organization:house of commons

Woman charged with pretending to practice witchcraft after allegedly bilking man out of $600K | CTV News
▻https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/woman-charged-with-pretending-to-practice-witchcraft-after-allegedly-bilking

A Toronto woman has been charged with fraud and pretending to practice witchcraft after she allegedly convinced a man that he needed to sell his house and transfer the money to her account in order to get rid of evil spirits.

York region police say the 67-year-old victim met with a psychic who used the name Evanna approximately five years ago. “Evanna” allegedly convinced the man that in order to get rid of evil spirits in his home, he had to sell the house and transfer the money to her account, where it would remain until the spirits were gone.

Police said the money was never returned and the victim was asked for another $6,000, which the psychic said she would burn in order to ward off the evil spirits.

The man sold his car and used his credit cards in order to meet her demands. He lost more than $600,000 in the alleged scheme, police said.

Following a nearly year-long investigation, police have charged 27-year-old Samantha Stevenson with pretending to practice witchcraft, fraud over $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime.

Police say Stevenson used the alias Evanna Lopez.

Witchcraft is among the antiquated offences that the federal government plans to remove from the Criminal Code. That legislation is currently before a House of Commons committee.

cc @mona

Iqaluit mayor faces backlash after calling out some male #Inuit leaders as sexual predators

#Madeleine_Redfern spoke at federal committee on the Status of Women meeting in September.

Sexual harassment in the workplace remains a challenge for women in Nunavut, according to Iqaluit Mayor Madeleine Redfern.

She was asked to present to the House of Commons’ Status of Women committee about barriers for women in politics at a Sept. 26 meeting in Ottawa.

“When our Inuit male leaders travel with their female staff, they think it’s a benefit and a perk that they can actually sexually harass, sexually assault or have relationships with women on the road,” Redfern told the committee.

The mayor said she has received backlash for her comments, so she tweeted out a clarification email, sent to the committee, ensuring it was understood that she meant some, not all, Inuit male leaders.

“Of course, I know that not all our Inuit leaders are sexual predators. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would naturally presume that I meant all,” Redfern told CBC News.

The backlash included messages calling for her to be investigated, she said.

“I don’t even name names and I get attacked, viciously,” Redfern said. “Death threats because I’ve spoken out.”

Her post on Facebook received dozens of positive comments, including some from women who said they had similar experiences with male Inuit leaders.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.4857062.1539186529!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/madeleine-redfern.JPG

De l’Antiquité à la ZAD, des idées en commun
▻https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/05/27/de-l-antiquite-a-la-zad-des-idees-en-commun_5305272_3232.html

https://img.lemde.fr/2018/04/16/322/0/4500/2250/644/322/60/0/13d81d2_7439-q3nb8t.ydlw9.jpg

Par Claire Judde de Larivière (Historienne)

L’air que nous respirons appartient à tout le monde. Le savoir scientifique sur lequel se fondent la médecine ou l’exploration spatiale tout autant. Matérielles ou immatérielles, les ressources naturelles comme les connaissances forment un bien commun que l’humanité a en partage et qu’elle se doit de protéger. C’est l’idée qui porte aujourd’hui de nombreux projets collectifs dans des espaces sociaux très variés.

Une idée sans étiquette

La ZAD de Notre-Dame-des-Landes en est un bon exemple, où la défense du commun sert de justification à une occupation des lieux et à leur mise en valeur collective. Les habitats partagés qui se multiplient promeuvent quant à eux la nécessaire articulation entre des espaces privés et des espaces de vie commune. Et l’encyclopédie en ligne collaborative Wikipédia, créée en 2001, trouve son origine dans ce désir de faire de la connaissance une ressource libre de droit (les commons).

Utopique ou alternatif, porté par une colère révolutionnaire ou une aspiration familiale au confort collectif, par des zadistes ou des ingénieurs de la Silicon Valley, le commun est aujourd’hui une idée sans étiquette, qui permet des formes d’engagement d’une immense variété, dans leurs objectifs comme dans leurs modalités. Cela explique sans doute le succès sans limite d’une telle notion. Les sciences sociales ne s’y sont pas trompées et s’en sont emparées pour tenter d’en dénouer les strates sémantiques comme les innombrables champs d’application (Commun. Essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle, de Pierre Dardot et Christian Laval, La Découverte, 2014).

L’histoire n’est pas en reste, car si le commun irrigue aujourd’hui de multiples projets politiques, il ne faut pas oublier sa dimension historique. L’idée de bien commun fonde la culture européenne, de l’invention du politique dans la Grèce ancienne (ta politika, au temps de Périclès, désigne les affaires communes dont les citoyens peuvent et doivent se soucier) à l’émergence des communismes au XIXe siècle. Dans la longue durée, on retrouve, mutatis mutandis, cette aspiration à protéger ou atteindre des biens, des valeurs, des principes, relevant du commun.

Espaces politiques autonomes

Dans les villes et les campagnes médiévales, on voit ainsi se déployer des actions et des discours, par les princes comme par les gens ordinaires, qui affirment leur souhait de construire ensemble et de préserver le bien commun. A partir du XIe siècle, c’est par exemple le cas des célèbres « communes », ces villes au statut nouveau qui négocient avec les seigneurs locaux des libertés et des privilèges pour créer des espaces politiques autonomes. Le destin de cités comme Florence ou Venise suffit à rappeler le succès de telles initiatives. Dans les îles Britanniques, à la même époque, se mettent en place des structures qui fondent encore aujourd’hui le droit et l’organisation institutionnelle, la Common Law et la House of Commons.

Dans les campagnes de toute l’Europe, les communautés rurales défendent l’usage coutumier des biens communaux : ces forêts, prés et landes où faire paître les bêtes et récupérer du bois sont l’objet de luttes entre paysans et seigneurs, ces derniers cherchant constamment à en limiter l’accès et à les privatiser. Enfin, dans une chronologie étirée de Thomas d’Aquin aux Lumières, la pensée politique est irriguée par le « bien commun », un idéal que le pouvoir doit viser et garantir. La notion constitue donc un socle essentiel des idées politiques, qui articule dès l’origine deux dimensions : le commun, un modèle théorique qui garantit le vivre-ensemble ; les communs, des biens et des ressources qui appartiennent à tous et dont la conservation oblige à travailler de concert.

Encore aujourd’hui, ces deux niveaux inspirent des actions de nature fort différente. On retrouve finalement ce qui faisait déjà la force du concept au Moyen Age. Le commun est un motif de politisation revendiqué par des acteurs si variés que leurs aspirations en apparaissent presque contradictoires. Il en est de même des formes et moyens d’action, qui semblent parfois irréconciliables. C’est sans doute en cela que le commun demeure si fascinant, lui qui appartient à tous : aux détenteurs du pouvoir, qui continuent d’en faire un horizon d’attente rhétorique, comme aux zadistes ou aux chercheurs en sciences sociales.

#zad #nddl #Notre_Dame_des_Landes #communs #commune

British made cluster bombs used by Saudi-led forces in Yemen, Government research shows - Mirror Online
▻http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-made-cluster-bombs-used-9483580

British-made cluster bombs have been used by Saudi Arabia-led forces in Yemen, Government research has indicated.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon is set to make a statement on the analysis in the House of Commons this afternoon.

Cluster bombs are made up of dozens of small explosives, which deliver widespread and indiscriminate damage. The sale of cluster munitions is illegal.

The Government said it takes the allegations “very seriously” and has raised them with the Saudi-led coalition.

In June, the Ministry of Defence denied British-made cluster bombs discovered in Yemen by Amnesty International had been dropped by Saudi-led forces.

L’#EI a reçu un #financement secret des États du Golfe, selon un rapport du Parlement britannique

Le comité des affaires étrangères constate qu’il est « très probable » que des proches de familles royales du Golfe aient donné de l’argent à l’État islamique

▻http://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/reportages/l-ei-re-u-un-financement-secret-des-tats-du-golfe-selon-un-rapport-du
#Etat_islamique #Pays_du_Golfe #argent #ISIS

Second EU referendum petition investigated for fraud
▻http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36634407

The House of Commons petitions committee is investigating allegations of fraud in connection with a petition calling for a second EU referendum.
Its inquiry is focused on the possibility that some names could be fraudulent - 77,000 signatures have already been removed.

#affolement #fraude anti #brexit #ue

End of an Era: Is the British Jewish Vote for Labour in Terminal Decline? -

The party’s current anti-Semitism crisis and the collapse of community support means it’s easy to forget that decades ago most British Jews felt that Labour was their natural home. What happened?
Colin Shindler May 06, 2016 11:28 AM

▻http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.718288

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.713193!/image/3254735881.jpg_gen/derivatives/headline_1200x630/3254735881.jpg

Many Labour Jews voted for Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London with a heavy heart. Khan’s past association with unsavory Islamists who were not shy about peppering their views with anti-Semitic tropes undoubtedly jarred. Yet during the election campaign Khan went out of his way to court the Jewish community and instantly denounced the view of his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, that “Hitler supported Zionism.” However, the feeling lingers – if he changed his views once, could he now do it again when in office?

Fifty years ago, it was all very different. Most British Jews felt that Labour was their natural home. The Conservatives, it was argued, had a streak of snobbish English anti-Semitism running through their veins. As the Conservative prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, pointed out after Kristallnacht: “No doubt the Jews aren’t a loveable people. I don’t care about them myself, but that is not sufficient to explain the pogrom.” In contrast, the British Left, together with the Jews, fought the local fascists in London’s East End in the 1930s.

Labour leader Harold Wilson was regarded as “a friend of Israel” and even sent his son to Kibbutz Yagur to learn Hebrew. The parliamentary Labour Party boasted of between 30 and 40 Jewish members of the House of Commons – a hugely disproportionate number, given the small number of Jews in Britain (around 400,000, less than 1% of the population). Gerald Kaufman, currently “Father of the House of Commons” (its most veteran member) and now a virulent critic of Israel, was Wilson’s intermediary with the Israel Embassy, admirer of Ben-Gurion and all-round uber-Zionist.

Wilson had been a follower of Aneurin Bevan, the acknowledged leader of the Labour Left (but never PM) in post-war Britain and the revered founder of the National Health Service. Bevan was a dyed-in-the-wool Zionist and threatened to resign from Atlee’s government because of British policy in Mandate Palestine in the 1940s. Bevan’s wife, Jennie Lee, a politician in her right and founder of Britain’s Open University, wrote after their visit to Israel in 1954:

“They gather in their own from every kind of area, none so humble, so diseased, so illiterate, so despised and downtrodden that they are not welcome. This is the kind of passion that socialist workers everywhere who have had their own experience of victimization and of exile through poverty, should particularly understand.”

The further left that was travelled, the more sympathetic to the Zionist experiment. Labour politicians such as Tony Benn were enthralled at the prospect of building socialism in Israel. They were deeply aware that the Allies may have won the war, but the Jews had certainly lost it. The survivors had crawled out of the camps and were constructing something unique in a promised land.

Today’s Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and indeed Livingstone himself, were members of the succeeding generation. A “New Left” that had not experienced the Shoah or lived through the rise of Israel came of age during the post-war period of decolonization. They understood the nascent Palestinian national movement in the context of other national liberation movements – and this mindset was in place before Israel’s settlement drive after the Six-Day War. The establishment of West Bank settlements merely exacerbated this outlook. The New Left was often indifferent to the right of the Jews to national self-determination. For them, Zionism was wrong, not different.

Such a view of Israel has moved from the political periphery in the 1960s to the center of the Labour Party in 2016. Corbyn has not been a mediator in the past in bringing Israelis and Palestinians together, but a facilitator of Palestinian hasbara. Like Sadiq Khan, he has shared platforms with reactionaries and looked the other way when anti-Zionism has tipped over into anti-Semitism.

One feature that has gone largely unnoticed in this current controversy has been the willingness of many Jewish liberals to now publicly attack the Labour Party. This would have been unthinkable a short time ago.

While many on the Jewish Right would say “I told you so,” it is clear that there have been profound changes in the Labour Party during the last five years. For example, the pejorative term “Zios” is a recent introduction. Yet the comprehensive academic survey of the attitudes of British Jews towards Israel a few months ago indicated that an overwhelming 93% identified in some fashion with Israel. Who then are the “Zios” if not practically every British Jew?

The Britain of 2016 is very much an operating multi-cultural society. Many of the post-war and newer immigrants identify with an anti-colonial ethos. Moreover, just as a majority of British Jews look to Israel, a majority of British Muslims identify with the Palestinians. The Muslim population of the UK is seven or eight times as large as the Jewish population and thus far more electorally significant. It’s no surprise that all political parties, especially during election campaigns, take note of this.

The trade unions (a faction of the party with significant voting power) parachuted Ed Miliband into the Labour leadership in 2010 over the wishes of both local constituencies and the parliamentary party (who preferred his brother David). His disastrous tenure was marked by a new system of party membership which enabled an influx of hundreds of thousands. Many were young people who wished to rid Labour of the men in blue suits and return the party to its traditional values on behalf of working people. For others, this was a subtle form of entryism such that many members of the far Left found a new home. The unlikely figure of Jeremy Corbyn on Labour’s most peripheral Left was carried on a wave of messianic fervor to the leadership.

Operation Protective Edge in 2014 was a turning point. The large number of Palestinian civilian casualties blotted out any rational explanation of the conflict. It was accentuated by instant and blanket media coverage in Britain and became a cause célèbre on the Left. The election of Corbyn last year was a psychological green light to what had been bubbling up below to overflow publicly. Social media acted as a loudspeaker. Ken Livingstone’s outburst, reminiscent of the mutterings of the white working-class far-right, was the spark that ignited the fire – and persuaded many Jewish Labour supporters to think twice about voting for Sadiq Khan.

While undoubtedly Jews have moved to the Right as a result of a growing affluence, and the philo-Semitism of Margaret Thatcher’s long tenure, there is also a widening schism between Labour-voting Jews and the party. Anti-Semitism is a live issue now for British Jews and Jeremy Corbyn is seen as an albatross around Labour’s neck. Some two-thirds of Jewish Labour voters have deserted Labour since Tony Blair’s period in office. A Survation poll for the Jewish Chronicle which was conducted this week indicates that only 8.5 percent of British Jews would vote Labour if a general election was held tomorrow.

Accusations of anti-Semitism and covert racism are an ideological dagger pointed at Labour’s heart, and it shouldn’t be a problem only for British Jews. While some members are being suspended and an inquiry has been established, will this be successful? Is it a political environment that is the problem or simply the opinions of a few individual members?

Perhaps the victor in this controversy is the depth of ignorance about the Israel-Palestine conflict among party members and an indifference to inappropriate and racist language – when it’s targeted at Jews. Education doesn’t only start with the young, but also with the ignorant.

Colin Shindler is an emeritus professor at SOAS, University of London. His book Israel and the European Left was published by Century/Bloomsbury.

Is access to work really a pull factor for asylum seekers?

With a new Immigration Bill making its way through the House of Commons, MPs will be asked to vote on whether asylum seekers can work in the UK as they wait for their claims to be processed.

▻https://theconversation.com/is-access-to-work-really-a-pull-factor-for-asylum-seekers-57757

#travail #pull-factors #attractivité #facteurs-pull #asile #migrations #réfugiés #push-pull_factors #facteurs_pull

Dangerous associations : Joint enterprise, gangs and racism | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
▻http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/dangerous-associations-joint-enterprise-gangs-and-racism

http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/styles/cjm_article_image/public/cover.gif?itok=i_P3DK-U

This study examines the processes of criminalisation that contribute to unequal outcomes for young Black, Asian and Minority ethnic people. It has been written by Patrick Williams and Becky Clarke of Manchester Metropolitan University.

The research draws on a survey of nearly 250 serving prisoners convicted under joint enterprise provisions. It tracks the complex process of criminalisaiton through which black and minority ethnic people are unfairly identified by the police as members of dangerous gangs.

More than three-quarters of the black and minority ethnic prisoners reported that the prosecution claimed that they were members of a ‘gang’, compared to only 39 percent of white prisoners. This apparent ‘gang’ affiliation’ is used to secure convictions, under joint enterprise provisions, for offences they have not committed.

The report also discusses police gang databases in Manchester, London and Nottingham, which claim to record gang association. These lists include people who ‘have no proven convictions and… those who have been assessed by criminal justice professionals as posing minimal risk’. They are also dominated by black and minority ethnic people, as a result of racial stereotyping.

Dangerous associations: Joint enterprise, gangs and racism also forms part of the authors’ response to a call by the House of Commons Justice Committee for a rigorous consideration of the possible relationship between the disproportionate application of collective punishments/sanctions and in particular, the ieffect of joint enterprise on black and minority ethnic individuals and groups.

The report concludes that, for all its injustices, the process of joint enterprise prosecution is not intended to be discriminatory. But in practice, young black and minority ethnic people are disproportionately at the receiving end of a series of criminal justice practices, starting with police gang databases and concluding with disproportionate joint enterprise convictions.

10 facts the government doesn’t want you to know about Syria | Informed Comment
▻http://www.juancole.com/2015/12/government-doesnt-about.html

http://www.juancole.com/images/2015/12/10-facts-the-government-doesnt-w-750x422.jpg

Fact 1: The West has been involved in the Syrian conflict since 2012

The dominant narrative, repeatedly pushed by the liberal media, is that the West has declined to get involved in the Syrian conflict, its inaction leading to the conflict escalating out of control.

In the real world the US started helping to arm the Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the Syrian government from summer 2012 onwards. By March 2013 the New York Times was quoting experts who said these arms shipments totalled 3,500 tons of military equipment. Citing Jordanian security sources, in the same month the Guardian reported that US, UK and French personnel were training Syrian rebels in Jordan. Later that year the New York Times noted that US and UK intelligence services were secretly working with Saudi Arabia to deliver weapons to the rebels. The US and UK cooperation with Saudi Arabia was covert, the report explained, because “American and British intelligence and Arab governments… do not want their support publicly known”. By June 2015 US officials told the Washington Post that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had trained and equipped 10,000 Syrian rebels at a cost of $1bn.

Tout l’article est très intéressant.

#syrie

Extension of offensive British military operations to Syria report published - News from Parliament - UK Parliament
▻http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/foreign-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/uk-policy-on-syria-report-published-15-16

http://assets3.parliament.uk/iv/main-thumb-wide//ImageVault/Images/id_19661/scope_0/ImageVaultHandler.aspx.jpg

Foreign Affairs Committee publish report saying there should be no British airstrikes in Syria without a coherent international strategy to both defeat ISIL and end the Syrian civil war.

Report: The extension of offensive British military operations to Syria
Report: The extension of offensive British military operations to Syria (PDF)
Inquiry: UK policy on Syria
Foreign Affairs Committee

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has published a report on the possible extension of UK airstrikes against ISIL into Syria.

The report raises key questions for Government in anticipation of any motion asking the House of Commons to approve an extension of offensive British military operations to Syria.

The Committee finds that the benefits of extending British involvement in Coalition airstrikes in Syria are more than outweighed by the risks of legal ambiguity, political chaos on the ground in Syria, military irrelevance, and diplomatic costs.

The Committee is not persuaded by the Government’s efforts to treat ISIL and the Syrian civil war as separate issues, and considers that the focus on the extension of airstrikes against ISIL in Syria is a distraction from the much bigger and more important task of finding a resolution to conflict in Syria, which is itself a main cause of ISIL’s

UKs Youngest MP Just Gave Her First Speech in Parliament, And It’s A Cracker
▻http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/uks-youngest-mp-just-gave-her-first-speech-in-parliament-and-its-a-c

Mhairi Black, the youngest person to be elected to parliament since at least the 19th century, used a barnstorming first speech in the House of Commons to mount a withering attack on the...

Resettlement of Syrian refugees: UK bottom of league table

The House of Commons Library has issued an interesting briefing on the UK approach to Syrian refugees. Hat tip to ILPA for spotting it. The UK has taken in 4,000 Syrian refugees who managed to reach our shores to make a personal direct claim for asylum despite our best efforts to keep them out and our description of this as an “abuse”. The UK has also taken in a grant total of 187 Syrian refugees through our miserly resettlement programme. In contrast the UK has been very generous in providing “aid” to try and keep refugees in the region.

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Resettlement-of-Syrian-refugees.0011.jpg

cc @reka

UK Parliament Votes to Recognise the State of Palestine
▻http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/analysis-of-uk-parliament-vote-to-recognise-the-state-of-palestine

The UK Parliament voted in a landslide 274-12 on the evening of Monday 13th October to unilaterally recognise the state of Palestine.

The House of Commons debated on a substantive motion: “That...

100 responsables chrétiens palestiniens demandent au Royaume-Uni de reconnaître la Palestine « Les chrétiens ont le devoir de résister à l’oppression » | Haaretz

▻http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.620135

Letter sent by over 100 Palestinian notables on eve of vote in the House of Commons on non-binding motion that the U.K. recognize Palestinian state.

Senior Palestinian Christian leaders sent a letter to members of the British parliament on Friday, calling on them to support a motion that the United Kingdom should recognize the Palestinian state.

The non-binding motion, presented by Labor MP Grahame Morris, will be put before the House of Commons on Monday.

“Christians have a duty to resist oppression,” the Christian leaders said in the letter. "We believe the international community and particularly Europe has not done enough in order to achieve a just and lasting peace. You cannot continue holding our right to freedom and self-determination as an Israeli prerogative.

“We have a natural right to be free and Europe has a moral, legal and political duty to hold Israel accountable and support Palestinian non-violent initiatives to end the Israeli occupation, including the recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border with East Jerusalem as its capital.”

The letter was signed by over 100 Palestinian church leaders, diplomats, and civil society leaders and organizations, including Patriarch Emeritus Michael Sabbah, former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Archbishop Atallah Hanna, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Bishop Mounib Younan, head of the Lutheran Church in Palestine and Jordan and head of the World Lutheran Federation.

“Until when will you continue accepting Israel’s violations of your own resolutions?” the letter continued. "Until when will you allow that the prospects of peace will continue to be destroyed by Israeli colonization? Until when should we be allowed to be treated as foreigners in our own homeland?

“Ending Israeli occupation is the only way for Palestinians, Christians and Muslims, to enjoy a life of prosperity and progress. It is also the surest way to secure continued Christian presence in this, our Holy Land, and to grant Israel the security that it continues to demand. Without Justice there can be no peace nor security.”

The church leaders point out that “the only way to defeat extremism and terrorism in our region is to bring justice for all, starting by ending the historic injustice inflicted against the Palestinian people, an open wound that continues to bleed as the hopes for an independent Palestinian state are more elusive due to the expansion of Israeli settlements and the many restrictions imposed on our own people, including forced displacement.”

The motion will have no practical significance, if passed, but its supporters say it will send a powerful message.

“The U.K. recognizing Palestine could give decisive momentum to more EU states following suit,” Morris said.

“Recognition now would be a clear and legitimate message that Britain and others recognize Palestinian rights and that the illegal settlement enterprise has no validity.”

▻http://www.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/2013-12-02-Home_Affairs_Cmte_letter.pdf
December 2, 2013 OPEN LETTER TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE:
As news organizations, editors, and journalists who often report on government actions that officials seek to keep secret, we write to the Committee on the eve of the forthcoming appearance of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger to express our grave concern over pointed calls by those in authority for censorship of The Guardian and criminal prosecution of its journalists in the name of national security. Such sanctions, and the chilling impact created by even the threat to impose them, undermine the independence and integrity of the press that are essential for democracy to function.
At the height of the Vietnam War in 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court refused the request of President Nixon to enjoin a newspaper from publishing a classified Defense Department report on the war that had been leaked to a reporter. In rejecting censorship of true, newsworthy information as fundamentally inconsistent with a free press and a free people, Justice Hugo Black cautioned that “[t]he word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality” that should not be invoked to abrogate the right of the press to educate citizens. “The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.”
Recent disclosures concerning secret activities of GCHQ and the U.S. National Security Agency may have embarrassed or angered political leaders, but they have educated the public on critically important matters and sparked a valuable global debate over the proper exercise of the vast surveillance powers that now exist. It is the responsibility of journalists to provide the type of accurate and in-depth news reports published by The Guardian and others that have informed the public and framed important, unresolved issues concerning the balance between security and privacy. Vigorous news coverage and the debate it fosters advance the public interest.
It is thus unwise and counterproductive to react to the reporting on disclosures from Edward Snowden by reflexively invoking security concerns to silence the press or to accuse a news organization of aiding terrorists simply by providing citizens with information they need to know. Published reports in The Guardian on the Snowden disclosures have been prepared with the care and sensitivity to security concerns that editors have long demonstrated. We understand that both GCHQ and the NSA were provided an opportunity, in advance of publication, to comment and alert the journalists to particular security concerns. The reporting has been both responsible and, given the intense displeasure of those in power, courageous.
To the rest of the world, it appears that press freedom itself is under attack in Britain today. British politicians are publicly calling for the criminal prosecution of The Guardian for having published true, accurate, and newsworthy information. A Scotland Yard investigation has been launched. “D notices” have been threatened. And the Prime Minister has raised the prospect of seeking an injunction prohibiting The Guardian from publishing any further intelligence revelations. These aggressive actions intimidate journalists and their sources. They chill reporting on issues of national security and on the conduct of government more generally.
In our Internet-connected world, the impact of actions in Britain extends far beyond the United Kingdom. U.N. Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue rightly expressed alarm that these actions do more than damage Britain’s international reputation as a defender of press freedom; they “provide encouragement to non-democratic regimes to justify their own repressive actions.” They undermine globally the essential independence of the press.
We therefore urge the Committee to use the occasion of Mr. Rusbridger’s appearance to reaffirm Britain’s commitment to a vigorous, free, and independent press. It is important to acknowledge that the Snowden revelations, filtered to the public through responsible journalists, have served the public interest. And it is equally important to respect the autonomy of the newsroom. Damage to democracy and to the credibility of elected governments inevitably is inflicted when disapproval of truthful reporting causes officials to intrude into the internal editorial decisions of news organizations.
Respectfully,
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press American Society of News Editors
The Associated Press
The E.W. Scripps Company
The McClatchy Company
The New York Times Company
The New Yorker
Newspaper Association of America ProPublica
The Seattle Times Company
Society of Professional Journalists
The Washington Post
World Association of Newspapers and News
Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
#surveillance
#nasa
#snowmen

Same-sex marriage set to be legalised in Scotland as majority of MSPs say they will back Bill despite massive public opposition | Mail Online
▻http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508611/Same-sex-marriage-set-legalised-Scotland-majority-MSPs-say-Bill-despite

Same-sex marriage set to be legalised in Scotland as majority of MSPs say they will back Bill despite massive public opposition

86 out of 127 politicians in Holyrood say they will vote to pass legislation
Ten said they remained undecided and 20 refused to reveal their opinion
Consultation revealed two-thirds of respondents were against plans

By Michael Blackley and Stephen Johns

PUBLISHED: 00:45 GMT, 17 November 2013 | UPDATED: 00:45 GMT, 17 November 2013

25 shares

1

View
comments

Scotland is to join the rest of the UK by agreeing to legalise gay marriage later this week.

The Scottish Parliament’s 128 MSPs will disregard massive opposition to the radical plan by voting on Wednesday to allow same-sex couples to marry.

The issue has already humiliated David Cameron, with 133 of his Tory MPs trying voting against the proposals in the House of Commons earlier this year.
Controversial: Politicians in Scotland are disregarding public opposition by backing same-sex marriage

Controversial: Politicians in Scotland are disregarding public opposition by backing same-sex marriage

Now Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond – a passionate champion of same-sex marriage - will also face a rebellion on the issue, with one of his Ministers revealing he will vote against the plans, as well as a clutch of SNP backbenchers.

But a survey of all MSPs by the Mail on Sunday has revealed that an overwhelming majority of MSPs will back the proposals when they vote on the issue for the first time on Wednesday evening.

More...

Eating horsemeat? Leave that to the French, says PM as he dismisses suggestion by Princess Anne
David Cameron is told he is a god: PM mobbed by 200 Tamil protesters as he travels to meet victims of Sri Lanka’s civil war

Although the Bill will then be subject to additional revision by a parliamentary committee before a final vote at some point next year, securing approval ‘in principle’ is likely to end any doubts about the legislation being passed.

Opponents of the legislation will then start to focus on campaigning for appropriate safeguards to be put in place to protect the rights of people who refuse to promote same-sex marriage and ensure that no individual celebrant is forced to hold gay ceremonies against their will.

Our survey reveals that 86 MSPs have confirmed they will vote for same-sex marriage, while 11 plan to vote against.

However, the rebellion against the move could grow in the coming days, as ten MSPs say they remain undecided and a further 20 have refused to reveal how they will vote on the issue.
Leader: First Minister Alex Salmond is one of the MSPs said to be voting in favour of gay marriage

Leader: First Minister Alex Salmond is one of the MSPs said to be voting in favour of gay marriage

The decision to press ahead with the move comes despite the Scottish Government’s biggest ever public consultation revealing that more than two-thirds of respondents opposed the plan.

The issue has led to considerable tension within the SNP. Four Nationalist MSPs say they will definitely vote against the move – including Alasdair Allan, the Minister for Learning, Sciences and Scotland’s Languages, as well as backbenchers Richard Lyle, John Mason and Dave Thompson.

Mr Allan, who represents the Western Isles and is a former senior media relations officer at the Church of Scotland, said hundreds of his constituents have been in touch to urge him to back the ‘traditional definition of marriage’.

He said: ‘In responding to people, I have pointed out that I am supportive of the existing rights of same-sex couples to civil partnerships, and that I welcome the belated respect which society rightly gives gay people, but that I believe difficult issues are raised around the specific question of marriage. This view has also been informed by the strength of feeling which exists among many people in the islands.

‘Among all these different views, the view which so many of my constituents have expressed to me has a right to be recorded, and for that reason it is my intention to vote against the Bill.’

The Scottish Mail on Sunday survey is the most detailed research ever carried out into the views of Scotland’s MSPs on same-sex marriage.

As all MSPs will be allowed to vote on the issue as a ‘matter of conscience’ – without being told how to vote by party whips – the result is less predictable than on most issues in the Scottish parliament, where the SNP has a majority and is normally able to confidently press through its opposition.
Split: The Scottish Conservatives were the only party to have more MSPs opposed to the legislation, which is embarrassing to Ruth Davidson, the party’s openly gay leader who has been a prominent supporter

Split: The Scottish Conservatives were the only party to have more MSPs opposed to the legislation, which is embarrassing to Ruth Davidson, the party’s openly gay leader who has been a prominent supporter

The Scottish Conservatives were the only party to have more MSPs opposed to the legislation than supportive of it – with six saying they will vote against the Bill and just four saying they will vote for it.

That is embarrassing for Ruth Davidson, the party’s leader, who has been one of the most prominent supporters of the legislation at Holyrood.

The Scottish Government is committed to a Scotland that is fair and equal and that is why we believe that same sex couples who wish should be allowed to marry as soon as possible

Scottish Government Spokesman

But Miss Davidson said: ‘I believe the forthcoming bill on same sex marriage is an issue of conscience, which is why I have given Conservative MSPs a free vote on the issue.

‘I support same sex marriage and will be voting to pass this bill.’

The four SNP members who have said they will vote against the plans are expected to be joined by more rebels on Wednesday, with four nationalist MSPs saying they remain undecided and a further ten saying they won’t reveal their view before voting later this week.

Former SNP leader Gordon Wilson believes that pressing ahead with the legislation will cost the party votes in future elections – and urged MSPs to ensure they get proper protection for religious groups who don’t want to hold same-sex marriages. He said: ‘Bland assurances will not necessarily deal with the realities of supervision of the legislation by the courts.

‘There’s a majority for it but once you get the principle what then happens is it’s about “on what terms”? Like any insurance policy, it’s about the small print – look at what the small print says. That’s my advice to MSPs – even if you’re in favour, look at the small print and what might happen because the courts are outwith your control.’

Following Wednesday’s vote, the Bill will then return to Holyrood’s equal opportunities committee, which will consider any amendments which need to be made.

It remains on track to be passed in time to allow the first gay weddings to take place in 2015.

Opponents of same-sex marriage want more to be done to ensure that those who continue to believe in traditional marriage do not suffer discrimination in their career or have freedom of speech restricted.

They fear that some professionals, such as teachers, could be sacked if they fail to promote gay marriage.
Freedom: MSPs will be allowed to vote as a ’matter of conscience’ when they cast their ballots at Holyrood

Freedom: MSPs will be allowed to vote as a ’matter of conscience’ when they cast their ballots at Holyrood

A spokesman for the Scotland For Marriage pressure group, which includes representatives of the Catholic Church in Scotland and The Christian Institute, said: ‘The Scottish Government’s promise of sufficient safeguards have been shown to be hollow. Real safeguards set out in amendments to the legislation are required to protect the rights and civil liberties of the majority of Scots who don’t support this law.’

Among those set to vote against the Bill is Tory MSP Alex Johnstone, a member of the Scottish parliament’s equal opportunities committee. He said: ‘There’s been a substantial trend in recent years away from supporting traditional marriage as a basis for the raising of children and providing the cornerstone for society as a whole.

‘At a time when we should have been looking for ways to underpin and reinforce marriage on that basis we seem to be obsessed with pursuing what I believe is an unjustified desire to provide same-sex marriage, so I think it is a step in the wrong direction as far as the support of marriage in society is concerned.’

However, Scottish Tory deputy leader Jackson Carlaw said he would support the Bill – while ensuring that any amendments can provide full protection to religions, faiths and congregations which don’t want to take part.

Colin Beattie, Nationalist MSP for Midlothian North and Musselburgh, said: ‘I don’t think the case for making it different for gay people holds much water: everyone should be equal.

‘I’m concerned about the people who are against but if you are a parliamentarian you have to deal with hard facts and logic on whether something should become law and it is hard to take into account religious views on that basis.’

A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘The Scottish Government is committed to a Scotland that is fair and equal and that is why we believe that same sex couples who wish should be allowed to marry as soon as possible.’

Robin Lustig : Ironies de l’histoire : la dernière fois qu’un Premier ministre a été défait sur une motion de guerre, c’était en 1782, lorsque les députés ont voté pour arrêter de combattre dans la guerre d’indépendance américaine.
▻https://twitter.com/robinlustig/status/373224191526313985

Ironies of history: last time a UK PM was defeated on a war motion was 1782, when MPs voted to stop fighting American war of independence.

From ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ to America’s new best friends ? François Hollande talks tough on Syria after UK backs down
▻http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/from-cheeseeating-surrender-monkeys-to-americas-new-best-friends-fran

Mr Hollande was asked if France’s would act despite the House of Commons vote on Thursday night refusing to approve the principle of a British strike on Syria.

He replied: “Yes. Every country has a sovereign right to take part or not to take part. That applies to the United Kingdom but also to France.”

Et puis Hollande semble avoir le privilège de ne pas devoir en passer par un vote au parlement ...

Sympathy for the devil: Israel’s efforts on behalf of Cairo’s generals
By Chemi Shalev
20th of August 2013
Haaretz
▻http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.542403

In June 1941, on the eve of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Winston Churchill famously told his personal secretary John Colville “If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” The next day he expressed unequivocal support for his arch-enemy Stalin and dispatched military assistance to beleaguered Moscow.

This “principle of the lesser evil” that Churchill so pithily expressed has been the guiding principle of much of America’s post-World War II policy. In its name, the U.S. has supported a long line of disgusting dictators and terrible tyrants who were considered to be critical for vital American interests such as combatting Communism and terror or safeguarding oil supplies in the Middle East. Democracy and human rights, in most cases, took a back seat, often for many decades.

This is the general theme of the Israeli effort to persuade Washington not to cut U.S. military aid to the Cairo regime, despite its transgressions. America and Israel share an overriding interest in preserving the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty and in preventing Sinai from turning into a launching pad for Al-Qaida attacks, Israel says. Former ambassador to Egypt Eli Shaked told the New York Times on Monday, “We don’t have good guys. It is a situation where you have to choose who is less harmful.”

The EU and the attack on European workers’ wages - World Socialist Web Site

▻http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/15/pers-a15.html

The EU and the attack on European workers’ wages

15 August 2013

Five years after the Wall Street crash of September 2008, figures compiled by Britain’s House of Commons Library on wage rates in the 27-member European Union show that workers’ living standards have been thrown into sharp reverse.

The statistics belie claims that the euro zone has “turned the corner” with a modest rise in growth over the last quarter. The situation is particularly acute in those countries that have been subject to the dictates of the “troika”—the EU, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—which has overseen massive cuts in social spending as demanded by the international banks.

#travail #europe #emploi #salaire

House of Commons - Transport - Second Report
▻http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmtran/61/6104.htm

Ports today: state of play

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmtran/61/611b.gif

Ports are essential to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. It is estimated that approximately 95 per cent by volume, and 75 per cent by value, of the country’s international trade is transported by sea. In 2004, total UK imports across all transport modes were valued at £249 billion and exports at £191 billion, which indicates that approximately £330 billion of the UK’s international trade was moved through its seaports.[11]

While the industry continues to face historical and enduring problems; there are other urgent issues, consequent on the privatisation of the ports industry in the early 1990s,[12] that require action. Into the former category would come inland infrastructure, environmental concerns, competition with the Continent, and safety; into the latter, the ’ownership question’ and the growing encroachment of European Union law into the national sphere.

#roayume-uni #ports #transports-maritime

Les néo-nazis célèbrent la quasi-légalisation de la propagande raciste dans la Loi C-304 | Québec Facho-Watch
►http://www.fachowatch.com/les-neo-nazis-celebrent-la-legalisation-de-la-propagande-raciste-dans-la

A Conservative private members’ bill that repeals part of Canada’s hate speech laws has passed the House of Commons with scant media attention, and even less commentary. But it’s being cheered by many Canadian conservatives as a victory for freedom of speech. And it’s being cheered most vocally by another group: White supremacists.

Bill C-304, introduced by Conservative backbencher Brian Storseth, repeals Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which bans hate speech transmitted over the Internet or by telephone. It passed third reading in the House of Commons on Thursday and is now headed to the Senate.

“This is a huge victory for freedom in Canada,” a poster calling him or herself “CanadaFirst” posted on the website of StormFront, a notorious white supremacist group. “However, we still have other unjust Zionist ‘hate’ laws that need to go.”

“Way to go, Harper. I know we can’t get everything we want, but I stand a little taller today as a Canuck,” wrote “OneMan.”

The new law doesn’t make hate speech legal on the web or by phone — hate speech remains illegal under the Criminal Code. But by removing it from the Canadian Human Rights Act, it takes away the authority of the country’s human rights commissions to investigate online hate speech and request that violating websites be taken down.

Debate the death penalty!? Oh, come on!
►http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2011/08/debate-the-death-penalty-oh-come-on

Whilst on my holidays, I phoned home to check whether my goldfish had been fed and casually asked the goldfish loving member of my family whether there was any news – ‘nothing really,’ he said, ‘oh, but Guido Fawkes and the Daily Mail are trying to raise a petition to get the House of Commons to debate the death penalty.’ When I realised he wasn’t winding me up, I found my insides groaning in despair and disbelief.

There are two issues here – the first is the awful use of petitions to force Parliament into debating a particular topic, and the second is the issue of the death penalty itself.

Thankfully, in our country, murder is still rare, the restoration of the death penalty will not make it any rarer. If Guido Fawkes wishes to make a contribution to the debate on the Criminal Justice System and crime then there are far better and more constructive ways of doing this than this rather stupid act of self-publicity.

#UK #E-petition