people who maintain cleanness or prevent dirtying.

On a practical level, cleanliness is thus related to hygiene and disease prevention.

Washing is one way of achieving physical cleanliness, usually with water and often some kind of soap or detergent.

Procedures of cleanliness are of utmost importance in many forms of manufacturing.

As an assertion of moral superiority or respectability, cleanliness has played a role in establishing cultural values in relation to social class, humanitarianism, and cultural imperialism."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanliness#See_also

MODERN SLAVERY IS UPON US, ITS HAPPENING UNDER THE GUISE OF;
"NATIONAL SECURITY", AND USING THE RIPA ACT LAW TO INVOKE "OPPRESSION"
"RACE HATE"
"SUPPRESSION"
"VICTIMISATION" AND "PERSECUTION"

USING OUR LAW COURTS TO FIND SOMEONE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE HE IS NOT AWARE OF, IN ABSENTIA;
HE WAS REFUSED "REPRESENTATION" BY POLICE.

THE COURTS FAILED TO ASK HIM IF HE WAS WILLING TO BE REPRESENTED!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmpublic/modernslavery/memo/ms01.htm

IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ABOVE, I AM BEEN SUBJECTED TO A "DRACONIAN AND AUTHORITARIAN" FORM OF SLAVERY!

My Wheelchair, Is What I Use To Get Around Because Of My Disability, The Authorities "Surreptitiously" Stole My Wheelchair Making It Impossible For Me To Get Around;
MY MEDICATION IS CRIMINALLY TAMPERED WITH
MY FOOD DELIVERED HAS GIVEN ME FOOD POISONING 6 TIMES
MY LEFT HAND IS SWOLLEN SOMETIMES INFECTED

Whenever I Try To Report This I Am Discouraged By Sussex Police And The Metropolitan Police
THIS CAN "ONLY" BE DEFINED AS;

"A SURREPTITIOUS OR COVERT FORM OF MODERN SLAVERY"

OUR HIGHEST JUDGES IN THE UK INCLUDING "MASTER OF THE ROLLS" SPOKE ABOUT THE

The horrors of the slave trade were most pronounced during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Wherever a raid on a village took place, death and destruction followed.

Many more people died defending their homes and families, or as a result of the starvation and disease which usually followed such violence, than were ever actually enslaved, let alone sold at the coast.

One shudders to think of the most diabolical ways in which the poor natives of Africa were captured, separated from their kith and kin, carried away and treated as worse than animals. We shall now give a short account from the books of Western authors themselves on how the slaves were treated and what cruel methods were employed by the slave hunters. Their methods were at once crude and wasteful, because they were robbers, not warriors. “Their practice was to surround some villages which they have marked down for their prey, and approach it silently at night. The village was usually a collection of primitive mud huts thatched with bamboo's and palm leaves, all highly inflammable, which they set alight without compunction, generally at dawn.

As the inhabitants woke to the cracking of flames and struggled into the open, they were rounded up and made prisoners. Any of them who resisted were cut down, as the slave hunters had no mercy for them. They had no use for the old or infirm or for babes who were all killed on the spot, and only men and women in their prime, and young boys and girls, were spared, to be carried off into slavery, leaving behind the dead bodies and dying ashes, where once there had been happy homes and flourishing settlements. The waste was out of all proportion to the prize. But waste, wanton waste, was the hall-mark of the negro slavery, from its first moments to the last. Wherever it reared its head, death, disease and destruction were its invariable concomitants...

“Those captured far inland were less fortunate, for they had to march to the coast on their feet - a dreary trudge over many miles of thick forest and rough desert.
They walked almost naked, with no protection against sharp thorns, and jagged stones.

To prevent escape, they had heavy forked poles fastened round their necks; their hands, if they were troublesome, might be secured through holes in a rough wooden board, and they were fettered with chains on their ankles.

Linked together by ropes, the long lines known as coffles, they trudged miserably on towards their terrifying fate; for all Africans knew that the white were fed on the negros bought from the barracoons.

Their captors drove them relentlessly forward, ignoring wounds and lacerations, and physicking their energy by plentiful flicks of the whips.

If any succumbed, he was thrown on one side; if any of them became too ill, they were left to die or more mercifully knocked on the head.”

“The lot of plantation slave was really very hard. The job assigned to him was, from his point of view, skilled; he was to cultivate a crop unknown to him - for the most part sugar in the West Indies, cotton or tobacco in America - and, in that his work was novel, he endured a heavier burden than his counterpart in Greece or Rome or among the serfs of Europe..

All was new and strange to him; he had, therefore, to be broken in; he had to be taught his new duties; he had to be seasoned' as the saying was. 'Seasoning' was a euphemism for a harsh discipline, which was reckoned by the opponents of slavery to carry off not less than twenty per cent of those who underwent it.

May be that was over the mark, but it must nonetheless be admitted that large numbers died. The discipline was painful, and there was little to ameliorate and much to embitter its seventy.

The slaves had to pass through terrible stages of suffering. The cumulative effect of all the hardships was disastrous.

To quote Sherrard again, “this was particularly true of the 'seasoning', for beyond doubt a large proportion of those who died under its discipline would have died in any event from the effects of the middle passage. Experience showed that the greater number of those who were weak or emaciated on arrival died soon afterwards whatever they did.

The medical authorities put this down to 'long confinement in slave-houses previous to embarkation, want of CLEANLINESS AND VENTILATION while on hoard the slave-ships, alterations in dress, food and habits, and, not the least, change of climate' (Buxton, p. 188)."



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/11/binyam-mohamed-torture-missing-paragraph

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-torture-mi5

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/11/miliband-mi5-terrorism-war-chilcot


THE TORTURE MEMOIRS
BANALITY OF EVIL IS EVERYWHERE
THE TORTURE MEMOIRS SHOW HOW ILLEGAL WARS TURN EVEN THE NICEST PEOPLE BAD

THE DECEIT, THE SLAUGHTER, THE TORTURE, THE ATROCITY, THE ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

THE TORTURE MEMOIRS SHOW HOW ILLEGAL WARS TURN EVEN THE NICEST PEOPLE BAD

TODAY, HANNAH ARENDT'S:
BANALITY OF EVIL IS EVERYWHERE


SOMETHING IS WRONG.

A SENSIBLE, CLEAN-LIVING CHAP SUCH AS DAVID MILLIBAND WANTS NOTHING MORE SINISTER THAN TO LEAD THE LABOUR PARTY;

YET HE FINDS HIMSELF CONSORTING WITH SPIES, LAWYERS, RENDITION MERCHANTS AND TORTURERS.

HIS ONLY EXPERIENCE OF COERCION WAS WATER-BOARDING BRITISH SCHOOL TEACHERS WITH TARGETS AND RED TAPE.

NOW HE MUST DEFEND THE INTERROGATORS OF GUANTANAMO AND EXPLAIN THE BLOODSTAINED CELLS OF PAKISTAN AND

Whatever Plaudits Were Due To ­Foreign Office Lawyers During The ­CHILCOT Inquiry Have Been Expunged By This Week's Revelation Of Their Antics In Trying To Conceal Details Of Post-9/11 ­Torture By British Agents
The security services were clearly implicated in the brutal questioning of the Guantánamo inmate, Binyam Mohamed – treatment so bad as to render his trial unsafe and force his release.

Papers revealed by the high court depict a Foreign Office running about stamping on a stream of embarrassing disclosures, largely because Miliband was desperate not to seem a wimp in front of his hero, Hillary Clinton.

We now know that both Miliband and the head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, told an untruth in asserting, as the latter said last October, that British security services do not practise torture, "nor do we collude in torture or solicit others to torture people on our behalf".

While the definition of torture is moot, at least five relevant incidents in Guantánamo are admitted. On Wednesday, Miliband was forced to hire the maestro of Whitehall autocracy, Jonathan Sumption QC, to demand that the Master of the Rolls censor his damning judgment of Miliband to avoid giving further pain to ministers. We must assume that Miliband did not trust his own lawyers to do this dirty work. All this is because Britain believes that publishing details of what interrogators did to its residents would lead Washington to retaliate by not warning of an ­impending terror attack on London. The belief is absurd.

How did we reach this pass? The answer has taxed philosophers from Socrates to Hannah Arendt. Even the nicest people go to the bad when caught up in ill-conceived, illegal or unjust wars. Socrates wrestled with the duty of obedience to a stupid state. Arendt noted how easily officials drift down the path of horror when they lose sight of the point where morality calls on them to say no. They sink, she said, into "the banality of evil".

The so-called war on terror saw a politically weak American president seek popularity in redefining a criminal act as a "war between states". Tony Blair agreed. His assertion to the Chilcot inquiry that "9/11 changed everything" was self-serving. The attack was just the latest in a line of attempted terrorist atrocities by Islamist extremists, albeit one that succeeded horrifically.

To call such crimes acts of war gives them rhetorical force, but in no sense did al-Qaida or its imitators threaten the integrity or security of a western state. These countries are too strong for such threat to be meaningful. The only damage they can do beyond sudden carnage is self-inflicted, by governments that decide to react with exaggerated fear. Yet the pretence of "going to war" has unleashed two of the most destructive, costly and prolonged state-on-state aggressions in half a century.

What is extraordinary is the reluctance of British politics to bring a sense of proportion to the terrorist threat. Every agency of democracy, from parliament to the army, the police and the media, is directed at exaggerating the status and menace of al-Qaida – and thus at doing Osama bin Laden's work for him.

Some politicians have clearly had doubts. At Chilcot, Jack Straw claimed to have proposed supporting, but not joining, America in Iraq. As it was, his overt backing for the war was, he boasts, critical since "if I had refused, the UK's participation in the military action would not in practice have been possible". Given his doubts and the weight of legal advice coming his way, it is hard to see him as anything but a man who lacked the courage of his convictions.

Other cabinet ministers are lining up to express their own doubts about Iraq, as they will one day do about Afghanistan. They say that war is "not my department", that they "made Tony aware of my reservations", that it was all America's fault. Yet such was the deceit of these wars, such has been the ­slaughter, the atrocity against civilians, the torture of prisoners, the abuse of human rights – and so few the resignations – that Arendt's banality of evil seems everywhere.

Tuesday's Spectator debate on Afghanistan at the Royal Geographical Society, much attended by soldiers, had the jingoistic quality of Joan Littlewood's Oh, What A Lovely War!. To the oft-repeated question, why are we there, speakers such as General Lord Guthrie and the historian Andrew Roberts pleaded the party line. It was "to make the streets of London safe", to create a stable democratic state in Afghanistan that gave no house-room to al-Qaida, even if it took decades and even if the terrorists "moved elsewhere".

Since this sounded like trying to empty the sea with a spoon, the case for war shifted over the course of the debate. It was to enable Britain "to be a real Nato force", "to show itself to the world", "to cut some ice". The war became a manifestation of patriotism and national potency. Would it not be terrible to be another Germany, France, Sweden, Japan? War did not need just cause, or even efficacy, merely a noble epithet.

The case for being in Afghanistan has become an exercise in verbal sophistry. To Guthrie, we are killing Taliban "to stop them killing us". To Roberts we are doing so to stop them setting off a dirty nuclear bomb, which would "spread cancer over a 30-mile radius", a terrorist-appeasing fantasy debunked in John Mueller's recent Atomic Obsession.

The truth is that mission creep has made this war largely ideological – witness constant ministerial references to Kabul ­corruption, to opium, warlordism and the treatment of women. The streets of London are not being saved in the plains of Helmand, any more than they would be if the fight went to the mountains of Waziristan or the hills of Yemen. To the war party, ­Islam is the problem. It is the regime that must be changed.

Yet an enemy that poses no concerted threat to western territory or western interests has been allowed to damage the west's liberal tradition. Bush and Blair were brazenly unconcerned with international law. We now have it confirmed that they do not care for the Geneva conventions. Such hard-won restraints on the practice of war, such as not bombing civilian targets, not assassinating leaders, respecting cultural sites, treating prisoners humanely, and sustaining the rule of law back home, have been casually set aside.

In seven paragraphs, the proof of MI5 complicity in torture of Binyam Mohamed
The information that foreign secretary David Miliband fought to keep out of court judgments – and its significance


Below are the seven paragraphs in full which the Foreign Office published hours after the court of appeal judgment. Under the paragraphs is an explanation of their significance.

1 It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

MI5 had known since at least ­January of that year that US authorities were mistreating detainees held in the ­so-called war on terror.

Legal advice was issued to its officers that month to allow them to continue questioning people they believed were suffering ­mistreatment – although it is unclear how lawful that advice was. "New strategy" appears to be a ­euphemism for such mistreatment.


2 It was reported that at some stage during that further interview ­process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

The court says Witness B (a MI5 agent) "probably" read the documents before he travelled to Pakistan to question Mohamed, and that others in MI5 ­certainly had, so MI5 would have known Mohamed was being subjected to sleep deprivation before their interrogation. Mohamed's lawyers say this amounts to complicity in torture.It is also clear that the CIA, on whose behalf the Pakistanis were holding Mohamed, was ­monitoring the effects upon Mohamed.

3 It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and 'disappearing' were played upon.

Mohamed was being threatened with rendition. Three months later the CIA flew him to Morocco, where he says he suffered worse treatment – ­including having his genitals slashed with a razor. The US courts have accepted this as true. Speaking in the Commons today, Miliband highlighted the fact that there is no mention of razors in the seven paragraphs he was forced to release – but that may be only because that torture had not begun.

4 It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate ­tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews.

More evidence, Mohamed's lawyers would say, that MI5 was aware of Mohamed's state of mind before Witness B interrogated him.

5 It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

Yet further evidence that MI5 was made aware of Mohamed's suffering before it questioned him. But the legal advice drawn up four months earlier said its officers were under no obligation to intervene to prevent Mohamed's ­mistreatment, as he was not in British custody. Experts in international law say this advice did not meet the requirements of the UN convention against torture. Those rules were changed – with the full awareness of Tony Blair – in 2004, but there is evidence to show that they subsequently allowed MI5 to effectively sub-contract ­torture overseas.

6 We regret to have to conclude that the reports provided to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

The two high court judges are expressing their regret that SyS – the Security Service, or MI5 – knew exactly what was happening to Mohamed before Witness B interrogated him.

7 The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972.

Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities.

The judges are pointing out that what was happening to Mohamed was banned in Britain by the Heath government. The ban was imposed when Ireland began proceedings against the UK in the European courts"

IN THE SPACE OF 14 YEARS THE ABOVE TREATMENT AND WORSE HAS BEEN DEPLOYED AT ME IN THE UK

THE "MICROCHIP" DEPLOYED IN MY LEFT HAND IS:
"A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY"

THE DECEIT: DECEPTION, HATE AND CONSPIRACY, CONTINUOUSLY USED OVER 14 YEARS TO "COVER-UP" THIS "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY" IS VAST AND AIMED AT "DEFAMATION OF MY CHARACTER, SMEAR AND ENSLAVERY!

The Above Has Been Proven To Be Their Modus Operandi {See The Stephen Lawrence Case}
ITS TORTURE, ITS DELIBERATE, ITS UNACCEPTABLE!




________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Binyam Mohamed:
Torture and the missing paragraph
This is a desperately serious state of affairs, whatever spin the government puts on it


Governments of every type make mistakes, what distinguishes the good from the bad – and the free from the tyrannical – is the facility to learn from them. The legal manoeuvring in the case of Binyam Mohamed which emerged yesterday is thus deeply chilling. The torture of this British resident, who was last year released without charge by the US after years of alleged brutish caging which left him feeling "dead", is fast becoming established fact. The allegations that certain UK agents knew about this are also becoming firmer. But rather than confront these disturbing matters, the government has scrambled to conceal them at every stage – draping the "national security" blanket over American actions, British knowledge and, indeed, over the very motives for wanting to keep everything secret.

The "war on terror" is nowadays consigned to the rhetorical dustbin, but even as the Chilcot inquiry attempts to make retrospective sense of one of its messiest campaigns, the court of appeal has found itself called to active service on another of its gory fronts. While retired Foreign Office lawyers queue up to tell Chilcot that their advice on Iraq was ignored, their hardline successors have pushed their attempts to suppress the truth about torture all the way to the final judgment – and beyond.

Still in some sense his master's apprentice, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, yesterday turned in a Commons performance of such audacity that Tony Blair himself would have been proud. No matter that he had just been forced to release the previously censored views of a lower court that the UK knew that the Americans were stressing, shackling and subjugating Mr Mohamed in a manner that "would clearly have been in breach of the [anti-torture] undertakings given by the United Kingdom", Mr Miliband carried on as if he had won some form of victory – simply because the judges had given a nod to some familiar principles which govern the handling of intelligence. He claimed quite definitively that without recent American rulings the decision would have gone the other way. And in a truly Tonyesque twist he defied his accusers by proclaiming his innocence of a sin with which he was not charged, shrugging off the blame for keeping the public in the dark by pointing out that he had never attempted to restrict the information available for Mr Mohamed's defence.

After the country's top three appeal justices had circulated their views among interested parties – a custom designed to allow for the correcting of minor inaccuracies – the government's barrister launched an unusual bid to erase the most damning passage. He succeeded, too, although his victory was pyrrhic thanks to the leaking of his letter which – helpfully to the public, although not to his client – provides a singularly acute precis of exactly what he wanted struck out and why. The court was effectively about to rule, Mr Sumption revealed, that MI5 had treated basic rights with contempt and had lied to the parliamentary watchdog which provides its only oversight. In Mr Sumption's summary, a senior judge had initially found that there was such a "culture of suppression" within MI5 that it undermined any government assurances on its behalf.

This devastating verdict upon a secret intelligence agency – contained in the original paragraph 168 of the Master of the Rolls's judgment – was drastically watered down in the published judgment, though Lord Neuberger later admitted he may have been "over hasty" in submitting to Mr Sumption's critique of his original words. The court should now agree to the publication of the original paragraph so that the public can judge the three versions of it now in circulation. Parliament cannot claim to exercise effective oversight of MI5 if (as one of our most senior judges apparently believed) it has been "deliberately misled". This is a desperately serious state of affairs, whatever spin Mr Miliband puts on it.


--_________________-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top judge: Binyam Mohamed case shows MI5 to be devious, dishonest and complicit in torture
Legal defeat plunges Security Service into crisis over torture evidence, and it is revealed that judge removed damning verdict after Foreign Office QC's plea

• Breakdown of David Miliband's Commons statement

• Read the letter that reveals the draft ruling


Richard Norton-Taylor and Ian Cobain
The Guardian, Wednesday 10 February 2010 21.40 GMT

Binyam Mohamed, left, and foreign secretary David Miliband. Photograph: PA
MI5 faced an unprecedented and damaging crisis tonight after one of the country's most senior judges found that the Security Service had failed to respect human rights, deliberately misled parliament, and had a "culture of suppression" that undermined government assurances about its conduct.

The condemnation, by Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls, was drafted shortly before the foreign secretary, David Miliband, lost his long legal battle to suppress a seven-paragraph court document showing that MI5 officers were involved in the ill-treatment of a British resident, Binyam Mohamed.

Amid mounting calls for an independent inquiry into the affair, three of the country's most senior judges – Lord Judge, the lord chief justice, Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Lord Neuberger – disclosed evidence of MI5's complicity in Mohamed's torture and unlawful interrogation by the US.

So severe were Neuberger's criticisms of MI5 that the government's leading lawyer in the case, Jonathan Sumption QC, privately wrote to the court asking him to reconsider his draft judgment before it was handed down.

The judges agreed but Sumption's letter, which refers to Neuberger's original comments, was made public after lawyers for Mohamed and media organisations, including the Guardian, intervened.

They argued that Neuberger had privately agreed with Sumption to remove his fierce criticisms without giving then the chance to contest the move.

In his letter, Sumption warned the judges that the criticism of MI5 would be seen by the public as statements by the court that the agency:

• Did not respect human rights.

• Had not renounced participation in "coercive interrogation" techniques.

• Deliberately misled MPs and peers on the intelligence and security committee, who are supposed to scrutinise its work.

• Had a "culture of suppression" in its dealings with Miliband and the court.

Sumption described Neuberger's observations in his draft judgment as "an exceptionally damaging criticism of the good faith of the Security Service as a whole".

His letter also refers to the MI5 officer known as Witness B, who is understood to have interrogated Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan in 2002. Witness B gave evidence in the hearings and is now at the centre of a Scotland Yard investigation. Sumption's letter implies that Neuberger did not believe that Witness B was acting alone and that the judge believed that Witness B's conduct was "characteristic of the service as a whole".

The court's final ruling forced the Foreign Office to publish a seven-paragraph summary of 42 classified CIA documents that were handed to MI5 before Witness B travelled to Pakistan to interrogate Mohamed. These show that MI5 was aware that Mohamed was being continuously deprived of sleep, threatened with rendition and subjected to previous interrogations that were causing him "significant mental stress and suffering". If administered in the UK, the summary says, it would clearly be in breach of undertakings about interrogation techniques made by the British government in 1972.

The three judges referred to a recent case in a US court where the judge found Mohamed's claims about how he was tortured to be truthful. This vindicated his assertion that "UK authorities had been involved in and facilitated the ill-treatment and torture to which he was subjected while under the control of the USA authorities".

There were renewed calls tonightfor an inquiry into MI5's involvement in torture overseas and into government policies after the 9/11 attacks.

Miliband told MPs that the ruling was leading to a "great deal of concern" in the US. In a statement to the Commons he said he had fought to prevent the release of the information to defend the "fundamental" principle that intelligence shared with the UK would be protected.

The Foreign Office claimed tonightthat the criticisms in the draft judgment had been "unsubstantiated", and denied that Sumption's approach to the court had been intended to suppress criticism of MI5. Nevertheless, the court is to convene tomorrow to reconsider whether to publish all or parts of the 21-line paragraph from the draft judgment in which the criticisms appear.

The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, wrote to the court after the Sumption letter came to light on Monday night. He said today: "It is good news that – after a challenge from the Guardian and other news organisations – the courts have finally ordered the government to reveal evidence of MI5 complicity in torture. This is a watershed in open justice in an area in which it is notoriously difficult to shine a light. But it was extremely disturbing that the government's lawyers made a successful last-ditch attempt to get the master of the rolls to rewrite his judgment."

FINALLY
"At Article 5 the Convention tried to reduce the harm that slavery involved where it still existed when it outlawed:

"THE ACT OF MUTILATING, BRANDING OR OTHERWISE MARKING A SLAVE OR PERSON OF SERVILE STATUS IN ORDER TO INDICATE HIS STATUS, OR AS A PUNISHMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON"

Finally, at Article 6, the Convention said that:

The act of enslaving another person or of inducing another person to give himself or a person dependent upon him into slavery, or of attempting these acts, or being accessory thereto, or being a party to a conspiracy to accomplish any such acts, shall be a criminal offence
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions Similar to Slavery (1956)
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court characterizes 'enslavement' as a crime against humanity falling within the jurisdiction of the Court , and describes 'enslavement' as:

the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
It also categorises "Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" as crimes against humanity.

The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children makes it a crime to traffic people "for the purpose of exploitation" and adds:

Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children"

JUST TO MAKE IT "EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAR":
"MICROCHIPS" DEPLOYED IN MY HAND, UNDER FALSE AUSPICES OF 'K WIRES', FOR AN ALLEGED 'SCAPHOID' FRACTURE, IS A "VICIOUS CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY"

YOUR CONTINUED DELAY, USING 'DRACONIAN AND AUTHORITARIAN' REASONS IS TYPICAL!

I SERVE THE ALMIGHTY GOD:
GOD OF ABRAHAM
GOD OF ISAAC
GOD OF ISRAEL

JUSTICE SHALL PREVAIL IN GODS WAY AND HIS TIMING

TO GOD BE THE GLORY FOREVERMORE


6 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/112244724917652311333 Robert Marder : A new Illinois law,  effective 1-1-15, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act, will allow women to request...
A new Illinois law,  effective 1-1-15, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act, will allow women to request reasonable accommodations in the workplace for medical and other common conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.
 
Employers of all sizes will now have to consider leave as an accommodation for pregnant workers and those who have given birth regardless of whether the individual would qualify for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
 
While the federal FMLA provides up to 12 weeks of leave and job restoration rights to eligible employees who work at employers with 50 or more employees and who have worked at least 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months, the Illinois pregnancy accommodation law contains no such eligibility requirements. The Illinois law also does not specify the length of time an individual can be out on leave, although employers can request medical certification as to the expected duration of the leave.
7 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/117186077020912618052 Irving Seidler : A new Illinois law,  effective 1-1-15, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act, will allow women to request...
A new Illinois law,  effective 1-1-15, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act, will allow women to request reasonable accommodations in the workplace for medical and other common conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.
 
Employers of all sizes will now have to consider leave as an accommodation for pregnant workers and those who have given birth regardless of whether the individual would qualify for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
 
While the federal FMLA provides up to 12 weeks of leave and job restoration rights to eligible employees who work at employers with 50 or more employees and who have worked at least 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months, the Illinois pregnancy accommodation law contains no such eligibility requirements. The Illinois law also does not specify the length of time an individual can be out on leave, although employers can request medical certification as to the expected duration of the leave.
Lawyer Streamwood IL 60107 – Marder & Seidler Law Firm
Lawyer Streamwood IL 60107 is a full-service attorney office that has been dedicated to serving the legal needs of our customers since 1978. - Marder & Seidler Law Firm
7 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/101445247481137522686 Robyn Miller : Exactly what it says: a British deaf couple got their baby's British Sign Language name on the birth...
Exactly what it says: a British deaf couple got their baby's British Sign Language name on the birth certificate.

The video has full captions and voiceover for the BSL-impaired, with the exception of a couple slides that are unvoiced text only. For any blind readers, those are:

* first slide: "Deaf World: Britain's first baby to be registered with a sign name"
* father identified as "Tomato Lichy"
* mother identified as "Paula Garfield"
* about 2/3 through, slide: "It was accepted that under both Articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a sign name could be registered."
* female signer (linguistics expert?) identified as "Bencie Woll (DCAL)"
* baby's name as written: "UbOtDDstarL"
* certificate of birth shows "name and surname" field: "Hazel UbOtDDstarL Holly Eileen GARFIELD - LICHY"
* final slide (w/ logos): "!Remark MEDIA for British Sign Language Broadcasting Trust" & "BSLZONE.co.uk"
Deaf World: Britain's first baby to be registered with a sign name | BSL Zone
Find out all about a very special name in this web clip
8 days ago - Via Reshared Post - View -
https://plus.google.com/100443813164517314096 Christopher Wesley Jopp : ** The powers that be, does not like me to write bloggs, or express myself under the Human Rights Act...
**
The powers that be, does not like me to write bloggs, or express myself under the Human Rights Act 1998.  I was once told by a Northampton brethren a saying, which holds true to me even today.  He said, "It is better to be hated for being who you are, that ...
To Worship Tyranny or Law

8 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/108588645408134476645 Family Law : Little Dorritt and the Human Rights Act http://ow.ly/Ewtxr #familylaw
Little Dorritt and the Human Rights Act http://ow.ly/Ewtxr #familylaw
Little Dorritt and the Human Rights Act
There’s contempt of court, and then there’s contempt for those who don’t pay maintenance for...
8 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/113557272907430072970 Mass Surveillance Referendum : Are We Fighting Terrorism or Repressing Democracy? Most liberal democracies appear to believe that...
Are We Fighting Terrorism or Repressing Democracy?


Most liberal democracies appear to believe that they cannot be effective against terrorism unless they sacrifice some democracy. Here in the UK, the government has re-framed the notion of freedom and the place of human rights.

Since the revelations about mass surveillance from Edward Snowden last year, there has been a deliberate attempt to stifle debate. But many of the arguments were made after 9/11 and it might be useful to remind ourselves what they were. I have used quotes from an article written by Anastassia Tsoukala (link below).


The Arguments in Favour of Increased State Power and Surveillance:


‘The terrorists rewrote the rule book, and we have to do the same’ (Lord Rooker, Home Office Minister of State, in The Guardian, 2001).

'All those who tell me we are not [under threat] are the ones who do not have the security and intelligence information which for my sins I carry ... That information tells us that because of our alliance with the United States and because of our vulnerability we are at risk [of having an attack over Christmas and New Year]' (David Blunkett, Home Secretary, in The Independent, 2001).

'The presence of such extremists ... creates a situation of public emergency threatening the life of the nation’ (Blunkett, in The Guardian, 2002).

'This new type of war [cannot be won] without pain or … without a price’ (Tony Blair, The Guardian, 2002).

The Anti-terrorism Crime and Security (ATCS) Bill is ‘the end-product of a trawl of our current laws identifying loopholes, grey areas and existing measures which need to be updated to tackle terrorists who work across continents’ (Blunkett, 2001) so that ‘justice for individuals and minorities [will be] reaffirmed and justice for the majority and the security of our nation will be secure’ (Blunkett, in The Times, 2001).

The Home Secretary stresses that the ATCS Bill is necessary to ensure the protection of ‘the freedom from insecurity, from fear and from taking of life’(The Times, 2001) and to ‘safeguard our way of life against those who would take our freedom away’ (The Guardian 2001).

the Home Secretary states that the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 was the biggest mistake of the Blair first term (The Independent 2001).

The Prime Minister makes it clear that the ‘rising tide’ of asylum seekers, combined with the renewed terrorist threat, is not acceptable any more and states that he is prepared to reconsider ‘our obligations under the Convention of Human Rights’(The Independent, 2003); Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader at the time, warns that ‘a Tory government might unilaterally withdraw from the 1951 Geneva Convention if it could not be suitably adapted’ (The Times 2003).

‘We could live in a world which is airy fairy, libertarian, where everybody does precisely what they like and we believe the best of everybody and then they destroy us’ (Blunkett, in The Guardian, 2001).

‘It wasn’t big brother government. It was government trying to put in place increased powers so we could preserve our democracy against this new type of threat. Now people are saying:“Why are these terrorists here”?’ (Jack Straw, former Home Secretary, in The Guardian, 2001).

In seeking justice, not just the justice for the small few who use our democracy to hide in but the justice that comes from ensuring protection for all, we need to remember this – it is justice we seek, not just the primacy of jurisprudence (Blunkett, in The Guardian, 2001).

The Home Secretary thus states that ‘politicians, not judges, are the guardians of the citizens’ rights’ (The Independent, 2001) because ‘it was not the lawyers and judges who secured democracy and freedom for our people’ (The Guardian, 2001). Consequently, ‘the law will be made by those who are held to account for both making it and changing it’ (The Guardian, 2001).

The new counter-terrorism measures are therefore presented as ‘necessary steps [to be taken] to secure our freedom from fear and from the threat to life, and do it so that it protects and maintains liberties’ (Blunkett, in The Guardian, 2001) because henceforth ‘civil liberties must be balanced against the need to maintain order’ (Blunkett, in The Independent, 2001).


Arguments Against Increased State Power and Surveillance:


New counter-terrorism measures are denounced as ‘unjustified, contrary to British traditions and clearly unlawful’ (John Wadham, Director of Liberty, in The Times, 2001).

‘In taking action against those who are attacking our system, we [must not] lose sight of the importance of maintaining the system. It’s our liberty which makes us want to protect the system’ (Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, in The Independent, 2001).

‘If we allow ourselves to get into a situation where in fact we are suppressing our own individual rights, actually the terrorists begin to win’(Kennedy, in The Independent, 2001).

‘Collecting the streams of thought of the population and processing them by computer is a good definition of a police state’ (Caspar Bowden, Foundation for Information Policy Research, in The Guardian, 2001).

‘It is when issues of national security are dictating the actions of the executive and the legislature that the protection of individual rights needs particular attention’ (Woolf, in The Independent, 2003).

‘Human rights are not going to mean anything if at the first moment that there’s a real test we just abandon or alter them’(Michael Mansfield, human rights barrister, in The Times, 2001)

The government ‘believes that the values are, in truth, merely a statement of political expediency’ (Pannick, 2001).

‘This is exactly the time to stand by the Human Rights Act and the European Convention, not talk of walking away from them. Now is the time of being intolerant of intolerance, counter prejudice, stand up for freedom’ (Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, in The Guardian, 2001).

'What can happen in times of stress is, without appreciating it, the Government can get matters wrong. So, the Human Rights Act is there as a valuable protection to protect the liberty of the citizens generally and, in doing so, the liberty of the individual.' (Woolf, in The Independent, 2001).

Members of the opposition, in both chambers, thus stressed that they ‘were deeply concerned about those aspects of the [ATCS] Bill which bore little or no relation to the terrorist crisis and which undermined fundamental civil liberties’ (Oliver Letwin, Shadow Home Secretary, in The Independent, 2001).

The ‘Government seek[s] to hijack emergency legislation for non-emergency things’ (Simon Hughes, in The Independent, 2001).

'The type of draconian legislation that produces such abuses is not so much designed to tackle terrorism as to manufacture an illusion of it for propagandist purposes [since the government seeks to] exaggerate an internal terrorist threat in an effort to persuade an unconvinced public of the need to wage war against Iraq' (Bodi, 2003).

‘The situation in the UK does not warrant such an extreme attack on a historic core principle of British justice’ (Wadham, in The Guardian, 2001).

'We understand the argument for data retention for specific purposes under terror legislation for the period of an emergency. There is a different argument, with much less justification, for general powers from now, in theory, until eternity' (Simon Hughes, in The Guardian, 2001).

‘It is not persuasive to argue for privacy to be sacrificed in the name of fighting terrorism if the measures would not be effective’ (Bowden, in The Guardian, 2001).


Conclusion:


There have been several media reports of terrorists driving vans into bus queues in Israel – no honest government can claim to be able to protect its citizens from 'lone wolf' attacks like this. No matter how many human rights and civil liberties I might be prepared to give up in return for government attempts to free me from fear of terrorism, I would not be wise to believe that it is possible.

Fear has enabled the survival of the human race, it is an emotion that keeps me safe every day and is to be valued – not one I wish to be freed from. I believe that I would be right to worry more about traffic on the road today than terrorists.

Any fear I might feel about terrorism is better directed at promoting justice, fairness, human rights and ethical foreign policies that reduce conflict abroad and threats here at home.


Anastassia Tsoukala's article:
http://www.internationalhumanrightslaw.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Democracy-in-the-light-of-security-British-and-French-political-discourses-on-domestic-counter-terrorism-policies.pdf
www.internationalhumanrightslaw.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Democracy-in-the-light-of-security-British-and-French-political-discourses-on-domestic-counter-terrorism-policies.pdf
internationalhumanrightslaw.net
www.internationalhumanrightslaw.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Democracy-in-the-light-of-security-British-and-French-political-discourses-on-domestic-counter-terrorism-policies.pdf

11 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107354029163729917630 Richard Masssurveillance : Are We Fighting Terrorism or Repressing Democracy? Most liberal democracies appear to believe that...

Are We Fighting Terrorism or Repressing Democracy?


Most liberal democracies appear to believe that they cannot be effective against terrorism unless they sacrifice some democracy. Here in the UK, the government has re-framed the notion of freedom and the place of human rights.

Since the revelations about mass surveillance from Edward Snowden last year, there has been a deliberate attempt to stifle debate. But many of the arguments were made after 9/11 and it might be useful to remind ourselves what they were. I have used quotes from an article written by Anastassia Tsoukala (link below).


The Arguments in Favour of Increased State Power and Surveillance:


‘The terrorists rewrote the rule book, and we have to do the same’ (Lord Rooker, Home Office Minister of State, in The Guardian, 2001).

'All those who tell me we are not [under threat] are the ones who do not have the security and intelligence information which for my sins I carry ... That information tells us that because of our alliance with the United States and because of our vulnerability we are at risk [of having an attack over Christmas and New Year]' (David Blunkett, Home Secretary, in The Independent, 2001).

'The presence of such extremists ... creates a situation of public emergency threatening the life of the nation’ (Blunkett, in The Guardian, 2002).

'This new type of war [cannot be won] without pain or … without a price’ (Tony Blair, The Guardian, 2002).

The Anti-terrorism Crime and Security (ATCS) Bill is ‘the end-product of a trawl of our current laws identifying loopholes, grey areas and existing measures which need to be updated to tackle terrorists who work across continents’ (Blunkett, 2001) so that ‘justice for individuals and minorities [will be] reaffirmed and justice for the majority and the security of our nation will be secure’ (Blunkett, in The Times, 2001).

The Home Secretary stresses that the ATCS Bill is necessary to ensure the protection of ‘the freedom from insecurity, from fear and from taking of life’(The Times, 2001) and to ‘safeguard our way of life against those who would take our freedom away’ (The Guardian 2001).

the Home Secretary states that the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 was the biggest mistake of the Blair first term (The Independent 2001).

The Prime Minister makes it clear that the ‘rising tide’ of asylum seekers, combined with the renewed terrorist threat, is not acceptable any more and states that he is prepared to reconsider ‘our obligations under the Convention of Human Rights’(The Independent, 2003); Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader at the time, warns that ‘a Tory government might unilaterally withdraw from the 1951 Geneva Convention if it could not be suitably adapted’ (The Times 2003).

‘We could live in a world which is airy fairy, libertarian, where everybody does precisely what they like and we believe the best of everybody and then they destroy us’ (Blunkett, in The Guardian, 2001).

‘It wasn’t big brother government. It was government trying to put in place increased powers so we could preserve our democracy against this new type of threat. Now people are saying:“Why are these terrorists here”?’ (Jack Straw, former Home Secretary, in The Guardian, 2001).

In seeking justice, not just the justice for the small few who use our democracy to hide in but the justice that comes from ensuring protection for all, we need to remember this – it is justice we seek, not just the primacy of jurisprudence (Blunkett, in The Guardian, 2001).

The Home Secretary thus states that ‘politicians, not judges, are the guardians of the citizens’ rights’ (The Independent, 2001) because ‘it was not the lawyers and judges who secured democracy and freedom for our people’ (The Guardian, 2001). Consequently, ‘the law will be made by those who are held to account for both making it and changing it’ (The Guardian, 2001).

The new counter-terrorism measures are therefore presented as ‘necessary steps [to be taken] to secure our freedom from fear and from the threat to life, and do it so that it protects and maintains liberties’ (Blunkett, in The Guardian, 2001) because henceforth ‘civil liberties must be balanced against the need to maintain order’ (Blunkett, in The Independent, 2001).


Arguments Against Increased State Power and Surveillance:


New counter-terrorism measures are denounced as ‘unjustified, contrary to British traditions and clearly unlawful’ (John Wadham, Director of Liberty, in The Times, 2001).

‘In taking action against those who are attacking our system, we [must not] lose sight of the importance of maintaining the system. It’s our liberty which makes us want to protect the system’ (Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, in The Independent, 2001).

‘If we allow ourselves to get into a situation where in fact we are suppressing our own individual rights, actually the terrorists begin to win’(Kennedy, in The Independent, 2001).

‘Collecting the streams of thought of the population and processing them by computer is a good definition of a police state’ (Caspar Bowden, Foundation for Information Policy Research, in The Guardian, 2001).

‘It is when issues of national security are dictating the actions of the executive and the legislature that the protection of individual rights needs particular attention’ (Woolf, in The Independent, 2003).

‘Human rights are not going to mean anything if at the first moment that there’s a real test we just abandon or alter them’(Michael Mansfield, human rights barrister, in The Times, 2001)

The government ‘believes that the values are, in truth, merely a statement of political expediency’ (Pannick, 2001).

‘This is exactly the time to stand by the Human Rights Act and the European Convention, not talk of walking away from them. Now is the time of being intolerant of intolerance, counter prejudice, stand up for freedom’ (Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, in The Guardian, 2001).

'What can happen in times of stress is, without appreciating it, the Government can get matters wrong. So, the Human Rights Act is there as a valuable protection to protect the liberty of the citizens generally and, in doing so, the liberty of the individual.' (Woolf, in The Independent, 2001).

Members of the opposition, in both chambers, thus stressed that they ‘were deeply concerned about those aspects of the [ATCS] Bill which bore little or no relation to the terrorist crisis and which undermined fundamental civil liberties’ (Oliver Letwin, Shadow Home Secretary, in The Independent, 2001).

The ‘Government seek[s] to hijack emergency legislation for non-emergency things’ (Simon Hughes, in The Independent, 2001).

'The type of draconian legislation that produces such abuses is not so much designed to tackle terrorism as to manufacture an illusion of it for propagandist purposes [since the government seeks to] exaggerate an internal terrorist threat in an effort to persuade an unconvinced public of the need to wage war against Iraq' (Bodi, 2003).

‘The situation in the UK does not warrant such an extreme attack on a historic core principle of British justice’ (Wadham, in The Guardian, 2001).

'We understand the argument for data retention for specific purposes under terror legislation for the period of an emergency. There is a different argument, with much less justification, for general powers from now, in theory, until eternity' (Simon Hughes, in The Guardian, 2001).

‘It is not persuasive to argue for privacy to be sacrificed in the name of fighting terrorism if the measures would not be effective’ (Bowden, in The Guardian, 2001).


Conclusion:


There have been several media reports of terrorists driving vans into bus queues in Israel – no honest government can claim to be able to protect its citizens from 'lone wolf' attacks like this. No matter how many human rights and civil liberties I might be prepared to give up in return for government attempts to free me from fear of terrorism, I would not be wise to believe that it is possible.

Fear has enabled the survival of the human race, it is an emotion that keeps me safe every day and is to be valued – not one I wish to be freed from. I believe that I would be right to worry more about traffic on the road today than terrorists.

Any fear I might feel about terrorism is better directed at promoting justice, fairness, human rights and ethical foreign policies that reduce conflict abroad and threats here at home.


Anastassia Tsoukala's article:
http://www.internationalhumanrightslaw.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Democracy-in-the-light-of-security-British-and-French-political-discourses-on-domestic-counter-terrorism-policies.pdf
www.internationalhumanrightslaw.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Democracy-in-the-light-of-security-British-and-French-political-discourses-on-domestic-counter-terrorism-policies.pdf

12 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/100334640568005672082 MyHorizon Recruitment Pty Ltd : Are your job ads breaching the Human Rights Act? | HC Online | MyHorizon http://ow.ly/E91gV
Are your job ads breaching the Human Rights Act? | HC Online | MyHorizon http://ow.ly/E91gV
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-x2q49FfeKC8/VGQl0CqXaeI/AAAAAAAAA6Y/K8xFg3vjhHE/w506-h750/7ycgb.jpg
14 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/115901305375964563506 Sophie Richardson : Your Daily Human Rights Watch briefing: #HongKong's political earthquake; #US bombing in #Syria; #Turkey's...
Your Daily Human Rights Watch briefing: #HongKong's political earthquake; #US bombing in #Syria; #Turkey's authoritarian drift; threats to #UK Human Rights Act; anniversary of massacre in # more ....
http://bit.ly/IUdf1s
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Wu1eYLaN-xk/VCk3am69rQI/AAAAAAAACQc/4u5WFR5oc5U/w506-h750/Screen%2BShot%2B2014-09-29%2Bat%2B6.37.57%2BAM.png
14 days ago - Via Reshared Post - View -
https://plus.google.com/108132552177119848630 Talia Johnson : This event is open to all. Every year hundreds of trans people around the world, including in Canada...
This event is open to all.

Every year hundreds of trans people around the world, including in Canada, are discriminated against, attacked, assaulted, and murdered because of who they are as trans people. Many more take their own lives.

At this vigil we will remember those we have lost in the past year. Recognize the violence that trans people face, trans women and particularly trans women of colour face the brunt of this discrimination. 

We will also recognize the achievements and the setbacks for the recognition of human rights for trans people in Canada. The Senate is delaying the national bill, C-279, for the inclusion of gender identity in the Canadian Human Rights Act – a bill already watered down to pass the Commons – and even with the passing of legislation in Quebec to allow for identification to be amended without surgery, new polices have yet to be put in place to comply with the legislation. In Ontario we saw the introduction of the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy to prevent discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression, officially launched in Ottawa and the Eastern Region on October 23rd.
14 days ago - Via Events - View -