About truthaholics

| Exposing Truth Behind Media Spin. Truth is not gossip. It's not sensational or even exciting. Truth's reality, fact. Truth's shocking, sad, horrific, frightening and deadly. Controversial issues discussed here so only for those able to digest Truth.

Joint Statement from 100 Signatories Opposing the Nationality and Borders Bill

Joint Statement from 100 Signatories Opposing the Nationality and Borders Bill | Media Diversified |

We the undersigned have come together to oppose the passing of the Nationality and Borders Bill. We assert that:

1- The Nationality and Borders Bill is the latest assault against migrant rights and the democratic rights of British citizens that sharply escalated since the so-called War on Terror. This bill is a route to disenfranchisement and even deportation of people of colour on an unprecedented scale.

2- The Nationality and Borders bill along with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill are unjust particularly for people of colour, and those born outside the UK. They will prevent them from attending protests on any issues of social and political justice. This simple, peaceful action could lead not only to arrest, but to loss of their citizenship – which is never a danger for white British people. This is an overtly racist piece of legislation.

3- The Nationality and Borders Bill stands in violation to the UK’s commitment to the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention. It is an expansion of a violent system that dehumanises the most vulnerable, excludes ‘undeserving’ others and will effectively make the Government unchallengeable and refuge and asylum practically impossible. The bill will punish refugees on arrival, it will extend their detention and make it even more difficult for people to be released. The bill makes provisions for offshore processing of migrants, which will render them without rights or protections at all. Furthermore, the bill sets out a range of draconian measures to exclude people from the UK, including a lethal change which allows Border Forces to turn back boats carrying refugees across the Channel.

4- The naivety of assuming “good faith” on the part of the Home Secretary in the exercise of these sweeping powers has become ever clearer over the course of the past few years as the Windrush scandal, the hostile environment and the criminalisation of those seeking asylum from persecution and conflict have all evidenced.

5- Clause 9 of this Bill is merely the pinnacle of a raft of legislation that has already subjected the citizenship of millions of Britons of foreign heritage, including those born and raised in the United Kingdom, to the caprice of the Home Secretary. In fact the Home Secretary, since 2010, has already exercised this power against more than 150 people, overwhelmingly Muslims, using secret ‘evidence’ and secret courts which the affected individual has no ability to challenge.

6- Clause 9 now goes a step further and removes even the duty of notification, leaving millions in constant uncertainty as to the status of their citizenship.

7- The Home Office is effectively collaborating with other governments to make people stateless. It will lead to further clampdown on activists and marginalised people protesting against far-right and authoritarian governments globally.

We the undersigned call for:

1- Citizens and communities to stand united against this Bill and make their opposition to it – in its entirety – loud and vocal: migrants have the right to safe passage and refuge, and citizenship is a right that belongs to all EQUALLY, none should be excluded.

2- The unreserved rejection of the concept of a two-tier citizenship based upon one’s familial origin: it is racist both in theory and in its praxis. Our opposition to the Nationality and Borders Bill is based on this exclusionary logic and not merely the notification clause.

3- The preservation of due process in any decision regarding the deprivation of a person’s citizenship: Secret courts, secret evidence and the use of government vetted ‘special advocates’ as the only means to challenge for defendants, should have no place in a country that claims heritage to the Magna Carta.

4- A fair and transparent immigration policy which safeguards the right to humane treatment and due process for all seeking asylum in the United Kingdom.

5- Political parties and members of Parliament must pledge to oppose the Nationality and Borders Bill and reject it at the first opportunity.

  1. Muhammad Rabbani, CAGE
  2. Samantha Asumadu, Media Diversified 
  3. William Skeaping, Extinction Rebellion
  4. Abdi Hassan, Coffee Afrik CIC
  5. Keval Bharadia, South Asia Solidarity Group
  6. Amritpal Singh Dhesi, Sikh Council UK
  7. Raghad Altikriti, Muslim Association of Britain
  8. Jolyon Maugham QC, Barrister
  9. Dr Halima Begum, CEO, The Runnymede Trust
  10. Adjoa Andoh, Actor and Director 
  11. Julie Bentley, CEO, Samaritans
  12. Glenda Andrew, Preston Windrush Generation and Descendants UK
  13. Neil Gaiman, Writer
  14. Nikesh Shukla, Writer
  15. Black Lives Matter UK
  16. Patrick Vernon OBE, Windrush Campaigner
  17. Caroline Diehl MBE, Director of Social Founder Network
  18. David Olusoga OBE, Historian and Broadcaster
  19. Karis Campion, Stephen Lawrence Research Centre
  20. Shamsher Singh, National Sikh Youth Federation 
  21. Nayeem Haque, Muslim Youth Network
  22. Sabrina Qureshi, Million Women Rise
  23. Tauhid Pasha, British Bangladeshi Freedom50
  24. Kenneth Olumuyiwa Tharp CBE
  25. Sharon Kaur, Sikh Human Rights 
  26. Ben Jamal, Director Palestine Solidarity Campaign
  27. Simon Blake, CEO, Mental Health First Aid England
  28. Sarah Hughes, CEO Centre for Mental Health 
  29. Poppy Jaman, CEO City Mental Health Alliance
  30. Liv Little, gal-dem
  31. Rosie Tressler OBE, CEO Student Minds
  32. Prof. Sunny Singh, Jhalak Prize
  33. Malia Bouattia, Red Pepper Magazine
  34. Ghulam Haydar, Myriad Foundation
  35. Richie Brave, Presenter
  36. Dr Yvonne Ridley, Director General of European Muslim League
  37. Guilaine Kinouani, Author, Race Reflections
  38. Patrice Wellesley-Cole, retired Judge
  39. Ali Kazmi, Save Our Citizenships 
  40. Ava Vidal, Comedian and Writer
  41. Anthony Anaxagorou and Patricia Ferguson, Out-Spoken Press
  42. Dorothea Jones, The Monitoring Group
  43. Chris Asumadu, Management Accountant MBA
  44. Patricia Hamzahee, Integriti Capital
  45. Shakeel Begg, Imam at Lewisham Islamic Centre
  46. Mohammed Arshed, Belfast Islamic Centre 
  47. Dr. Akhtar-Saeed Bhutta, Secretary, UKIM-Scotland
  48. Selina Ullah, Muslim Women’s Council
  49. Sahra Mire, Ashaadibi Centre
  50. Safia Jama, Women’s Inclusive Team 
  51. Amarpreet Singh Kular, Sri Guru Singh Sabha Slough 
  52. Suliman Gani, Imam Purley Masjid 
  53. Harjit Singh, Kesri Lehar Scotland
  54. Kinjell Singh, Amnesty Society University of Birmingham 
  55. Shareefa Energy, Poet, Writer & Activist
  56. Charles Thompson MBE, Screen Nation Media
  57. Jagdeesh Singh, Kesri Lehar UK 
  58. Soraya Chemaly, Writer and Activist 
  59. Amelia Maling, Steering Committee, Womens Equality Party
  60. Dr Kavita Bhanot, Literature Must Fall
  61. Jake Ferguson, Baobab Foundation and Black Men for Change
  62. Harsev Bains, Association of Indian Communists GB
  63. Leyose Paul, Secretary, Indian Workers Association (IWA GB)
  64. Ashik Mohammed Nazar, Kairali UK
  65. Rory Anderson, Convener, Social Work Action Network
  66. J Mark Dodds, The People’s Pub Partnership
  67. Jane Bassett, National Education Union (Hackney)
  68. Dyal Bagri, National President – Indian Workers Association GB
  69. Daniel York Loh, Chair Equity Race Equality Committee
  70. Jennifer Lim, Creative Producer, Moongate Productions 
  71. Lucy Sheen, BEATS.org, Foundling Productions 
  72. David Law, Licensee, The Eagle Ale House
  73. Jessica Turtle, Museum of Homelessness 
  74. Zita Holbourne, National Chair BARAC UK 
  75. Miranda Grell, Barrister 
  76. Manasi Pophale, History Speak
  77. Gurpreet Singh Anand, Khalsa Jatha British Isles
  78. Adam Elliott-Cooper, School of Politics and IR, Queen Mary, University of London
  79. CN Lester, LGBTQI activist and author
  80. Yansie Rolston, Associate Director, The Ubele Initiative 
  81. Yvonne Field, CEO The Ubele Initiative 
  82. Annie Viswanathan, Director, Bail for Immigration Detainees
  83. Ellen Graubart, Unite the Union
  84. Kate Shurety, Charity CEO
  85. Dr Mohammed Rahman, Senior Lecturer in Criminology 
  86. Subhadra Das, Writer and historian 
  87. Julia Davidson, Founder of Peterborough Windrush 
  88. Charmaine Simpson, Black History Studies
  89. Gil Mualem-Doron, Director SEAS
  90. Fahid Qurashi, Lecturer in Criminology 
  91. Kamel Hawwash, Professor, University of Birmingham
  92. Kuldeep Singh Deol, Vice PresIdent, Guru Nanak Gurdwara Smethwick 
  93. Dr Javed H Gill, West of Scotland Racial Equality Council
  94. Sarbjit Ganger, Director Asian Women’s Resource Centre 
  95. Massoud Shadjareh, Islamic Human Rights Commission 
  96. Fin Kennedy, Playwright and Artistic Director
  97. Ferda Ataman, Publicist, New German Media Makers
  98. Michael Simons, Hackney Stand Up To Racism
  99. John Mayford, CEO Olmec
  100. Yvette Griffith, Chief Executive, Jazz re:freshed 


________
source
________

Controversial New Nationality & Borders Bill Passed in UK Parliament -  Migrateful
Remove Clause 9 from the hideous Nationality and Borders Bill - West  Country Bylines

#UK #Citizenship #Disenfranchisement #RacialDiscrimination: #NationalityAndBordersBill evokes a chilling history for #UK’s East And South-East Asian Communities!

Clause 9 of the UK Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill exempts the government from giving notice of a decision to deprive a person of citizenship if they believe the person can apply for citizenship elsewhere. This clause has potentially chilling effects for the UK’s people of colour, and as Daniel York Loh writes, recalls a time when deportations and violence were inflicted on British Chinese sailors following World War Two – with lasting consequences
Featured image: Chinese seamen learning how to handle an Oerlikon gun at the Gunnery School For Inter-allied Merchant Seamen, 1942, Liverpool. Wikimedia Commons

The Nationalities and Borders Bill which passed through Parliament last week, has rightly caused an outcry amongst migrant rights and anti-racism campaigners – particularly Clause 9, enabling the Home Office to render people stateless at their own discretion, which is an existential concern to all people of colour and migrant backgrounds living in Britain today. As Guilaine Kinouane so perceptively articulates in her powerful article on the subject for Media Diversified, ‘arguably the most ‘diverse’ cabinet in the history of UK politics has introduced possibly the most racist and regressive pieces of legislation this country has seen in decades’.

Of course, the perpetrators and defenders of this frankly terrifying piece of legislation will argue long and loudly that the Bill’s powers will only apply to the most dangerous of criminals and the law-abiding majority need have nothing to fear. Ironically this is the very same justification the Communist Party of China (CPC) government are using to negate dispute on the draconian and authoritarian National Security Law (NSL) that they have imposed to shut down democratic protest and rights in the former British colony of Hong Kong.

The UK’s East & Southeast Asian (ESEA) communities should also be extremely concerned about this Bill and its ramifications. After all, the Chinese in Britain have direct history of forced deportations and repatriations with the British government’s scandalous treatment of Chinese sailors during and after World War Two, which separated families in the most traumatic of circumstances and, though largely swept under the carpet since, left a lasting scar on Liverpool’s Chinese community with descendants to this day never having traced or met their fathers and grandfathers.

“And as with the World War One Chinese Labour Corps, ethnically Chinese workers were regarded as cheap, disposable… and also a threat. It’s again largely forgotten just how opposed the UK trade union and labour movement was to the idea of ‘cheap Chinese workers’, who were believed to have an inhuman work ethic”

Approximately 5000 ethnically Chinese sailors, mainly recruited from Shanghai and Singapore, were employed on British-registered ships during World War Two. In fact they made up around 15% of the British Merchant Navy at the time, playing a vital role – as the similarly airbrushed-from-history Chinese Labour Corps did towards the end of World War One – in Britain’s war effort.

And as with the World War One Chinese Labour Corps, ethnically Chinese workers were regarded as cheap, disposable… and also a threat. It’s again largely forgotten just how opposed the UK trade union and labour movement was to the idea of ‘cheap Chinese workers’, who were believed to have an inhuman work ethic, remaining after these conflicts to potentially take jobs from British workers.

As early as 1906, trade union leader Jim Larkin campaigned for the Independent Labour Party against Chinese immigration, presenting it as a threat that would undercut workers, and in an extraordinary display of ‘yellowface’ street theatre led a procession in Liverpool with fifty dockers dressed as ’Chinamen’, wearing faux-’pigtails’ with powdered faces to provide a ’yellow countenance’ to scare the local population about the perils of Chinese labour. The 1914 Defense of the Realm Act was amended to include the smoking of opium as proof of moral depravity that merited deportation – a legalistic pretext for deporting any Chinese inhabitants of Britain at the time.

Chinese seafarers operate a gun in he UK during World War Two
During World War Two, ethnically Chinese merchant seamen were seen as a constant source of aggravation to the UK government of the time. It’s important to note that the modern British media view of the Chinese (quiet, hard-working, politically voiceless, largely invisible except in media reports about Covid) was entirely different at the time. The Chinese were regarded as bestial, ‘unaccountably wild and (prone to) resorting to collective violence’ (Tony Lane, The Merchant Seaman’s War).

These particular Chinese Merchant Seamen were also very much made up of left-wing labour organisers with the type of agitator spirit guaranteed to not inure them to what was at the time still a colonial regime. The Journal of Commerce ran a whole serialised account of one particular labour dispute that turned violent with the lurid headline ‘Chinese Run Amok’. It took until Week 4 of the five instalment series before the Journal’s readers were allowed to learn that that initial dispute had been about a grievous shortfall in pay and conditions for the Chinese workers which were well beneath their White British counterparts and even precluded Chinese sailors from being paid the ‘war risk’ bonus seen as an indelible right of British workers. The last injustice was particularly egregious to Chinese labour organisers. The bombs and guns of Britain’s war enemies were not making allowances on race grounds after all.

Often these disputes did turn violent and here too there was grievous discrimination. The captain of the oil tanker Silverash, who shot and killed a Chinese a seaman, was acquitted of all charges inside ten minutes by a New York court. Because no evidence from a ‘Chinaman’ was considered admissible.

The British response to these labour disputes was often deportation and repatriation. Unsurprisingly, many ethnically Chinese sailors took the opportunity to jump ship in anticipation, often disappearing into the Chinatowns of America to find work and build a life away from their war and strife-torn homeland.

However, with the Japanese occupations of both Shanghai and Singapore these forced and immediate repatriations became logistically impossible and so a constant state of mutual distrust ensued with angry questions raised in Parliament about the treatment of Chinese sailors.

Chinese sailors are instructed in the UK during World War Two
Come war’s end, Liverpool became the scene of one of the ultimate abuses of Home Office power. Ironically, given the ‘cheap Chinese worker’ cliché, the ethnically Chinese sailors had seen their wages drop and been priced off the ships by cheaper European labour. But many Chinese sailors now had local white wives and partners. Some even had children. The ‘Alien Act’ of the time made the citizenship of any British woman married to a Chinese man complicated and vulnerable. Some British women did not marry their Chinese partners for fear of this complication. In yet another irony, China, being a wartime ‘ally’, made marrying a Chinese partner far more hazardous to the citizenship rights of a British woman than it would marrying a Japanese man – Japan being an ‘enemy’.

What followed is murky and shameful with no clear account. A Home Office figure at the time gives the number of 117 ethnically Chinese being deported but there is no clear figure. Some were forced onto ships under a ‘no work no pay’ ultimatum. Others apparently were simply rounded up with no opportunity to even say goodbye to the partners and young families they were forced to leave behind and never see again.

“Indeed, it’s tempting to imagine how different Britain’s Chinese community might look now had an actual community of politically vocal ethnically Chinese been allowed to develop and grow”

And the reason for these sudden and violent deportations of those who, let’s not forget, had contributed massively to Britain’s war effort? Again, shrouded in mystery and government discretion, though one Home Office meeting at the time cited that the Chinese sailors were “an undesirable element in Liverpool…”

Perhaps one reason is the aforementioned political affiliation of the Chinese sailors – the ethnically Chinese merchant navy workforce were very much left-wing labour organisers, at least in sympathy (if not actual membership) of the Chinese Communist Party. Britain’s colonial government at the time feared Chinese communism as much as it fears Muslim fundamentalism now with exactly the same blanket stigmatisation and demonisation. It’s another little-known fact after all that the British police’s teargas, kettling and water-cannon tactics for dealing with protestors was developed and honed in the colonies of East and Southeast Asia with Margeret Thatcher herself inviting the (White British) police chief of Hong Kong to advise on how to deal with the angry protests of Black people on the streets of Toxteth and St. Pauls in the early 80’s.

Indeed, it’s tempting to imagine how different Britain’s Chinese community might look now had an actual community of politically vocal ethnically Chinese been allowed to develop and grow as opposed to the geographically isolated, historically invisible and unheard disparate make-up that barely registers on the census that most of us grew up with.

And perhaps that’s the point. When a government grants itself the powers to decide on people’s citizenship rights in its own interests and with no accountability it empowers itself to take traumatically life-affecting decisions on its own particular political agenda.

I hope we all protest this monstrous Bill with every breath we have.

For ideas about how you may resist the bill use BID Detention’s template to email your MP that the #BordersBill will criminalise refugees, erode the meagre rights of those subject to immigration control & sow further division into UK society. Click here for the petition. opposing clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill. Sign, and share on your social media channels.

Daniel York Loh is associate artistic director of Chinese Arts Now, co-founding member of EVR-ESEA (End Violence & Racism Against ESEA Communities) info@evresea.com and BEATS Org (British East/Southeast Asian in Theatre and on Screen) info@evresea.com

For more information on Liverpool and its Chinese seamen visit http://www.halfandhalf.org.uk

______
source
_______

| truthaholics

The Nationality and Borders Bill evokes a chilling history for the UK’s East And South-East Asian Communities | Daniel York Loh |Media Diversified | 15

Clause 9 of the UK Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill exempts the government from giving notice of a decision to deprive a person of citizenship if they believe the person can apply for citizenship elsewhere. This clause has potentially chilling effects for the UK’s people of colour, and as Daniel York Loh writes, recalls a time when deportations and violence were inflicted on British Chinese sailors following World War Two – with lasting consequences

Featured image: Chinese seamen learning how to handle an Oerlikon gun at the Gunnery School For Inter-allied Merchant Seamen, 1942, Liverpool. Wikimedia Commons

The Nationalities and Borders Bill which passed through Parliament last week, has rightly caused an outcry amongst migrant rights and anti-racism campaigners – particularly Clause 9, enabling the…

View original post 1,538 more words

#UK #Citizenship #Disenfranchisement #RacialDiscrimination: #NationalityAndBordersBill evokes a chilling history for #UK’s East And South-East Asian Communities!

The Nationality and Borders Bill evokes a chilling history for the UK’s East And South-East Asian Communities | Daniel York Loh | Media Diversified | 15

Clause 9 of the UK Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill exempts the government from giving notice of a decision to deprive a person of citizenship if they believe the person can apply for citizenship elsewhere. This clause has potentially chilling effects for the UK’s people of colour, and as Daniel York Loh writes, recalls a time when deportations and violence were inflicted on British Chinese sailors following World War Two – with lasting consequences

Featured image: Chinese seamen learning how to handle an Oerlikon gun at the Gunnery School For Inter-allied Merchant Seamen, 1942, Liverpool. Wikimedia Commons

The Nationalities and Borders Bill which passed through Parliament last week, has rightly caused an outcry amongst migrant rights and anti-racism campaigners – particularly Clause 9, enabling the Home Office to render people stateless at their own discretion, which is an existential concern to all people of colour and migrant backgrounds living in Britain today. As Guilaine Kinouane so perceptively articulates in her powerful article on the subject for Media Diversified, ‘arguably the most ‘diverse’ cabinet in the history of UK politics has introduced possibly the most racist and regressive pieces of legislation this country has seen in decades’. 

Of course, the perpetrators and defenders of this frankly terrifying piece of legislation will argue long and loudly that the Bill’s powers will only apply to the most dangerous of criminals and the law-abiding majority need have nothing to fear. Ironically this is the very same justification the Communist Party of China (CPC) government are using to negate dispute on the draconian and authoritarian National Security Law (NSL) that they have imposed to shut down democratic protest and rights in the former British colony of Hong Kong.

The UK’s East & Southeast Asian (ESEA) communities should also be extremely concerned about this Bill and its ramifications. After all, the Chinese in Britain have direct history of forced deportations and repatriations with the British government’s scandalous treatment of Chinese sailors during and after World War Two, which separated families in the most traumatic of circumstances and, though largely swept under the carpet since, left a lasting scar on Liverpool’s Chinese community with descendants to this day never having traced or met their fathers and grandfathers. 


“And as with the World War One Chinese Labour Corps, ethnically Chinese workers were regarded as cheap, disposable… and also a threat. It’s again largely forgotten just how opposed the UK trade union and labour movement was to the idea of ‘cheap Chinese workers’, who were believed to have an inhuman work ethic”


Approximately 5000 ethnically Chinese sailors, mainly recruited from Shanghai and Singapore, were employed on British-registered ships during World War Two. In fact they made up around 15% of the British Merchant Navy at the time, playing a vital role – as the similarly airbrushed-from-history  Chinese Labour Corps did towards the end of World War One – in Britain’s war effort. 

And as with the World War One Chinese Labour Corps, ethnically Chinese workers were regarded as cheap, disposable… and also a threat. It’s again largely forgotten just how opposed the UK trade union and labour movement was to the idea of ‘cheap Chinese workers’, who were believed to have an inhuman work ethic, remaining after these conflicts to potentially take jobs from British workers.

As early as 1906, trade union leader Jim Larkin campaigned for the Independent Labour Party against Chinese immigration, presenting it as a threat that would undercut workers, and in an extraordinary display of ‘yellowface’ street theatre led a procession in Liverpool with fifty dockers dressed as ’Chinamen’, wearing faux-’pigtails’ with powdered faces to provide a ’yellow countenance’ to scare the local population about the perils of Chinese labour. The 1914 Defense of the Realm Act was amended to include the smoking of opium as proof of moral depravity that merited deportation – a legalistic pretext for deporting any Chinese inhabitants of Britain at the time. 

Chinese seafarers operate a gun in he UK during World War Two

During World War Two, ethnically Chinese merchant seamen were seen as a constant source of aggravation to the UK government of the time. It’s important to note that the modern British media view of the Chinese (quiet, hard-working, politically voiceless, largely invisible except in media reports about Covid) was entirely different at the time. The Chinese were regarded as bestial, ‘unaccountably wild and (prone to) resorting to collective violence’ (Tony Lane, The Merchant Seaman’s War). 

These particular Chinese Merchant Seamen were also very much made up of left-wing labour organisers with the type of agitator spirit guaranteed to not inure them to what was at the time still a colonial regime. The Journal of Commerce ran a whole serialised account of one particular labour dispute that turned violent with the lurid headline ‘Chinese Run Amok’. It took until Week 4 of the five instalment series before the Journal’s readers were allowed to learn that that initial dispute had been about a grievous shortfall in pay and conditions for the Chinese workers which were well beneath their White British counterparts and even precluded Chinese sailors from being paid the ‘war risk’ bonus seen as an indelible right of British workers. The last injustice was particularly egregious to Chinese labour organisers. The bombs and guns of Britain’s war enemies were not making allowances on race grounds after all. 

Often these disputes did turn violent and here too there was grievous discrimination. The captain of the oil tanker Silverash, who shot and killed a Chinese a seaman, was acquitted of all charges inside ten minutes by a New York court. Because no evidence from a ‘Chinaman’ was considered admissible. 

The British response to these labour disputes was often deportation and repatriation. Unsurprisingly, many ethnically Chinese sailors took the opportunity to jump ship in anticipation, often disappearing into the Chinatowns of America to find work and build a life away from their war and strife-torn homeland. 

However, with the Japanese occupations of both Shanghai and Singapore these forced and immediate repatriations became logistically impossible and so a constant state of mutual distrust ensued with angry questions raised in Parliament about the treatment of Chinese sailors. 

Chinese sailors are instructed in the UK during World War Two

Come war’s end, Liverpool became the scene of one of the ultimate abuses of Home Office power. Ironically, given the ‘cheap Chinese worker’ cliché, the ethnically Chinese sailors had seen their wages drop and been priced off the ships by cheaper European labour. But many Chinese sailors now had local white wives and partners. Some even had children. The ‘Alien Act’ of the time made the citizenship of any British woman married to a Chinese man complicated and vulnerable. Some British women did not marry their Chinese partners for fear of this complication. In yet another irony, China, being a wartime ‘ally’, made marrying a Chinese partner far more hazardous to the  citizenship rights of a British woman than it would marrying a Japanese man – Japan being an ‘enemy’.

What followed is murky and shameful with no clear account. A Home Office figure at the time gives the number of 117 ethnically Chinese being deported but there is no clear figure. Some were forced onto ships under a ‘no work no pay’ ultimatum. Others apparently were simply rounded up with no opportunity to even say goodbye to the partners and young families they were forced to leave behind and never see again.


“Indeed, it’s tempting to imagine how different Britain’s Chinese community might look now had an actual community of politically vocal ethnically Chinese been allowed to develop and grow”


And the reason for these sudden and violent deportations of those who, let’s not forget, had contributed massively to Britain’s war effort? Again, shrouded in mystery and government discretion, though one Home Office meeting at the time cited that the Chinese sailors were “an undesirable element in Liverpool…”

Perhaps one reason is the aforementioned political affiliation of the Chinese sailors – the ethnically Chinese merchant navy workforce were very much left-wing labour organisers, at least in sympathy (if not actual membership) of the Chinese Communist Party. Britain’s colonial government at the time feared Chinese communism as much as it fears Muslim fundamentalism now with exactly the same blanket stigmatisation and demonisation. It’s another little-known fact after all that the British police’s teargas, kettling and water-cannon tactics for dealing with protestors was developed and honed in the colonies of East and Southeast Asia with Margeret Thatcher herself inviting the (White British) police chief of Hong Kong to advise on how to deal with the angry protests of Black people on the streets of Toxteth and St. Pauls in the early 80’s. 

Indeed, it’s tempting to imagine how different Britain’s Chinese community might look now had an actual community of politically vocal ethnically Chinese been allowed to develop and grow as opposed to the geographically isolated, historically invisible and unheard disparate make-up that barely registers on the census that most of us grew up with. 

And perhaps that’s the point. When a government grants itself the powers to decide on people’s citizenship rights in its own interests and with no accountability it empowers itself to take traumatically life-affecting decisions on its own particular political agenda.

I hope we all protest this monstrous Bill with every breath we have. 

For ideas about how you may resist the bill use BID Detention’s template to email your MP that the #BordersBill will criminalise refugees, erode the meagre rights of those subject to immigration control & sow further division into UK society. Click here for the petition. opposing clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill. Sign, and share on your social media channels.


Daniel York Loh is associate artistic director of Chinese Arts Now, co-founding member of EVR-ESEA (End Violence & Racism Against ESEA Communities) info@evresea.com and BEATS Org (British East/Southeast Asian in Theatre and on Screen) info@evresea.com 

For more information on Liverpool and its Chinese seamen visit http://www.halfandhalf.org.uk 

______
source
_______

#UK #ChildProtection #StateSanctionedHARM: #Nadhim #Zahawi and #LeCercle! #ConflictOfInterest #Fitness4Purpose #FoxesRunningTheHenhouse

Nadhim Zahawi and Le Cercle | cathy fox blog on Child Abuse | 13 Dec 2021 

I have posted before about Le Cercle, a nasty secretive organisation with many links to child sexual abuse and child trafficking… Puppetmasters of Child Sexual Abuse – Le Cercle, Gladio, Knights of Malta and Opus Dei Networks [1]

I reproduce another part of this series… Visup Le Cercle: Clerical Fascism and the Pedophocracy Part III [13]

I do this as

  • this part is also relevant to British child sexual abuse networks
  • it is always better to have copies of important information, as much “goes missing”, almost rule one when blogging on child abuse is archive archive archive…
  • the current Education minister Nadhim Zahawi, was a Chair of this dodgy organisation from at least 2015-2017 and he failed even to declare it in the MP’s Register of Interests

I introduce this reblog with a section on Zahawi. Zahawi chose not to declare his Chairmanship from 2015-2017 of this organisation – see Politics Home EXCL Top Tories face questions over links to secretive foreign affairs group [10]

Zahawi was criticised for this by Sir Alistair Graham, the former Chair of the Commission for Standards in Public Life. [10]

“It is disturbing that two experienced members of Parliament [as Rory Stewart was also a Chair] did not see fit to declare their active membership of Le Cercle at the time they were a member of a key select committee, the functions of which clearly overlapped with the discussions of Le Cercle, which is a shadowy body which concerns itself with foreign affairs” [10]

Zahawi has been an MP for Stratford on Avon since 2010 and currently, since Sept 2021 is Secretary of State for Education.

Nadhim Zahawi

Nadhim Zahawi banked £1.3million from an oil company while working as an MP, but was able to keep his total second job earnings hidden due to a Parliamentary loophole. Zahawi was co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Kurdistan in 2015 when he landed the job with Gulf Keystone, which has an oil field in Kurdistan and which paid him more than £1,000 an hour. Zahawi made a fortune in the murky world of business and politics in Kurdistan. Ekurd.net Nadhim Zahawi pockets fortune from second job at Iraqi Kurdistan-focused oil company [3]

Zahawi uses off shore tax havens, and has property worth at least £17 million but likely much more as despite his public role, his interests are not made clear. Nadhim Zahawi’s £100m property empire revealed, Labour demands probe… [2]

In early June 2020 Zahawi stated that a “Coronavirus” contact tracing app could be widely deployed in the UK by the end of the month. An app in which incidentally unimaginably large amounts, billions of pounds have been allocated or spent. Test and trace’s ‘eye-watering’ £37billion shambles laid bare in damning report [14]. It would not surprise me if this had not gone to some slush fund, as that quantity of money is hard to waste just on Track and Trace…

In late November 2020, Zahawi was made UK’s Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment [7]

Although documents revealed that in December 2020 the UK government was planning a “Covid passport”, Zahawi explicitly denied this, and in February 2021 he was claiming that the government was “not looking at a vaccine passport for our domestic economy”.

In April 2021, he wrote that the UK “currently operates a system of informed consent for vaccinations”. Wikispooks Nadhim Zahawi [7]

Despite his extreme wealth, Zahawi’s family firm is suing traders for rent, when they are suffering catastrophically from the policies inflicted by Zahawi and the Conservative Government, supposedly for covid. Fury as millionaire minister Nadhim Zahawi’s family firm sues skint tenant traders [4]

Zahawi also was cofounder of YouGov. He was recently caught out lying that Britons would support mandating a Covid booster jab yet YouGovs poll from the day before showed 96% were against mandating any dose of the COVID “vaccine”. [21]

It appears Zahawi has few morals, and the description of psychopath would appear to fit, as well as nicknames such as Nasty Nadhy.

With Zahawi having strong ties to Le Cercle with its links to child trafficking, it is disturbing he is Education Minister. Even more disturbing are recent comments by Zahawi that children should be taken from parents when “any inkling, any iota of harm to any child, that the child is taken away immediately.”” Zahawi: take children into care when ‘any inkling of harm’ [15]

It is well known that the organisations of the state are used for child trafficking, see Why is the system protecting child sexual abuser, David Madge? [18] and Child Kidnapping by the (Deep) State – Example Sara Ybarra Johnson [19]

In the Family Courts in particular with a low standard of proof and a single judge, it is very easy to take children from a loving parent and give them into the Care System, which is often way more abusive than a parent they were taken from, or even in many cases TO the abusive parent.

Unbelievably to those who do not know the system is rigged, in a US study, if a mother alleges abuse by the father the children are more likely to be taken from her… Mothers Who Allege Abuse More Likely To Lose Custody of Their Children – Researching Reform [20]

Then add to the mix freemasons, paedophiles, corruption and ritual abuse the system acts as a child trafficking and abuse network. It is also believed by many that this is by design not accident.

Psychopaths in power use tragedies such as the Arthur Labinjo-Hughes case, to make it even easier to arrange a supply of children for trafficking. Many are still suffering from the Chidren Act 1989 which is supposed to act in the best interests of the child, but acts as a charter to take the children away from parents at whim of overzealous social workers, without proper scrutiny.

In an underfunded, overworked social services, paranoid to avoid being blamed and nationally shamed for any abuse by parents they are only too happy to take children away. For Zahawi to say this should be done on an “inkling of harm” is fanning the fire and a child traffickers dream.

Never to my knowledge is the actual risk of harm to the child in care taken into account. The risk is wrongly assumed to be zero – a benevolent state taking a child away from harm, instead in many hundreds of thousands of cases these children are being put at greater risk of harm than with the parents. Where is the balance of risk assessment?

Knowing a little of Zahawi, this is an article on Le Cercle, the organisation of which he was Chair for three years. Despite this he claimed he did not know how it was funded… incompetent or dishonest?

Zahawi

Zahawi has said, in regards to social services “My mantra continues to be that sunlight is the best possible disinfectant, because if we are to improve services where they need improving, we must share data and evidence“. [17] There is no reason whatsoever that this should not be applied to Zahawi himself.

Le Cercle a secretive, extremist organisation with connections to many of the worst people, the false flags of Gladio, and its ties to paedophile networks of Britain.

Apologies for some formatting errors transferring it to this blog from Le Cercle: Clerical Fascism and the Pedophocracy Part III [13]


Le Cercle: Clerical Fascism and the Pedophocracy Part III

Welcome to the third installment in my examination of the mysterious body referred to at times as Le Cercle, Pinay Cercle/Circle or the Pinay Group (in some accounts the Pinay Group is held to be an inner body of Le Cercle). Rarely addressed in English, the group has existed in one form or another since the early 1950s. During its formative years there were close contacts between Le Cercle and the similar Bilderberger Group, but it would be a mistaken to dismiss Le Cercle as a mere auxiliary of the more well known group as many have done.

As was noted in the first installment, much of Le Cercle’s leadership seems to have been dominated by the most reactionary elements of the Vatican as personified by groups such as Opus Dei and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (both groups were heavily represented within Le Cercle). In the early days there was a consensus concerning a united Europe between the Bilderbergers and these Catholic groups, but as the years went on their interests diverged more and more. Likely by the late 1970s David RockefellerHenry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezenski (all of them major figures in the Bilderberger network) had all broken with Le Cercle, which by then was following a far more radical agenda.

the Bilderberg Hotel where the namesake group first met in 1954

In the second installment I briefly considered former French prime minister Antoine Pinay, the sometime namesake of Le Cercle and gave a much more in depth account of his close associate, the lawyer Jean Violet. For many years Violet was the primary figure behind Le Cercle. This man of mystery was extensively linked to the intelligence services of France and West Germany as well as the Vatican itself. Long reputed to be a member of Opus Dei, Violet nonetheless was allegedly involved with the synarchist-tinged fascist militia known as La Cagoule in pre-WWII France.

the aftermath of a terror attack carried out by La Cagoule in 1930s France

With this installment I would like to begin focusing on the international network that Le Cercle used to achieve its agenda. This network was comprised of numerous far right groups drawn from across Europe, the Americas, South Africa and the Fart East. There was much overlap between these groups in addition to their ties to Le Cercle. Probably the two most important of these organizations was Brian Crozier‘s 61 network (usually written as “61”; 6I reportedly stood for “Sixth International” in some accounts) and Florimond Damman’s Academie Europeenne des Sciences Politiques (AESP, sometimes also referred to simply as the Academy). These two organizations effectively served as intelligence wings of Le Cerlce during the 1970s and 1980s.


The Academy Let us begin with the Academy as it predated the 6I and has also been covered before on this blog in some detail. The Academy was a Brussels-based organization founded by Florimond Damman in 1969. Damman was the brother-in-law of Alain de Villegas, one of the eccentric “inventors” who had conceived of the “sniffer plane” that occupied so much of Jean Violet’s time in 1970s (noted in part two). The Academy was born out of the CEPI/PEU network that Archduke Otto von Habsburg was the leading figure in (addressed before here and here). Damman had been active in such circles for several years before founding the Academy. Not long after its inception, it drew the attention of Jean Violet.

“… Damman would soon overcome the internal struggle within the AESP and expand its activities. At a symposium organised by Habsburg in Vienna in May 1969, Damman met Jean Violet (98)*. By October, Violet was looking for a group that could provide an operational framework for the Cercle Pinay, and thought of Damman and his AESP. On 21st October 1969, Violet wrote to Damman saying that he would like to meet him, having been ‘mandated by President Pinay to carry out a study of European perspectives after the German elections’ i.e. Willy Brandt’s September election victory. 

“The meeting took place one week later on 28th October in Brussels, where Violet was accompanied by two of his contacts, the first of whom was Marcel Collet, who had just retired as a director of Euratom. Violet’s second companion was certain to ensure a favourable reception from Damman – none other than the International Secretary-General of the Paneuropean Union Vittorio Pons. Over lunch, Violet, Damman, Collet and Pons agreed on a new role for the AESP to act as a forum linking the PEU and CEDI under Habsburg and Sánchez Bella to the Bilderberg Group and Cercle Pinay, represented by Pinay and Violet. The revamped Academy would be run by Damman directed from behind the scenes by Violet and his trio of associates Collet, Father Dubois and François Vallet, an industrialist in pharmaceuticals. Violet announced that he would go to Pöcking, Habsburg’s seat just outside Munich, to confer with the Archduke and Strauß about the financing of the AESP.”

Academy member Alfredo Sanchez Bella

(Rogue Agents, David Teacher, pgs. 50-51)

As was noted in the second installment, Jean Violet had very close ties to both French and West German intelligence during this time. His close associate, the above-mentioned Father Dubois, was believed to be a top figure in the Vatican’s intelligence network if not its head (as noted in part two). The Belgian figure of Vittorio Pons was alleged to have been a member of P7 by Richard Brenneke. P7 in turn was one of the Propaganda lodges believed to have provided funding for P2. The Spaniard Alfredo Sanchez Bella was reputedly a member of Opus Dei (as Violet was also alleged to be).

So yes, there were certainly some figures with rather deep ties involved with the international leadership of the Academy from very early on. This trend would only get stronger once the Belgian section had been formalized.

“The operational core of the AESP, the Permanent Delegation, brought together the Belgian sections of the PEU, CEDI and WACL – the duo of Damman and de Marcken represented the PEU Central Council and the Belgian PEU section MAUE, whereas Vankerkhoven was Secretary of both the Belgian LIL chapter within WACL and the Belgian section of CEDI. CEDI’s Belgian section was also represented within the AESP by its President, the Chevalier Marcel de Roover, a veteran anticommunist who had played a major part in the early post-war creation of two private anti-communist intelligence services linked to the Belgian Gladio network, Milpol and the Delcourt network. From the late 1950s on, de Roover had represented Belgium in various anti-communist networks that would later become formalised within WACL. He was also one of the earliest Belgians to frequent CEDI: he was appointed CEDI International Treasurer in January 1960 and founded its Belgian section in 1961, serving as its President until his death in 1971. Following de Roover’s death, Vankerkhoven would take over Belgian representation within WACL and CEDI, being appointed Secretary-General of CEDI and moving its Belgian office into his Cercle des Nations (100)*.

“The most prominent Belgian members of the AESP however were Gaston Eyskens, the serving Belgian Prime Minister from 1968 to 1973, and his immediate predecessor as Prime Minister from 1966 to 1968, Paul Vanden Boeynants from the Parti Social Chrétien (PSC). Vanden Boeynants, or VdB as he is known, would become a national institution in Belgian politics – the Belgian Andreotti, going on to serve as Belgian Defence Minister from 1972 to 1979 and as Prime Minister in 1978- 79. He first entered politics at the age of 29 in the ranks of Retinger’s European Movement. Before being elected to Parliament, he was one of the five Belgian representatives at the second conference of the Union of European Federalists, the most powerful group within the European Movement, held in Rome in November 1948 shortly after massive intervention by the CIA to ward off an electoral victory by the Socialist-Communist Popular Democratic Front in the April 1948 elections. As we will see below, one key Italian politician in this anti-communist propaganda effort would also figure amongst the AESP’s members in 1970…

“Baron Benoît de Bonvoisin – “the Black Baron” – was at the time the most notorious patron of Belgian fascism and a key international linkman for the far Right. Perhaps because of his controversial connections, de Bonvoisin would not figure on any formal AESP or MAUE membership lists until after Damman’s death in 1979, however attending CEDI and AESP events from 1976 on…”

(Rogue Agents, David Teacher, pgs. 51-52)

WACL stands for World Anti-Communist League. Officially established in 1966 (though regional branches had been around since the 1950s), the WACL brought together a rogue’s gallery of US military and intelligence officers, international arms and drug traffickers, assorted terrorists and religious fanatics of various stripes and the inevitable unreconstructed Nazi war criminals. It has been linked to a host of crimes and assassinations on multiple continents. Much more information on the WACL can be found here.

Also of note are the figures of Paul Vanden Boeynants (PvB) and Baron Benoit de Bonvoisin. As I noted in my examination of the Belgian deep state, PvB and the Baron were extensively linked to fascist militias alleged to have committed acts of terrorism in Belgium. In the 1990s, during the Dutroux affair, both men were also accused of being arch pedophiles. PvB had already had this charged levied against him in the 1980s due to the “Pinot file.” Members of the fascist militias PvB and the Baron funded were also linked to pedophile rings involving these two Academy fellows.

Beyond the ties the Academy had to the WACL and the PvB/Bonvoisin nexus in Belgium, David Teacher reports in Rogue Agents that Damman also had ties to Yves Guerin-Serac and the Aginter Press terror network, As I noted before here and here, Aginter Press has been linked to Operation Gladio and multiple acts of terrorism across Western Europe.

As noted above, the Academy had several indirect links to Propaganda Due from the alleged P7 organization. There was, however, at least one P2 initiate active in the Academy since the early 1970s:

“However, it is the Italian connections of the AESP that are the most fascinating. The former high-ranking P2 member Giancarlo Elia Valori attended both the Charlemagne Grand Dinner and the AESP Chapter Assembly; he would become a member of the AESP’s organising core, the Permanent Delegation, the following year. His presence is particularly interesting in the light of the allegations concerning P7 – two of the Academy members allegedly involved in P7, Pons and Töttösy, were also at these meetings with Valori. Valori’s attendance at Academy events from 1972 on also points to possible connections between the sniffer plane scandal and P2. Most of the key members in the sniffer plane negotiations were present at the 1976 Grand Dîner and Chapter Assembly with Valori: de Villegas, Father Dubois and Vallet. Vallet and de Villegas would join Valori on the AESP Permanent Delegation by 1977…”

(Rogue Agents, David Teacher, pg. 130)

Valori

Valori was also close to Argentinian strongman Juan Peron. In Their Kingdom Come, Robert Hutchison reports that Valori was “a secret chamberlain of the Papal Household” (pg. 210). Hutchison also records that Valori was close to fellow P2 initiate and Knight of Malta Umberto Ortolani, the man who many believed actually ran the P2.

Besides links to the P2, long time Academy patron Baron Benoit de Bonvoisin also had close ties to the MSI, the Italian fascist party, and numerous far right militias there such as Ordine Nuovo. The Baron was also reportedly on close terms with the notorious terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie. These ties were addressed before briefly here.

Delle Chiaie

Thus, it would seem that not only did the Academy have extensive ties to multiple intelligence services in Western Europe but it was also extensively linked to groups engaged in acts of terrorism and other outrageous across Europe and beyond. This has led several researchers to conclude the the Academy effectively served as an intelligence network for Le Cercle from its inception to the organization’s dissolution shortly after the death of Damman in 1979. Not long thereafter many of the more controversial elements of the Academy would turn up in Crozier’s 6I network. Crozier himself had been involved in the Academy with Jean Violet since roughly 1969 (noted before here).


Crozier and the ISC
And that brings us to the 6I and its controversial founder, Brain Crozier. Crozier provided the world with the first full length account of the Cercle network via his 1991 autobiography Free Agent. This work was heavily sanitized, generally depicting Le Cercle as inept and Crozier as a mere journalist fighting the good fight against the forces of Godless Communism. Crozier concedes to having a few intelligence ties, but he largely depicts these individuals and organizations as powerless. Indeed, one can’t help but feel truly baffled as to how the West won the Cold War after finishing with Free Agent if even a fraction of Crozier’s claims concerning “Communist subversion” were true.

As we shall see, Crozier took more than a few liberties with these claims, especially in regards to his ties to US and British intelligence. In point of fact, Crozier had extensive ties to these intelligence networks long before he hooked up with Le Cercle. These links date back to at least the 1950s.

“Born in 1918, Brian Rossiter Crozier started his career in journalism in 1936. Having worked in aeronautical inspection in 1941, he was hired by the news agency Reuters, which had links to MI6, in 1943. After a spell at the News Chronicle in 1944 and the Sydney Morning Herald in 1948, he returned to Reuters in 1951. From 1952 to 1954, Crozier toured the South-East Asian conflicts in Vietnam and Malaya for Reuters and the New Straits Times, which was used during the Malayan emergency as a channel for British disinformation prepared by the Foreign Office’s Information Research Department (IRD). It was in Saigon that Crozier started his long partnership with MI6 by meeting “Ronald Lincoln”, a friendship renewed back in London when both men had returned home in 1954. Crozier would then also meet a second MI6 officer “Ronald Franks” who would act as his link for several years. Thanks to the fruitful exchange of information with his MI6 contacts, ‘Lincoln’ and ‘Franks’, Crozier joined the staff of the Economist in September 1954 as Editor of their prestigious Economist Foreign Report, a post he filled until 1964 (26)*.”

(Rogue Agents, David Teacher, pg. 24)

Things really took off for Crozier, however, when he hooked up with an offshoot of  the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), a notorious CIA front.

“In 1965, the International Organisations Division of the CIA decided to use its intellectual front group, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to create a new propaganda outlet, a press agency called Forum World Features. This CIA features service, which at its peak supplied over 150 newspapers worldwide, would be run – from its launch in 1966 until its exposure in 1974 – by Brian Crozier. Whilst still Editor of the Economist Foreign Report, Crozier had already provided articles for the CCF journal Encounter as well as working on commission for the IRD for who he “transformed a thick folder of IRD documents into a short book” later published under the title Neo-Colonialism as part of a series called Background Books. After his departure from the Economist in February 1964, Crozier accepted a part-time consultancy for the IRD, advising departments and writing research papers. A few weeks later, Crozier was contacted by the CCF who offered him the job of taking over the CCF’s features service and commercialising its output. Tied up with the IRD consultancy and other contracts, Crozier refused but accepted a second more limited commission: to tour South America and report on how the CCF could improve the distribution of the Spanish-language version of their magazine, Encounter. Concerned by Crozier’s involvement with a CIA front, his MI6 contacts invited Crozier to MI6 headquarters upon his return in November 1964 and commissioned him to write an extensive background report on Sino-Soviet subversion in the Third World; a sanitised version of the report would be published in 1966 as part of the Background Books series under the title The Struggle for the Third World (54).

“In May 1965, Crozier finally accepted the post of Director of the CCF features service, Forum World Features, and Crozier started at FWF that July. Initial control of FWF ran via two CIA officers, CCF President Michael Josselson, and FWF auditor “Charles Johnson”. The legal and financial infrastructure for FWF was provided by one of the CIA’s “quiet channels”, millionaire John Hay Whitney, a wartime member of the OSS (55), former US Ambassador to Britain during Crozier’s time at the Economist and future publisher of the International Herald Tribune. Whitney obligingly registered FWF under his own name as a Delaware corporation with offices in London (56); CIA funding for FWF was channelled through Kern House Enterprises, a publishing firm run by Whitney. For a while, wrangles between Crozier and the CCF continued about FWF’s independence from the CCF; Crozier eventually ensured complete separation of FWF from the CCF and direct control via a CIA case officer he calls “Ray Walters”. Walters brought in an office manager, Cecil Eprile, and FWF opened its doors on 1st January 1966.”

(Rogue Agents, David Teacher, pgs. 33-34)

It was through these contacts that in 1962 Crozier would become involved with the America Frank Barnett and several organizations Barnett had ties to, most notably the National Strategy Information Center (NSIC). Barnett had co-founded the NCIS with William Casey, a former OSS officer and Knight of Malta who would go onto become the director of the CIA under Reagan. Much more will be said about Barnett, Casey and the NCIS and other organizations affiliated with this clique in a future installment.

For now the main thing to keep in mind is that the intelligence-connected Barnett would assist Crozier in his next major endeavor: the Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC).

“… Crozier therefore set up a low-key features service within FWF called the Current Affairs Research Services Centre in 1968. CARSC started publication of a series of monthly monographs on conflict, the first one appearing in December 1969. Crozier records that ‘the Agency had permitted me to produce the first five Conflict Studies under CARSC as a commercial imprint’ using the FWF address; the sixth would go out in January 1970 under the name of Crozier’s new venture, the Institute for the Study of Conflict (63).

“Kern House provided the start-up capital for the ISC, and Crozier functioned as Director of both FWF and the ISC. Several of FWF’s research staff and the FWF library were absorbed into the ISC; FWF then paid the ISC the sum of £2,000 for use of the library it had once owned. Oil companies put up seed capital: first was Shell, who put up £5,000 a year for three years, and British Petroleum £4,000 for two years (64)*. Then the real money came in, thanks to the Agency and via an old American friend: Frank Barnett of the NSIC (65)*. Having met Barnett in Madrid in 1966, Crozier visited him in New York in 1968. When the ISC was then set up in 1969-70, the NSIC provided substantial assistance. Apart from a guaranteed regular purchase of each issue of the Conflict Studies, Barnett’s NSIC also provided the salary for one of the ISC researchers and footed the printing and publicity bill for the ISC’s annual publication, the Annual of Power and Conflict (66).

“Above all, beyond NSIC funding, Barnett could provide contacts, arranging a meeting with Dan McMichael, who would remain a true friend to Barnett’s NSIC for more than fifteen years, serving on its Advisory Council until at least 1985. McMichael was administrator of the trust funds of the Scaife family, major shareholders in Gulf Oil. Barnett persuaded Richard Mellon Scaife (“Dick Scaife as he liked to be called – a tall, fair-haired man with film-star good looks”, as Crozier puts it) to provide $100,000 a year for the ISC as well as taking over the FWF subsidies from Jock Whitney. According to Crozier: “From that moment on, the ISC took off” (67). Between 1973 and 1981, Dick Scaife would donate a total of $6 million to the NSIC and their London friends at the ISC.”

(Rogue Agents, David Teacher, pgs. 36-37)

Richard Mellon Scaife, Crozier’s long time patron

Richard Mellon Scaife was a major sugar daddy of the modern conservative movement in the United States. He, along with the Hunt and Koch families and the Unification Church, provided a lot of the seed capital for the conservative counterrevolution that was in full swing in the US by the time Reagan came to power. Scaife (along with much of the rest of the Mellon family) also had very deep intelligence ties. For much more information on “Dick Scaife,” check here.


Lord Amery It was around the time that ISC was just beginning to take off (i.e. 1970) that Crozier made one of his most important contacts. The Monday Club, a political pressure group within the Conservative Party that at this time was especially concerned with preserving White rule in South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), found that many of their policies were closely aligned with the ISC. The two organizations began to collaborate and Crozier presumably came into contact with the man who would ultimately succeed him as chairman of Le Cercle through that joint venture. This individual was none other than Lord Julian Amery
Unsurprisingly, Amery had quite a deep background:

“Another Monday Club member with links to the Cercle complex – indeed a future Chairman of the Cercle Pinay itself – was Julian Amery. Amery was a prominent MP on the Conservative Right with a long history of extensive intelligence contacts. Having served in the Balkans with MI6’s Section D and the SOE during the war, he was one of the major figures who pushed MI6 in the immediate post-war period to adopt its disastrous plan “to liberate the countries within the Soviet orbit by any means short of war”, notably the catastrophic attempts to “set the Soviet Union ablaze” by landing armed bands of émigrés in Albania, Latvia, the Caucasus and the Ukraine. In June 1950, Amery attended the founding conference in Berlin of the CIA funded CCF and served on its International Steering Committee; at the time, Amery was also one of the leading members of the Central and Eastern Europe Commission of Retinger’s CIA-funded European Movement. Amery would also sit in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly from 1950 to 1957 and on the Central Committee of the Paneuropean Union in the mid-1950s (78)*.

 “As for his parliamentary career, Amery was elected as a Conservative MP in 1950, marrying Harold Macmillan’s daughter the same year. He went on to hold several government posts under his father-in-law, firstly as Under-Secretary of State at the War Office in 1957 and the Colonial Office in 1958, before being promoted to the post of Secretary of State for Air from 1960 to 1962; he would then serve in the Cabinet as Minister for Air until the Conservatives’ electoral defeat by Labour’s Harold Wilson in 1964. Amery had joined the Monday Club soon after its creation in 1961; he was the guest of honour at the Club’s annual dinner in 1963. In 1966, he would lose his parliamentary seat but regain it in 1969, remaining MP until 1992, when he was created a life peer. By the time of the ISC’s creation in 1970, the political pendulum had just swung back to the Right. New Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath appointed Amery Housing Minister, where he served until 1972 when he became Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (the cover department for MI6), holding the post for a crucial two years until Heath’s defeat by Wilson in 1974 (79)*.”

(Rogue Agents, David Teacher, pgs. 41-42) 

Lord Julian Amery

Amery’s family background is even more curious. His father, Leopold, had been very close to the notorious Round Table/Milner Group, sometimes also known as the so-called “Cliveden Set.” According to Carroll Quigley in The Anglo-American Establishment, it was Leopold Amery whom Lord Alfred Milner had chosen to succeed him in guiding the Round Table group. The Council on Foreign Relations, the long time bugaboo of the conspiratorial right, has its origins with this group. Here’s a bit more on this network:

“… The Round Table Group, and came later to be called, somewhat inaccurately, the Cliveden set, after the country estate of Lord and Lady Astor. It included Lord Milner, Leopold Amery, and Edward Grigg… as well as Lord Lothian, Smuts, Lord Astor, Lord Brand (brother-in-law of Lady Astor and managing director of Lazard Brothers, the international bankers), Lionel Curtis, Geoffrey Dawson (editor of The Times), and their associates. This group wielded great influence because it controlled the Rhodes Trust, the Beit Trust, The Times of London, The Observer, the influential and highly anonymous quarterly review known as The Round Table (founded in 1910 with money supply by Sir Abe Bailey and the Rhodes Trust, and with Lothian as editor), and it dominated the Royal Institute of International Affairs, called ‘Chatham House’ (of which Sir Abe Bailey and the Astors were the chief financial supporters, while Lionel Curtis was the actual founder), the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and All Souls College, Oxford. The Round Table group formed the core of the three-bloc-world supporters, and differed from the anti-Bolsheviks… in that they sought to contain the Soviet Union between a German-dominated Europe and an English-speaking bloc rather than to destroy it as the anti-Bolsheviks wanted. Relationships between the two groups were very close and friendly, and some people, like Smuts, were in both.”

(Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley, pg. 581)

Passages such as the one above are typically held up by conspiracy theorists as definitive proof that the Round Table group was engaged in an all encompassing conspiracy to impose a Communist world government on the unsuspecting masses. The truth is a bit more complex, however. While no doubt the Cliveden Set’s policies during this period may have been more moderate than the far-right anti-Bolshevik faction, the actualities of their policies was to destroy the League of Nations (and with it, any semblance of world government) while building up Nazi Germany as a counter weight to the Soviets:

“The more moderate Round Table group, including Lionel Curtis, Leopold Amery (who was the shadow of Lord Milner), Lord Lothian, Lord Brand, and Lord Astor, sought to weaken the League of Nations and destroy all possibility of collective security in order to strengthen Germany in respect to both France and Soviet Union, and above all to free Britain from Europe in order to build up an ‘Atlantic bloc’ of Great Britain, the British Dominions, and the United States… This influential group sought to change the League of Nations from an instrument of collective security to an international conference center for ‘non-political’ matters like drug control or international postal services, to rebuild Germany as a buffer against the Soviet Union and a counterpoise to France, and to build up an Atlantic bloc of Britain, the Dominions, the United States, and, if possible, the Scandinavian countries.”

(Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley, pg. 582)

Lord Leopold Amery

In fairness, the Cliveden Set’s policies toward the Soviet Union seem to have set the stage for the US policy of “containment” at the onset of the Cold War. The Right long bemoaned this policy and was truly radicalized when it gave way to the concept of “detente” during the 1970s (a policy aggressively pursued by some time Cercle attendee Henry Kissinger who, along with his close associate David Rockefeller, broke with the group in the late 1970s).

Crozier himself was quite contemptuous of these polices:

“The decade of the 1970s was dominated by the concept of ‘detente’, meaning a slackening of international tensions. The concept was misleading. Throughout my period as Director, the Institute for the Study of Conflict was involved in exposing the fallacies of ‘detente’ and warning the West of the dangers inherent in a policy of illusion.

” ‘Detente’ meant different things on each side of the Iron Curtain. In the West, advocates of ‘detente’ (some of whom believed in it) hoped it would lead to a general reduction in the burden of armaments, by reducing the fear of war. Many even hoped, against all evidence, that in time ‘detente’ could persuade the Soviet leadership that the USSR should now abandon its ideological war against the West and indeed all countries not already in the Soviet orbit. A period of peace was envisaged, during which trade would make the Soviet Union more prosperous and therefore more ready to stop it subversion of other countries.

“On the Soviet side, the aspirations were strikingly different. The Soviets hoped the West would unilaterally reduce defense budgets and remove any obstacles to Soviet acquisition of high technology, with which to build up the already excessive military strength of the USSR. They hoped the West would give permanent – that is, de jure – recognition to the post-war frontiers of Europe: in other words, to Stalin’s conquests and annexations. Their ultimate hope was that a European Security Treaty would be concluded, leading to the dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Once NATO was dissolved, the Americans would withdraw their forces from Europe and the Soviet forces would be free to intimidate and if necessary occupy Western Europe. To see things this way in any West European country in 1970 was to court unpopularity and such labels as ‘right-wing’ or better still ‘extreme right-wing’; whereas the analysis was simply a recognition of realities.”

(Free Agent, Brian Crozier, pgs. 96-97)

And here was Lord Amery, the descendant of one of the chief figures behind the Cliveden Set and its policies toward the Soviet Union, throwing in with Crozier, a man whose entirely life revolved around destroying the Soviet Union. Nor was Amery the only Cliveden Set descendant to join the ranks of Le Cercle. The organization’s current chairman, Michael Ancram, Lord Lothian, is a distant relative of the Lord Lothian involved with the Cliveden Set during the 1930s. But I digress.


The 6I It wasn’t just the policy of detente that was radicalizing the Right during the 1970s, however. Watergate, the Church Committee and the Committee on Assassinations had brought intense scrutiny on the CIA in the United States. This led to several efforts to reform it during the 1970s, most notably during Jimmy Carter’s administration. Le Cerlce saw these policies and similar ones in Western Europe as totally crippling the West’s intelligence services and effectively rendering them powerless.

the much despised Jimmy Carter

 Crozier decided that something needed to be done to fill the gap. Thus was born the concept of the private intelligence services dubbed “6I” (though commonly referred to as the “61”). It had its origins with a previous group Crozier dubbed “Shield.” Shield emerged some time during 1976 to assist Margaret Thatcher‘s rise to prime minister. It specialized in disinformation against the Labour Party and even former Conservative prime minister Edward Heath.
After the success with Thatcher’s election (more on that later) Crozier became more ambitious and began to plot a private intelligence network with an international reach.

“The question was whether something can be done in the private sector – not only in Britain, but in the United States and other countries of the Western Alliance. A few of us had been exchanging views, and decided that action was indeed possible. I took the initiative by convening a very small and very secret meeting in London. We met in the luxurious executive suite of a leading City of London bank on the morning of Sunday 13 February 1977. Our host, a leading figure in the bank, took the chair. Three of us were British, four were American, with one German. Ill health prevented a French associate from attending; Jean Violet was with us in spirit.

“Apart from the banker and myself, the other Briton was Nicholas Elliott. The German was a very active member of the Bundestag, whose career had started in diplomacy. He had a very wide understanding of Soviet strategy, in which he wrote several first-rate books.

“The Americans included two able and diligent congressional staffers, and the Viennese-born representative of a big Belgian company. Also there was the remarkable General Vernon (‘Dick’) Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, and later to re-emerge in public life as President Reagan’s ambassador, first to the UN, and later to the German Federal Republic…

“I proposed the creation of a Private Sector Operational Intelligence agency, beholden to no government, but at the disposal of allied or friendly governments for certain tasks which, for one reason or another, they were no longer able to tackle. I must make it clear that these task did not include any acts of armed force or physical coercion.

“Our main concerns would be:

  • To provide reliable intelligence in areas which governments were barred from investigating, either through recent legislation (as in the US) or because political circumstances made such inquiries difficult or potentially embarrassing.
  •  To conduct secret counter-subversion operations in any country in which such actions were deemed feasible. 

“There were no dissenting voices, although there was much discussion about the areas for action: the requirements, in intelligence jargon. 

“It was agreed that no outsider should be made aware of the existence of the organisation, except if, in the judgment of one of us, the person was deemed a suitable candidate for recruitment…”

(Free Agent, Brian Crozier, pg. 135-136)

General Vernon Walters

The above-mentioned General Vernon Walters, a close aid to Ronald Reagan and his CIA director, William Casey, was extremely well-connected within US intelligence circles:

“As for the Americans, the most notable participant at the 6I meeting was Lieutenant-General Vernon ‘Dick’ Walters, who served as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (under William Colby, himself a Cercle guest) from May 1972 to July 1976, retiring six months before this first 6I meeting. Fluent in six European languages as a result of his childhood in the UK and France, Walters would become a veteran coupmaster involved in most of the CIA’s dirtiest operations – Iran, Italy, Vietnam, Chile, Angola, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Fiji, often working with other Cercle contacts. As American Military Attaché in Teheran, Walters had worked with Kermit Roosevelt and G. K. Young in the 1953 Operation Ajax to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh. From 1967 to 1972, when the Cercle’s Belgian base of the AESP was being set up, Walters was Military Attaché in Paris responsible for the Benelux region.”

(Rogue Agents, David Teacher, pgs. 150-151)

Like Casey and many others associated with Le Cercle, Walters was also a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) according Robert Hutchison in Their Kingdom Come. Nor was Walters the only Maltese knight with connections to the group. In Free Agent Crozier states that Edward Leigh, a young Thatcherite MP, was engaged in the opposition movement to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) with a leading figure 6I, Julian Lewis. Leigh would go onto become a member of SMOM. And then there was future US ambassador to the Vatican, William A. Wilson, who Corzier described as Reagan’s “… liaise both with the Pinay Cercle… and with The 61” (Free Agent, pg. 186) during the early 1980s. Wilson was already a Maltese knight by this point.

William A .Wilson

And let us not forget about our old friend Jean Violet. Crozier noted that Violet was present “in spirit” at the 6I founding and later notes that he attempted to pay funds to Violet on behalf of his work for the 6I. David Teacher suggests that Violet was likely a high ranking figure in the 6I. He has also been long suspected of being a member of Opus Dei. But moving along.
Later on in his autobiography, Crozier makes it clear that 6I’s primary purpose as to conduct operations in host or allied countries, typically related to counter-subversion.

“… We planned both to initiate secret operations in our various countries, and to coordinate the existing overt auctions of the many private groups involved in the resistance to Soviet propaganda and Active Measures. At that time, we had no plans to operate as an espionage agency in the Soviet bloc countries. We felt that this was still a task that could be entrusted to our existing intelligence services, including the CIA. Our main mission was in the field of counter-subversion. Inevitably, we expected to pick up occasional items of secret intelligence. These we would pass on, at our discretion, to interested Allied agencies. We intended also to supplement the analysis made available to the American, British and other Allied governments by the official secret agencies. In many cases, these analyses would prove different. To this extent, they would provide an alternative assessment of current dangers for the special benefit of presidents and prime ministers.

“Unlike existing agencies, we would not be hampered by prohibitions on functioning in our own or Allied countries. Security would be rigorously observed. In no particular, the media, with whatever they might guess or speculate upon, would never be told of our existence, or of the work we were doing. We would be concerned equally with home-grown subversion and the other kind…”

(Free Agent, Brian Crozier, pgs. 180-181)

The CIA, in theory, is prohibited  from conducting covert operations on American soil by US law  The same is true of most Western intelligence services. The 6I then was geared towards subverting these laws by running a private network heavily staffed by “former” Western intelligence assets. At the same time similar networks were being formed in the US to make up for the nurturing of the CIA. It has long been reputed that these networks played a key role in the elections of Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, respectively.


The Rise of Thatcher
It has been alleged by researchers such as David Teacher and Richard Cottrell that Thatcher’s election constituted a kind of silent coup. Crozier and his earlier Shield network would have been idea candidates to participate in the psychological aspects of such a coup.

“The Cercle complex’s UK connections lead us into the heart of a major manipulation of British domestic politics, ‘the Thatcher coup’ concentrating in the period from Harold Wilson’s two election victories in 1974 to Margaret Thatcher’s election as Conservative Leader on 11th February 1975 and culminating with her election as Prime Minister on 4th May 1979 (165). A substantial body of verified information confirms the existence of a conspiracy to undermine the Labour Government of Harold Wilson, to discredit Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe and to have Conservative leader Edward Heath replaced by someone of a ‘more resolute approach’. Colin Wallace – a former psy-ops officer within the IRD-founded Information Policy Unit in Northern Ireland and a key witness on MI5 intervention in domestic British politics in the 1970s – writes:

‘Various key members of the Intelligence community – past and present – assisted by influential figures in the public service, politics and commerce produced a series of political and psychological warfare projects which were designed to: 

a) prevent the election and re-election of a Labour Government; 

b) prevent any coalition between the Labour and Liberal parties; 

c) discredit key figures in both parties; 

d) collate and disseminate ‘black’ information which could be used to discredit or ‘control’ various politicians who were deemed to hold power behind the scenes in all three major political parties; 

e) have Mr Edward Heath removed as leader of the Conservative party and replaced by someone of a more resolute approach to the political and industrial unrest” (166)*.’

“It is possible to divide the conspirators roughly into two groups, the first of which centred on serving MI5 officers including Spycatcher author Peter Wright and others who had transferred from MI5’s K Branch (counter-espionage) to F Branch (counter-subversion) when MI5 strengthened its role as a political police in the mid- 1970s. This was notably the case of Charles Elwell who transferred from running K2 (Soviet satellite states) counter-espionage to heading F1 (CPGB and other groups) counter-subversion in April 1974 and who would work closely with Brian Crozier after his retirement from MI5 in May 1979.

“The second group was a powerful private-sector coalition of retired MI6 officers, IRD disinformation assets and prominent members of the Tory Right, several of whom would later serve as Ministers under Thatcher. Whilst the Fleet Street Press has concentrated on Peter Wright and his MI5 faction in their late-1980s reports of the Wilson destabilisation, the ex-MI6/IRD/Tory MP coalition and their partners in the industry-funded anti-union outfits were also major actors in the psychological warfare campaign being waged against all three party leaders, a contribution that has been largely underestimated. It is this coalition – the ‘counter-subversion lobby’ – that was closely connected with the Cercle Pinay complex, not only through the ISC but also through two future groups, NAFF and FARI.”

(Free Agent, David Teacher, pgs. 85-86)

Thatcher

Peter Dale Scott reports that Crozier claimed to have played a significant role in Thatcher’s election before a meeting of the Cercle:

“… The Pinay Circle in the 1970s was actively engaged in trying to elect right-wing governments (most notoriously Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom). Crozier himself appeared to claim the credit for Thatcher’s election at a meeting of the Pinay Circle.”

(The Road to 9/11, Peter Dale Scott, pg. 98) 

Unfortunately an in depth examination of the mechanisms that brought Thatcher to power are beyond the scope of this present series. The curious reader is strongly advised to reader David Teacher’s full analysis in Rogue Agents.

I would like to briefly note, however, certain accusations that were made by this above-mentioned network of various “former” MI5/6 men that Crozier and his network were close too:

“… When the small  MI5/MI6 black ops team working up the Wilson and Heath plots got down to work in the early ’70s, they made a subliminally curious choice of ‘Clockwork Orange’ as the in-house codename. Stanley Kubrick’s disturbing and controversial film adaptation of Anthony Burgess’s story of deranged misfits plaguing the streets was widely regarded at the time as a ‘queer’ exercise in sexual debauchery if not an actual motif, as many saw it, for blatant homosexuality. Was it merely a co-incidence that Heath was smeared all over London as a closet gay, or that the bombastic Ulster Protestant, the Rev. Ian Paisley, another victim of the same hit list, would be dragged into a scandal concerning pedophilia in the Kincaid children’s home? The implication of a dirty tricks sting against Wilson on the grounds of sexual skeletons rattling in his cupboard could hardly have been more obvious to future investigators…”

(Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe, Richard Cottrell, pg. 252)

Edward Heath

The thing is, former Prime Minster Edward Heath has not only been implicated as a closet homosexual, but more recently accused of pedophilia as part of the ongoing fall out in Britain following the Jimmy Savile revelations. Keep this in mind dear reader as we shall be returning to this topic in a moment.


The 6I and the Academy
There were ties between the Academy and the 6I from very early on. As I noted before here, both Crozier and Jean Violet had been involved with the Academy since 1969, shortly after the organization’s founding. It was still going strong by the time Crozier founded the 6I in early 1977, but that was about to change.

Upon Florimond Damman’s death in 1979 the Academy became riddled with infighting. The organization dissolved not long after. Many of the more curious and intelligence connected members ended up joining 6I, which effectively merged Cercle’s two primary intelligence networks.

“The interaction between the Cercle and the 6I went far beyond the “minor overlapping” mentioned by Crozier; not only did senior figures from the British and American intelligence communities attend Cercle meetings, but also almost entire national delegations of the Cercle – most notably the post-Damman MAUE from Belgium – were recruited to the 6I cause, soon setting up front groups to assist Crozier’s anti-unilateralist propaganda campaign. This process had been ongoing since the previous two meetings of Cercle allies for which we have full participants’ lists – the February 1976 AESP Chapter Assembly and the November 1976 CEDI Congress – but the launch in February 1977 of the 6I accelerated the pace of integration. Indeed, the CEDI Congress in particular appears to have heralded the creation of the 6I which came only three months later; three key CEDI participants in November 1976 – Violet, Crozier and Huyn, the triumvirate then running the Cercle – were all, according to Crozier, core founding members of the 6I ‘Politburo’ in February 1977. Whilst Crozier’s memoirs preferred to downplay the overlap between the Cercle and the 6I, noting that “some members of the 6I’s ‘Politburo’ also attended the Cercle meetings; others did not” (525), the Cercle participants’ lists between 1982 and 1985 belie the impression of separation that Crozier wished to give, as they record the frequent presence at Cercle meetings of most of the members of the 6I ‘Politburo’ and many of their operatives… 

“Also attending the 1982 Cercle meeting in Bavaria were most of the 6I’s Belgian partners – Close, Jonet, de Kerchove and de Bonvoisin. The presence at this 1982 Cercle meeting of almost the entire top membership of MAUE demonstrates that Belgian cooperation with Brian Crozier had continued uninterrupted despite the sudden death in July 1979 of Florimond Damman and the subsequent implosion of the AESP, an upheaval followed in October 1979 by the end of Paul Vanden Boeynants’ seven-year reign as Defence Minister and the 1980 ‘removal from the Army hierarchy’ of the controversial counter-subversion unit, PIO.

“This new evidence about Belgian membership of the Cercle also underscores the continuity and personnel overlap that had long existed between the public AESP and CEDI, the ‘semi-public’ Belgian PIO, the confidential Cercle and the covert 6I. To focus on but one figure, Benoît de Bonvoisin, the Baron Noir had previously attended the February 1976 AESP Chapter Assembly and the November 1976 CEDI Congress, both times accompanied by the PIO’s Major Bougerol and by Belgian Cercle convenor Jacques Jonet, and both times meeting Crozier. The MAUE group were active partners of the 6I in its virulent campaign against the nuclear disarmament movement; shortly before this June 1982 Cercle meeting, they had set up the Belgian 6I front groups RAPPEL and the IEPS in March and April respectively. 

“It is highly significant that the two former political controllers of Vanden Boeynants’ PIO, de Bonvoisin and de Kerchove, both attended various Cercle meetings throughout the Brabant Wallon killings. At this time, de Bonvoisin had long been the main financial backer and patron of both the PIO and the fascist groups linked to the killings, whilst de Kerchove was the key aide to the Justice Minister in charge of the sidetracked and fruitless first investigation.

“Whilst no evidence has emerged to demonstrate a foreign hand in either the planning or the execution of the Brabant Wallon killings, the new primary source on Belgian membership of the Cercle further strengthens the probability that the LIL/AESP/MAUE/PIO complex is the most promising path of investigation for elucidating the crimes, still unresolved after thirty years. Belgium’s statute of limitations was due to formally close the case on 10th November 2015; although this has now been extended in extremis to forty years to allow continued enquiry, the sixth official investigation failed to shed any further light on this dark affair, lost in the futile search for the mere exécutants rather than the real commanditaires.”

(Rogue Agents, David Teacher, pgs. 244-245) 

Paul Vanden Boeynants (left) and Baron Benoit de Bonvoisin (right)

The Brabant Wallon killings were discussed before here while the ties figures such as Paul Vanden Boeynants and Benoit de Bonvoisin had to the organizations linked to these terror acts were addressed here. Both Vanden Boeynants and de Bonvoisin were key figures in the Academy. They were also extensively linked to the pedophilia scandal that rocked Belgium in the wake of the Dutroux affair. This is most interesting considering that Crozier and other members of Cercle’s British wing also had extensive ties to alleged pedophile networks within the British government during 1970s and 1980s.


The British Cercle Ties to Accused Pedophiles
For many, Britain’s pedophile scandals began in earnest with the revelations concerning Jimmy Savile in 2012. Shortly thereafter nine Pakistani men were arrested in the town of Rochdale amidst allegations that they there were abducting and “grooming” young children to be used in a pedophile ring in that area. Soon more allegations came out, linking several beloved British entertainers to these networks.

Both the mainstream and “alternative” media had a field day with these claims. Xenophobia was subtly promoted by the MSM after revelations of the Pakistani gang while “alternative” sources have written at great length about the Illuminati, Project Monarch and how Savile “proves” that the entertainment industry is nothing but an elaborate occult ritual.

Savile

Little noticed is the fact that rumors of pedophile networks involving British elites have been circulating since at least the 1970s. As noted above, former Conservative prime minister Edward Heath had faced such dark rumblings for years until he was implicitly implicated in pedophile networks in 2014. Nor was Heath the only Conservative politician to be tagged. In point of fact, there have long been rumblings that numerous members of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet and other political allies were involved in pedophile rings. These allegations were apparently made in what became known as the “Westminster pedophile dossier” and in recent years they have gained fresh legs thanks to the leaks in the wake of the Savile revelations (“incidentally,” Savile also seems to have been close to Thatcher). Vice notes:

“In 2012, allegations against the late TV host and bizarre British icon Jimmy Savile surfaced; the list of potential victims stretches into the hundreds, and other well-known BBC names have since been convicted of similar crimes. Last month John Allen, a care home proprietor who has been convicted of 33 sex offenses against children in his charge, was accused of providing boys to sex parties frequented by political figures, and the late former MI6 deputy Sir Peter Hayman has been accused of attending such parties. Just last week John Mann, a Labour MP, handed a dossier  to Scotland Yard with 22 names of individuals, including former MPs from the country’s two major parties, who he thinks should be questioned over alleged child abuse in the 1970s and 80s. Mann even suggested that two would-be whistleblowers may have been murdered. 

“The Westminster story became headline news the way a dam breaks—first through almost unnoticeable cracks in the façade, then with a sudden flood. One of the first cracks was when a whistleblower from the social work world passed a tip off to Labour MP Tom Watson, who in 2012 asked Prime Minister David Cameron if an evidence file linked to the conviction of pedophile Peter Righton—who advised the government on child care policy in the 1970s—could be looked at again. That file, which was initially sent to home secretary Leon Brittan by campaigning Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens in 1983, supposedly linked senior cabinet members in the Thatcher administration, as well as Smith, to a pedophile ring. In July it was revealed that the dossier was among 114 files relating to child sex abuse that had disappeared from 1979 to 1999. Brittan himself was questioned by police that same month over allegations of rape—the victim was over the age of 18, but the event just added to public suspicion, stoked by the suggestion of Lord Norman Tebbit that there “may well have been” an establishment cover-up under Brittan´s watch. 

“After that, both the press and the police began investigating these claims more carefully. The publications most involved in pushing the Westminster pedophile scandal out to the public have been the Sunday People  and the investigative website Exaro. 

“The further the media and the cops went down the rabbit hole, the more they found. ‘A key turning point was we ran a story on two abuse survivors who talked about being sexually abused as boys by MPs and other VIPs at Dolphin Square [a luxury apartment complex] and other locations,’ says Mark Watts, the editor of Exaro. ‘That led the police again to contact us and ask to speak to these two survivors and again we passed on the request.’ 

“The police in turn created Operation Midland, which investigated an alleged pedophile ring that operated at Dolphin Square between 1974 and 1984. It is in one of the apartments there that an anonymous source known in the media as ‘Nick’ alleges he saw a boy get strangled to death by a Conservative MP during a dark sex game.

“In July, before the Westminster story gained momentum, Home Secretary Theresa May announced an inquiry into organized child sex abuse dating back to the 1970s. But the two people she appointed to chair the inquiry were both found to have conflicts of interest, and panel members have reportedly sent abusive emails to alleged survivors. The (still chair-less) inquiry is now on the verge of collapse, though many see even that flawed effort as a step in the right direction.”

Geoffrey Dickens, the Conservative MP who tried to blow the whistle on his own party

It is also interesting to note that more recently the alleged “ultra-liberal” BBC has invested considerable effort into debunking the pedophilia claims specifically pertaining to the Westminster scandal. This is of course the same BBC whom Savile worked for for many years and which has had numerous other employees implicated in the pedophile scandals. And here it is trying to protect Thatcher and numerous other Conservative politicians. No doubt this is another elaborate plot of the Communist conspiracy…

Let us now consider some of the names linked to elite pedophile networks in Britain and Cercle:

Leon Brittan

Leon Brittan
 Held several posts under Thatcher including Home Secretary; Brittan allegedly suppressed a dossier outing a pedophile ring in Thatcher’s cabinet (the original Westminster scandal); in 2014 and 2015 victims came forward to accuse Brittan of both homosexual rape and pedophilia; possibly a member of Le Cercle as Janus (a website that organizes the papers of Cambridge University) reports a letter from Julian Amery to Brittan concerning a recent Cercle meeting; close to Amery and also future Cercle chairman Norman Lamont; Lamont attended Cambridge with Brittan where they were a part of the “Cambridge Mafia” and was also present at Brittan’s funeral.

Keith Joseph
Thatcher’s Secretary of State for Education and Science; a very close adviser to Thatcher; name apparently turned up in the original 1984 Westminster dossier and more allegations have emerged since; In Free Agent, Crozier notes: “With Mrs. Thatcher’s approval, I liaised with Keith Joseph in certain psychological actions in the election year, 1987” (pgs. 277-278). This researcher has not been able to link Joseph to the 6I or Cercle, but here clearly collaborated with Crozier at times

Peter Morrison
The Parliamentary Private Secretary to Thatcher; linked extensively to elite pedophile rings in 2014 dating to his time serving with Thatcher; was a close friend of Julian Amery, who exchanged numerous letters with Morrison; Amery had also been close to Morrison’s family; future Cercle chairman Jonathan Aitken also had relations with Morrison.

David Atkinson
Conservative MP from 1977 till 2005 who was close to the Thatcher regime; reputedly a closet homosexual as well as a pedophile; his son described him as a pedophile, but later recanted; was very close to Cercle chairman Jonathan Aitken, serving as vice-president of Aitken’s Christian Solidarity Worldwide organization.

Julian Lewis
Conservative MP who became a key member of Crozier’s 6I network in the 1980s; during the early ’90s the now defunct Scallywag magazine was investigating a pedophile network centered around Wrexham that may have been linked to the Westminster group; Lewis was alleged to been involved in the cover-up

Lewis’ involvement with Scallywag is most curious. The former editor, Simon Regannoted that Lewis played a key role in suppressing his investigation and later in selectively releasing documents with a pro-Conservative bias:

“Subsequently, over a rent dispute which is still a matter of litigation, Dr. Julian Lewis, now Conservative MP for New Forest (East) but then deputy head of research at Conservative Central Office in Smith Square, managed to purchase the contents of our offices, which included all our files. It had been alleged that we owed rent, which we disputed, but under a court order the landlords were able to change the locks and seize our assets which included all our files, including those we had made on paedophiles. It was apparently quite legal, but it was most certainly a dirty trick.

“All of a sudden very private information, some of it even privileged between ourselves and our lawyer during the John Major libel action, was being published in selected, pro-Conservative sections of the media.

“Subsequently, during a court case initiated by Lewis, I was able in my defence to seek discovery of documents and asked to see the seized files. The paedophile papers were missing. This is a very great shame, because Sir Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.”

Simon Regan

Lewis also worked closely in the opposition movement to Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) with the above-mentioned Maltese knight Edward Leigh. Leigh was also the main activist in parliament for Campaign Against Council Corruption (CAMACC), another front group established by Crozier. Lewis was also involved with Leigh in the Coalition for Peace Through Strength (CPS).

And seemingly here is Lewis, a figure very close to Crozier, attempting to cover up a major pedophile scandal. It is interesting to note that both Lewis and Leigh have also been accused of pedophile. So have at least three British Cercle members who became chairmen of the group: Julian Amery, Jonathan Aitken (who apparently has been on multiple “retreats” organized by the Jesuits) and Norman Lamont (a member of the Catholic order known as the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George). The evidence is not as strong against these figures as those mentioned above, but none the less this would strongly indicate that the Cercle network was aware of the elite pedophile networks in England.

these three Britons who became chairman of Cercle, Julian Amery (left), Jonathan Aitken (middle) and Norman Lamont (right), have all been implicated in Britain’s pedophile scandals

There are other potential links as well. For instance, both Maurice Oldfield and Peter Heyman, the former Director-General and Deputy Director-General of MI6 respectively, have been implicated in Britain’s pedophile networks (such as here and here, respectively). Crozier himself was of course very close to MI6 while one of the 6I founders, Nicholas Elliott, was one of the most storied MI6 officers of the twentieth century. Crozier and Elliott were both friendly with Oldfield, and Elliott surely knew Hayman, but these relationships do not seem to have been especially strong. Still, it surely would have been useful to Crozier and Elliott being aware of Oldfield and Heyman’s involvement in such things.

Nicholas Elliott

And then of course there is the fact that Crozier was involved with the Belgian AESP (Academy) group that happened to feature Paul Vanden Boeynants and Benoit de Bonvoisin, two powerful Belgians with extensive political connections (Vanden Boeynants was even the prime minister at one point) who have been repeatedly linked to pedophile rings in Belgium involving numerous politicians, intelligence officers and even the royal family (as noted before here).

Gee, that sure sounds a lot like the scandals currently unfolding in Britain…

And here is this mysterious international body, Le Cercle, that seemingly had ties to both the pedophile rings in Britain and Belgium. Indeed, both Brian Crozier and Jean Violet (who both had served as Cercle chairman at different ties) may have been deeply involved with both networks via the 6I and the Academy, which were essentially intelligence networks for Cercle. And that would mean that Cerlce’s intelligence wing would be well positioned to, say, blackmail prominent politicians in either country….

All of this is rather curious and yet has largely flown under the radar of both of mainstream media as well as the “alternative.” No doubt the exposurer of Monarch programming amongst British performers took precedence among the latter, though such “researchers” would stand a much better chance of finding credible evidence of some type of cult (or possibly multiple ones) in the Cercle complex. Still, its hard to ignore the Machiavellian mastermind that is Gary Glitter….

The possibility of a cult(s) shall be explored in a future installment, but not before I finish examining several of the other curious organizations and networks with ties to Le Cercle. Stay tuned.

The Le Cercle post is available from Le Cercle: Clerical Fascism and the Pedophocracy Part III [13]

This post [111] 2021 Dec 13 cathyfoxblog Nadhim Zahawi and Le Cercle https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2021/12/13/nadhim-zahawi-and-le-cercle/

Links

[1] 2017 Jan 24 cathyfoxblog Puppetmasters of Child Sexual Abuse – Le Cercle, Gladio, Knights of Malta and Opus Dei Networks https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/puppetmasters-of-child-sexual-abuse-le-cercle-gladio-knights-of-malta-and-opus-dei-networks/

[2] 2021 Aug 5 Ekurd.net Nadhim Zahawi’s £100m property empire revealed, Labour demands probe… https://ekurd.net/nadhim-zahawis-100m-property-2021-08-05

[3] 2021 Nov 16 Ekurd.net Nadhim Zahawi pockets fortune from second job at Iraqi Kurdistan-focused oil company https://ekurd.net/nadhim-zahawi-pockets-fortune-2021-11-16

[4] 2021 Dec 11 Mirror Fury as millionaire minister Nadhim Zahawi’s family firm sues skint tenant traders https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/fury-millionaire-minister-nadhim-zahawis-25674659?s=09

[5] 2021 Sept 16 The Slog ANALYSIS: Why you will ignore this reshuffle at your peril. https://therealslog.com/2021/09/16/analysis-why-you-will-ignore-this-reshuffle-at-your-peril/

[6] 2021 May Bitchute “MISTER VACCINATOR” Nadhim Zahawi – Politician, Deep State Operative, Millionaire, Le Cercle https://www.bitchute.com/video/0QpWxoSNJKVE/

[7] Wikispooks Nadhim Zahawi https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/Nadhim_Zahawi

[8] 2021 May 13 Irish Sentinel The Dark, Fascist Connections Of The UK’s Vaccine Minister, Nadhim Zahawi https://theirishsentinel.com/2021/05/13/the-dark-fascist-connections-of-the-uks-vaccine-minister-nadhim-zahawi/

[9] Bibliotecapleyades Le Cercle Incomplete Membership List https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_lecercle02.htm

[10] 2019 July 22 Politics Home EXCL Top Tories face questions over links to secretive foreign affairs group https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/excl-top-tories-face-questions-over-links-to-secretive-foreign-affairs-group archive https://archive.md/eKHMh

[11] 2021 Dec 12 Wikipedia Nadhim Zahawi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadhim_Zahawi archive https://archive.md/lKBMM

[12] wikispooks Le Cercle Chairman https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Le_Cercle/Chairman_(Europe)

[13] 2016 Apr 30 Visup Le Cercle: Clerical Fascism and the Pedophocracy Part III http://visupview.blogspot.com/2016/04/le-cercle-clerical-fascism-and_2.html

[14] 2021 Oct 27 Mirror Test and trace’s ‘eye-watering’ £37billion shambles laid bare in damning report https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/test-traces-eye-watering-37billion-25307316

[15] 2021 Dec 7 Community Care Zahawi: take children into care when ‘any inkling of harm’ https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2021/12/07/zahawi-take-children-into-care-when-any-inkling-of-harm/ archive [15a] https://archive.md/KUJgu

[16] 2021 Dec 5 Community Care Arthur Labinjo-Hughes: national review launched archive [16a] https://web.archive.org/web/20211213115303/https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2021/12/05/arthur-labinjo-hughes-national-review-launched/

[17] 2021Dec 6 4.21pm Hansard Arthur Labinjo-Hughes https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-12-06/debates/800A935E-FFC7-4732-A5D5-378E6991D24A/ArthurLabinjo-Hughes archive [17a] https://web.archive.org/web/20211213115146/https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-12-06/debates/800A935E-FFC7-4732-A5D5-378E6991D24A/ArthurLabinjo-Hughes

[18] 2020 Jul 13 cathyfoxblog Why is the system protecting child sexual abuser, David Madge? https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2020/07/13/why-is-the-system-protecting-child-sexual-abuser-david-madge/

[19] 2020 May 5 cathyfoxblog Child Kidnapping by the (Deep) State – Example Sara Ybarra Johnson https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2020/05/05/child-kidnapping-by-the-deep-state-example-sara-ybarra-johnson/

[20] 2020 May 11 cathyfoxblog  Mothers Who Allege Abuse More Likely To Lose Custody of Their Children – Researching Reform https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2020/05/11/mothers-who-allege-abuse-more-likely-to-lose-custody-of-their-children-researching-reform/

[21] 2021 Nov 22 Icke Secret Society Psychopath Nadhim Zahawi-Founded YouGov Claim Most Britons Would Support Mandatory Boosters, & Gets Immediately Called Out For Lying https://davidicke.com/2021/11/22/nadhim-zahawi-founded-yougov-claim-most-britons-would-support-mandatory-boosters-get-immediately-called-out-for-lying/

More links on Nadhim Zahawi

Nadhim Zahawi pockets fortune from second job at Iraqi Kurdistan-focused oil company 16.11.2021

Nadhim Zahawi’s £100m property empire revealed, Labour demands probe…5.8.2021

Iraqi Kurdistan – “Sold Out!” – Part III – 17.5.2021

Iraq – The Cynical Swindle 24.11. 2018

Kurdish-British MP Zahawi ‘closely linked to tax-haven-based companies’ 7.1.2017

Gulf Keystone’s Nadhim Zahawi owns property worth more than £25 million 3.1.2017

Nadhim Zahawi stands to make £1.5m from Iraqi Kurdistan oil company sale 15.12.2016

How Zahawi made £370k from Gulf Keystone while small investors suffer a share price crash 6.10.2016

Ashti Hawrami’s Kurdistan activities with international oil companies and banks 4.8.2016

Millionaire British-Kurdish MP Nadhim Zahawi gets £20,000 salary from Gulf Keystone 13.11.2015

Bust oil firm advised by Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi faces fraud probe 19.11.2016

Tory millionaire Nadhim Zahawi in talks over Iraqi Kurdistan oil role 13.6.2015

Kurdistan delegation led by Tory millionaire Nadhim Zahawi raises concerns that British MPs… 13.5.2014

British PM’s advisor, Zahawi used offshore tax haven to buy £1m mansion in his own constituency 25.11.2013

First Kurdish MP in UK history 10.5.2010

cathyfoxblog social media links

UK Press Cuttings and Research Databases on Child Sexual Abuse

Bloggers and Tweeters on Child Sexual Abuse UK

Covid 19

Vaccination Reactions

Europe -EUDRA [] https://www.adrreports.eu/en/index.html

UK

[] https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports

[] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#annex-1-vaccine-analysis-profile

USA VAERS

Open Vaers [] https://openvaers.com/ allows browsing and searching of the reports

[] https://vaers.hhs.gov/

Moon [] https://www.mooninfo.org/moon-phases/2021.html

Sayings

The truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke

“He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” Charles Peguy

To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men  – Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Every time we act in the face of fear, we dilute it’s power and increase our confidence

Only the small secrets need to be protected, the large ones are kept secret by public incredulity – Marshall McLuhan

Let justice be done though the heavens fall – Fiat justitia ruat cælum

Put the enemy at unease by making information they do not want known to be known…

The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.  FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover

If you have found this post useful, please post on other social media – facebook, instagram, pinterest, gab, twitter, anonup,  – whichever ones you are on. This is most helpful to spread the information. The people who do this are essential. Thankyou.

I am not connected to anyones Patreon accounts, nor do I receive any money for my writing. I believe it is important to provide this information not hidden behind paywalls, and yes I suffer financial hardship for doing so.

I will not commit suicide and if it appears I have, then people may judge for themselves why this is so, after blogging these exposes of the top level of these “orders”. I do not wish to live in the kind of world that the psychopathic orders want to bring in, which is a world wholly and absolutely controlled by them. They commit horrific crimes of child rape, child torture, child cannibalism, child mind control and much more, which is why I wish to speak out and expose them. This carries some risk but if I am killed or go silent, my wish is for more people to tell the truth, they cannot kill us all… please set up your own blogs… replace me 100 fold…

1 Response to Nadhim Zahawi and Le Cercle

  1. flyingcuttlefish says:2021, December, 13 at 11:00 pm‘Pedophile’ CNN producer, 44, boasted that he’d sexually trained girls as young as SEVEN, unsealed indictment reveals
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10306083/CNN-producer-boasted-sexually-trained-girls-young-seven-indictment-claims.html

_______
source
_______

#Sectarianism #Hate #MobManipulation: The #Sialkot Lynching Underscores the Danger of State-Sanctioned Religious Hate in #Pakistan and #India!

The Sialkot Lynching Underscores the Danger of State-Sanctioned Religious Hate in Pakistan and India | TIME | 9 Dec 2021

The gruesome lynching of a foreign national by religious extremists in Pakistan last week poses important lessons for India, whose Hindu nationalist rulers are pursuing the same policy of state-driven fundamentalism that now plagues their arch-enemy.

On Dec. 3, hundreds of people in the city of Sialkot, in Pakistan’s Punjab province, were party to the killing of a Sri Lankan factory manager. Priyantha Kumara, a Christian, had merely removed from factory machinery the stickers of an extreme right-wing party that featured Quranic verses, ahead of a visit by international clients. Seeing this as desecration, the mob dragged him out, beat him to death and set his body on fire.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Prime Minister Imran Khan called it “a day of shame for Pakistan” and promised justice. Clerics condemned the violence as “un-Islamic.” More than 100 people were arrested over the murder, but it all might be a bit late. The lynching is a reminder of “how far this nation has descended into the abyss”, lamented the country’s Dawn newspaper. “What have we become?” tweeted one anguished Pakistani. “We’ve created monsters,” read another pained tweet.

Read More: What Pakistan Gains from the Taliban Takeover of Afghanistan

The young men taking selfies in front of the burning corpse speak to the brutal zeal of Pakistan’s youth, radicalized by a process decades in the making. Since a blood-drenched independence, and the partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947, the Pakistani elite has incrementally ceded ground to radical Islamist forces.

The hatred in Sialkot has deep roots

From the beginning, the promise of Pakistan’s founding leaders to grant equal citizenship to all sounded implausible, given that the country broke away from India on the basis of religion. As the newly minted nation went about forging a federation of ethnic groups that had little in common apart from their faith, top-down secularism ran up against bottom-up Islamism. Unlike Hindu-majority India, which adopted a secular constitution within two years of its independence from the British, Pakistan continued to wrestle with its identity and struggled to frame its constitution for years. It finally declared itself an Islamic Republic in 1956.

The influence of religious parties and the clergy subsequently grew, helped by the Pakistani military’s use of India as the bogeyman to justify the undermining of democratic institutions and its own immense power. Framing the rivalry in religious terms—with Muslim Pakistan as the counter to Hindu India—it became imperative for the generals to befriend the mullahs, who helped keep secular parties in check.

Pakistan has endured about 33 years under four military dictators, all of whom co-opted religious groups to legitimize their own rule, playing along with their demands for Islamization through new laws and Sharia courts. Even civilian governments used these groups and their mass appeal for electoral gain, entrenching Islamic extremism.

PAKISTAN-POLITICS-RELIGION-ISLAM
ARIF ALI/AFP via Getty Images Supporters of the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) party shout slogans during a sit-in protest in Lahore on October 20, 2021

External factors also played a part, especially the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan’s role as a frontline state in the U.S.-backed Afghan jihad to expel the Soviets. Foreign money poured in to expand the network of madrasas churning out radicalized young men ready for war. By the time the Soviet forces withdrew in 1989, Pakistan was crawling with battle-hardened jihadis and saddled with an infrastructure of Islamist fundamentalism that had taken on a life of its own. Rather than dismantling this machinery of fanaticism, the military decided to use it in its proxy war against India in the long-running contest over Kashmir.

Read More: Saudi Arabia Is Still Teaching State-Sanctioned Hate

Frenzied mobs, like the one that gathered at Sialkot, are the result of this volatile mix of cynical politics and power plays. They are made up of angry young men, mostly school dropouts, or indoctrinated at madrasas, or illiterate (25 million children are out of school in Pakistan). With low prospects of proper work, and easy to mobilize as foot soldiers of radical Islam, they are the products of Pakistan’s chronically underdeveloped economy and historically low state spending on education—itself a consequence of an oversized military budget that leaves few resources for other needs.

In a viral photo [Caution: graphic scene] of one such young man taking a selfie as Kumara’s body burns, the words “Apna time ayega (my time will come) can be seen on the back of his mobile phone. It’s the catchphrase of a rap song from a Bollywood film about a young Muslim man who hip-hops his way to fame from his wretched shack in a Mumbai slum. Wildly popular for its message of hope for the underdog, the song and the phrase have found wide adoption in memes, advertisements, and politics. Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s supporters even appropriated it for his re-election campaign in 2019.

Anti-Muslim extremism intensifies in India

The time has certainly come for India’s Hindu extremists. On the day of the Sialkot killing, in New Delhi’s glitzy tech and finance hub of Gurugram, they gathered to protest against Muslims praying.

As Gurugram doesn’t have enough mosques, the local administration had earmarked several open spaces where Muslims could congregate and offer their Friday prayers. Lately, Hindu activists—emboldened by state patronage afforded by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—have made it a point to descend on these sites to prevent Muslims from doing so. There used to be about 100 designated prayer sites, but they shrank to 20 in three years as a result of the sustained campaign by Hindu groups. Giving in to the demands of the mob, local officials have now taken the rest of the sites off the list, asking Muslims to pray elsewhere.

Read More: Is India Headed for an Anti-Muslim Genocide?

This is one of an increasing number of failures by the state to protect minorities. Munawar Iqbal Faruqui, a Muslim stand-up comedian, was recently told by police in Bangalore that he would have to cancel his shows as extremists were threatening to burn down the venues, and police could do nothing about it.

Not only are vigilantes allowed to operate with impunity, they have been granted legitimacy by a raft of new laws against religious conversions, the slaughter of cows (considered sacred by Hindus) and interfaith marriages. They find support at every level of administration, from the police to the higher bureaucracy, as Modi attempts to remake India’s secular republic into a Hindu state. India has let the genie out of the bottle that Pakistan is struggling to put back in.

Friday Namaz Offered At Gurugram Sector 37 Parking Area Amid 'Disruptions'
Vipin Kumar/Hindustan Times via Getty Images A member of a radical Hindu group confronts a Muslim worshipper on December 3, 2021 in Gurugram, India.

Lynchings and other attacks on Muslims and their livelihoods have become commonplace. Christians, too, are being targeted. On Monday, a right-wing group vandalized a Catholic missionary school in the central province of Madhya Pradesh. But Muslims remain the preferred bugbear of Hindu extremists. Constituting 14 to 15% of the population, compared to the 2.5% who are Christian, they are a far more dangerous “other” against whom Hindus must unite.

It’s no coincidence that every time an election is round the corner, Modi and his supporters can’t stop talking about Pakistan. The brutalization of Hindus in Pakistan is used to great effect by the BJP to charge its base for revenge against Indian Muslims. Conflating national, religious and political rivalries into one existentialist threat, the words “Pakistani,” “jihadi,” “Taliban,” and “Muslim” are used interchangeably.

Read More: Facebook’s Failure to Remove Islamophobic Content in India

Hindu nationalists bristle at any comparison between their violent foot soldiers and Islamic terrorists. But while the history and nature of extremism is different in the two nuclear-armed countries—which have fought four wars—their mobs are not. Like his Pakistani counterpart, the average Hindu vigilante is a byproduct of low state spending on education and unequal opportunities. An estimated 40% of India’s youths are neither in employment, education or training. They are basically doing nothing, which is why their Fridays in Gurugram are spent outside the district’s shiny offices chasing Muslims, rather than inside.

The paranoia, political opportunism and despair that breed adversaries on both sides are also the same, spurring them into action against the “other” in a cycle of hate. South Asia’s time will never come if it can’t break out of it.

_______
source

#Education #Pedagogy #DumbingDownStandards #ChildCommodification: #Modernity + #CompulsorySchooling vs the Theft of Children’s Minds?

Modernity & Compulsory Schooling: the Theft of Children’s Minds? | The Humble I Knowing, Doing, Becoming | 8 Dec 2021

‘We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the class room
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey teachers leave them kids alone!
All in all it’s just another brick in the wall.’
[Pink Floyd, Brick in the Wall]

IN 1800 ONLY five percent of Britain had any formal primary education. By 1900, that figure was ninety percent. Across Britain and Europe, children between the ages of five and ten were summoned to sit in classrooms to learn basic reading, writing and arithmetic. The reason why children were being sent to school was the same as why, for thousands of years, they had been kept at home: work and productivity. 1

In pre-modern societies it was a given that, at the earliest possible time or opportunity, children would best help their family by going out to work in the fields, markets, workshops or factories. Modern societies, equally as interested in children’s earning power, legislated that compulsory state schooling would be the best guarantor of that power of productivity in the long run. Modern state education’s focus would be on functional literacy: teaching students just enough to make them economically productive; no more, and no less. ‘So much,’ as the educationalist John Taylor Gatto says, ‘for making boys and girls their personal best.’ 2

This explains why children in schools are so often bored, unconcerned and unfocused. They wonder why on earth are they being taught most of these subjects? What is it for? Most of what our children learn is school will not equip them for life in the actual world. ‘Given the extent on the emphasis on utility in the education system, it remains surprising for many modern citizens to reach middle age (or earlier) to discover that rather a lot appears to have been missed out in the curriculum. Despite the years of dedication and examination, the modern citizen is apt to look back and wonder with a mixture of irritation and sorrow why so much of what they needed to know was never taught to them at school.’ 3

And yet: ‘In all advanced nations, until a human is twenty-one or so, there is little else to do other than study. In sensible households, homework has a close to holy status. An army of teachers and educators, colleges and pedagogical bureaucrats is set us to feed industrial quanities of the young through the school machine.’ 4

When there are debates about education, and there are a lot of them, the usual focus is on how best to deliver an education to children, not what it is they should be educated in. School curricula aren’t reversed engineered from the actual challenges and dilemmas of life.

What children are taught in no way reflect the trials of life: issues of relationships, the sorrows of a meaningless job, coping with the tension of family, dealing with damaged but well intended parents, existential anxiety, the trauma of mortality, or the meaning of life and its struggles. Instead, we educate our children as if the greatest requirement of adulthood is a set of vocational or technical skills to help them earn money. To suggest that we ought to help educate them in their emotional dimensions – learning to understand themselves, empathise with others, nurture a self-confidence that isn’t narcissistic or self-damaging, or to get a handle on calm and self-compassion – would be to suggest an educational blasphemy of sorts. Yet it’s this kind of omission or failure that ensures the repeated betrayal of children’s education, and what some see as the theft of children’s minds.

RESTORE MEANING INTO EDUCATION

While modernity is interested in ‘useful’ learning, in the pre-modern world, those who were educated at a school or college were taught two things in particular: a holy text, and learning of high culture and dignity. Here in the West it meant the Bible and the classics, and in the Muslim East and West it meant the Qur’an and comportment (adab). Pre-modern education was about pursuing truth and wisdom, not money. Meaning and a sense of the sacred where at the centre of pre-modern education.

Modern education, by contrast, has no overarching educational philosophy behind it any more. Meaning is wholly absent. 5 We as Muslims believe, as do other traditionally-minded religious people, that true education must be rooted in the sacred. The very first revelation of the Qur’an was in fact: Read in the name of your Lord who created! [Q.96:1] When education is cut-off from the sacred, it is corrupted or destroyed. It becomes meaningless. Children and teenagers throughout the educational establishments across the country know – they intuit it, even if they cannot articulate it – that so much of it is meaningless. ‘Why am I even studying this?’ ‘I’m being taught stuff that doesn’t have any meaning.’ ‘It can’t be all about getting a job so as to make money, when many billionaires like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and others, dropped out of college.’

But when an educational system is designed chiefly for functionality, not imparting wisdom and meaning, its pretty much flawed from the ground up. For the modern world demanded that children learn the skills needed to keep the economy and productivity expanding. Kids had to be prepared to keep the machinery of modernity ticking over. That is what mattered the most; not learning for learning’s sake, or for deeper wisdom, or to become cultured and a cultivated human being. So when children in the twentieth century were encouraged in school to make things out of clay, or play with coloured bricks, or to put on plays – it may all have seemed progressive to the parents, but these move were only responses to demands by employers for new sets of skills required by new types of commerce and industry. And the same is the case today. Without imparting practical wisdom, or rooting education in meaning, our children’s learning will continue to be exploited by economic and corporate agendas where: ‘wealth takes precedence over family, image over substance, acquisition of apparent goods over real goods, gall over shame, and pleasure over happiness.’ 6

‘Sadly,’ said Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, ‘the tragic victims of this state of affairs are our children. They come into this world capable of greatness and instead are fed to the false god of appetite, resentment, and amusement. They suffer from obesity, sexual laxity, and a loss of family and community that en-genders anger towards their parents and society. They are indoctrinated into the false belief that life is for amusement and the best things in life come easily. Few are allowed to discover life’s greatest pleasure, which is self-knowledge and mastery of the soul that leads to an ethical life for the sake of God. For many, it’s not until they reach “maturity” that they realize they have been cheated out of nothing less than a life of meaning.’ 7

ROOT ISLAMIC EDUCATION & MUSLIM SCHOOLS

In the traditional Muslim world, education was always about learning how to carry ourselves; of how to dispose our souls to God, and to others. It was about comportment – or what in the Islamic world is called adab.

‘Pious character, refined manners and moderation constitute a twenty-fifth parts of prophethood,’ said the Prophet, peace be upon him.8 The idea of beautiful conduct or cultivated behaviour – in contrast to that seen as crass, vulgar or ugly – is gathered in that genre of knowledge termed adab. The Arabs say: adaba ila ta‘amihi – ‘He invited [others] to his banqueting feast.’ From it comes the idea of adab being an ‘invitation’ to partake of what is praiseworthy and virtuous. In its religious sense, adab is a call to acquire virtuous qualities. Adab carries with it the sense of civility, courtesy, refined manners, and cultured breeding or upbringing. Throughout the ages of Islam, adab was that type of learning acquired for the sake of living beautifully. For adab relates to what a person should know, should be, and should do – so as to perfect the art of living.

Again, in the Islamic tradition, the two words for education are: tarbiyah and ta‘lim. Tarbiyah is from the word, raba – to ‘grow’, ‘increase’, ‘flourish’. For education is about imparting learning to a student allowing him or her to grow and flourish as a human being. 

The other word, ta‘lim, is from the root word, ‘alamah, which means ‘sign’ or ‘imprint’. In other words, to make an impression or a mark. The earliest form of writing, Cuneiform, first used about five and a half thousand years ago, was done by pushing a wedge into soft clay to create an impression or sign. That is what ta‘lim is about. It’s about creating a beautuful, cultured mark or impression on the student’s heart, mind and character.

So all in all, Islamic education – at its root – is about growing in beauty as a person; as a believer; as a worshipper of God. At its heart is the imparting of meaning. Both Muslim parents, and Muslim teachers in Muslim schools, must understand that if home-schooling or Muslims schools are to be real  alternatives to state schools, they cannot follow the very same paradigm of schooling chiefly in terms of job prospects. It can’t be mainly about tests, grades, targets, and schooling for the sake of functional literacy.

Children are an amanah; a trust. They deserve much better. So while no responsible parent can ignore the fact that the schooling children recieve is important in determining their employment prospects, it’s the right of all children to recieve more. It’s their right to recieve an education which balances order and routine with freedom and creativity; which equips them with tools to flourish in the wider world: physically, emotionally and intellectually; and which points them to adab, to meaning, to the sacred.

1. Cf. How to Survive the Modern World (London: School of Life, 2021), 213-14.

2. ‘A Short Angry History of Compulsory Schooling,’ in Gatto, Hanson & Sayers, Educating Your Child in Modern Times (California: Alhambra Productions, 2003), 16.

3. How to Survive the Modern World, 214.

4. The School of Life, What They Forgot to Teach You at School (London: The School of Life, 2021), 7.

5. This, and what follows, is based upon Shaykh Hamza Yusuf’s lecture: The School System.

6. Hamza Yusuf, ‘New Lamps for Old’, in Educating Your Child in Modern Times, 48.

7. ibid., 48.

8. Abu Dawud, no.4776. It was graded hasan in al-Albani, Sahih Sunan Abu Dawud (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma‘arif, 1998), 3:174.

_______
source


ALSO SEE:

In the Spirit of Fatima Al-Fihri | Farhana K. | TRAVERSING TRADITION | 8 Dec 2021

In recent years, Fatima al-Fihri, may Allah be pleased with her, has acquired a mythological, folklore-like status as the “founder of the world’s oldest university.” [1] The magazine Girlboss credits her with  “establishing the university as we know it today.” [2] Oxford Reference and UNESCO recognize University of al-Qarawiyyin as “the oldest operating university in the world.” [3] [4] Blog posts and news sources alike continue to embellish parts of her story, crediting her institution as the first to grant “academic degrees.” [5] [6]

But what does that actually mean? The lack of primary sources make it difficult to substantiate the above, but enough gaps in these narratives have been noted that, at the very least, it sheds doubt on embellishments such as “oldest university” and “degree-awarding.” An ijazah is different from a degree, and degree-awarding systems are a relatively modern phenomenon compared to the pedagogy of madrasas. Many institutions in French-occupied countries like Morocco and Tunisia were not given weight until modernization programs were introduced during colonization. [7] Al-Qarawiyyin was first a mosque, and like many mosques, may have housed a madrasa or served as a space for teachers to teach students.

So my question is, who’s doing the recognizing of our contributions, what purpose does it serve, and ultimately, how do we measure the progress and contributions of Muslims, especially Muslim women? To speak of Al-Fihri’s contributions in the manner cited above is convenient — not because Muslim women weren’t great — but because it is likely a symptom of an eagerness to signal a Muslim woman’s place in the world. Unfortunately, in a context that has a secular, material measure of contribution and success, we speak of Muslim women accordingly.

When fact and fiction become muddied, we not only undermine the living, breathing legacy of such women, may Allah be pleased with them all, but we also become complicit in a system that values contributions to society by a measure that is not ours. One may argue that critiquing the mythologizing of Al-Fihri has no benefit, since it only plays into the hands of Islamophobes. Or that there’s no harm in perpetuating an untruth, because the general idea — that Muslim women were vital to society’s growth and often go unacknowledged by both Muslims and non-Muslims — is true.

Yes, the itch to debunk, for some, arises from an impulse to further malign Muslim women, or Muslims as a whole. A link to an article critiquing the popular perception of Al-Fihri’s founding of a university even made its way to a Council of Ex-Muslims forum. [8] But my argument is this: clinging on to exaggerations of kernels of truth undermines the truth of our history. Not only do falsities cast skepticism on truth, but as Muslims our tongues should be far from lies.

Myths serve the collective consciousness in trying to actualize ideals. What one views as greatness or value is evidenced by one’s shaping of history. Audiences hearing these stories will likely leave with the same biases they arrived with. Even if convinced that Muslim women had a fundamental role to play in families, communities, societies, successes will be considered anomalies: arising from some extraneous factors or luck or the presence of ideas outside of Islam i.e. accomplishments despite Islamic doctrine, not because of it.

This as symptomatic of the “women and Islam” fervor that has characterized US imperialism and politics for at least the last two decades. Its opposing form, that of the maligned and subjugated Muslim woman in dire need, has similarly been used in India to justify its  occupation of Kashmir, in Israel to continue its violence against Palestine, and in the  backlash against  the U.S. decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. This is likely nothing new to the average critical reader, but its “positive” form, the continuous insistence on contributions of the modern variety,  accompanies a similar pretext: measuring a Muslim woman against the powerhouse of a Western woman.

Founding a university is worthy of praise. But must it be a university? Does the building of a masjid not stand on its own? What is emphasized in our history and the basis for which we laud different figures shifts with time and motivations. For example, one group can highlight Khadeeja’s (RA) obedience as a wife and her domesticity for one end, and another can speak of her running a business and history as divorcee for another end. Both are attempts to make sense of a pre-modern pious woman in relation to our reality today as modern subjects. This is the fundamental problem with our approach to female figures in history — in trying to make sense of them using imperfect lens, we lose sight of who they actually were and the legacies they left for us.

Although in all honesty we may never know the truth of the matter, one historian notes, ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​“…medieval Muslims’ intellectual achievements… are spectacular enough that they can stand to lose one untruth.” [9] This applies to the subsect of Muslim women, whose achievements are so vast, beyond what we could ever adequately acknowledge, that it can stand to lose some glamour. Ultimately, at the very least, Al-Fihri used her wealth to create a space of worship. There is absolutely nothing more noble than that.


Photo by Carlos Leret on Unsplash

______
source

#COVID: #Omicron: Why Did #WHO skip over 2 Letters of Greek Alphabet in naming latest #VariantOfConcern?

Omicron: Why Did WHO Skip Over Two Letters in Greek Alphabet to Name Latest Variant? | DANIEL POLITI | SLATE | 28 Nov 2021

There has been lots of head scratching since Friday, when the World Health Organization decided that B.1.1.529, the new COVID-19 variant that was first detected in South Africa, would be named omicron. In doing so, the WHO decided to skip over two letters in the Greek alphabet: nu and xi. The reasons for doing this remained a bit of a mystery until the WHO itself clarified the issue on Saturday. Turns out it was all about avoiding confusion and preventing unnecessarily offending a large group of people.

When the WHO named the “mu” variant in August, “nu” was next in line. But the WHO decided to skip it over because officials felt the letter was too similar to the English word “new,” which could have led to a bit of confusion. Then came “xi,” but the WHO also decided to nix it because it is the same as the common last name Xi and using it would violate the organization’s guidelines to name diseases. The WHO always seeks to “avoid causing offense to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional or ethnic groups,” the organization said in a statement.

A picture taken on May 8, 2021 shows a sign of the World Health Organization (WHO) at the entrance of their headquarters in Geneva.

A picture taken on May 8, 2021 shows a sign of the World Health Organization (WHO) at the entrance of their headquarters in Geneva. FABRICE COFFRINI/Getty Images

The effort to avoid offending a large group of people is one of the main reasons why the WHO started naming variants after letters in the Greek alphabet. Before that, only the scientific name was used, which was confusing to regular people and often led to people referring to variants by the places where they were first detected. That practice was “stigmatizing and discriminatory,” the WHO said.

Several conservative leaders in the United States blasted the WHO for skipping the letter “xi,” claiming it was an effort to avoid angering Chinese President Xi Jinping and further example why the international agency can’t be trusted. “If the WHO is this scared of the Chinese Communist Party, how can they be trusted to call them out the next time they’re trying to cover up a catastrophic global pandemic?” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted. Donald Trump Jr. also commented on the issue, tweeting that as far as he was concerned “the original will always be the Xi variant.”

______
source

Greek Alphabet Images, Stock Photos & Vectors | Shutterstock

#Harper’s Law: A grim tale of political exploitation and incoherent lawmaking

Harper’s Law: A grim tale of political exploitation and incoherent lawmaking | thesecretbarrister | 24 Nov 2021

“You’d want to see him put to death! You’d want it to be cruel and unusual, which is why it’s probably a good idea that fathers of murder victims don’t have legal rights in these situations – now we’re going back to school!”

Toby Ziegler, The West Wing, Season 4 Episode 6

Four weeks after their wedding, Lissie Harper’s husband, Andrew, was taken from her in circumstances so awful that they are almost beyond comprehension. A serving police officer, Pc Harper was on the night of 15 August 2019 responding to reports of theft of a quad bike by a gang of teenagers – 18 year-old Henry Long, 17 year-old Albert Bowers and 17 year-old Jessie Cole. The three thieves were towing the stolen quad bike, using a strap attached to a Seat Toledo that they had bought for the express purpose of going out stealing. When they became aware of the arrival of Pc Harper and his colleague in their police car, the defendants unstrapped the quad bike from their vehicle and attempted to outrace the police. The driver, Long, accelerated away at high speed, encouraged by the others. Pc Harper, who had stepped out of his police vehicle, was caught by the strap loop, which wrapped around his feet and pulled him to the ground. He was knocked unconscious and dragged at “terrifying speeds” for over a mile. The driver, Long, became aware of something caught behind his car in the strap, and swerved violently and deliberately in an attempt to detach it. Eventually he succeeded. Pc Harper sustained catastrophic injuries from which he died within minutes.

The prosecution charged all three with murder. After a trial before a jury, the defendants were acquitted of murder, but Bowers and Cole were convicted of manslaughter. Long had already pleaded guilty to manslaughter at an earlier stage. Each had also admitted conspiracy to steal. On 31 July 2020, Long was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 19 years (a 16-year custodial term and a 3-year extended licence), with Bowers and Cole each sentenced to 13 years’ detention. Each will serve two thirds of their respective custodial sentence before release on licence, and, in the case of Long he will have to satisfy the parole board that he no longer poses a risk, else he will serve the full 16 years.

The verdicts and sentence were taken hard by Pc Harper’s family. Lissie Harper told the media that she was “shocked and appalled” at the verdicts, and petitioned the Prime Minister and Home Secretary to “right a despicable wrong” by ordering a retrial (something which they have no power to do). Encouraged by the Police Federation, she condemned the sentences imposed as “insufficient” and “inadequate”, and invited support for her campaign for “Harper’s Law” – a change in the law that would mean that anybody convicted of manslaughter of a police officer spends the rest of their lives in prison.

Today, Harper’s Law has been formally announced by the government. And it is a move which, no doubt, will attract a lot of public support. The Daily Mail’s headline today – “Life in jail for killing police, firefighters, paramedics and nursers: Harper’s Law is a triumph of tougher sentences for campaigning widow after she watched killers who dragged PC husband to his death smirking in the dock” – pithily (if grammatically questionably) captures a sentiment with which many will vigorously nod along. Remorseless criminals who take the lives of police officers should pay by spending their lives behind bars.

But there are serious problems with what is proposed.

Before turning to those, let me make plain: none of what follows is intended as a criticism of Lissie Harper. My blood runs cold when I even try to imagine what she has been put through; to transplant her experience onto my own. If it were my partner, killed days before our honeymoon by smirking, remorseless thugs, I doubt I would be able to maintain Lissie Harper’s repose; to restrain myself to letters and petitions. To return to The West Wing (in this instance Charlie Young, whose mother was murdered as a serving police officer), I wouldn’t want to see the killers executed: I’d want to do it myself.

However, those who make our laws know that this – entirely natural – human response is why we entrust criminal justice to an independent, dispassionate legal process. Justice is not measured solely in terms of how it satisfies the victim. Of course – of course – any criminal justice system worthy of the name must command public confidence, and must strive to deliver outcomes that meet as many of the objectives of criminal justice policy as possible, which of course include satisfaction for the victim – but there is more. The objectives of criminal justice are not singular, and they often conflict. Justice is not solely about inflicting the greatest quotient of pain upon those who hurt us. Justice includes justice for the defendant. Even those who have committed the most abhorrent wrongs, who have inflicted irreparable pain and who appear – or even are – recalcitrant and irredeemable, deserve to be treated fairly, proportionately and humanely. We owe that to them, and we owe it to each other.

Key to all of that is ensuring that, when we deal with people in the criminal courts, we have a fair and safe process for determining what offences, if any, have been committed, and ensuring that they are dealt with only for what they are proved to have done; not what we, whether curious onlookers or flesh and blood of the victim, believe the wrongdoer to have done.

And this is where Harper’s Law runs into immediate difficulties. Because it is a campaign born not of principle, but of a victim’s dissatisfaction with a verdict in a particular case. Lissie Harper believes that her husband’s killers should have been convicted of murder, and sentenced for murder. The jury, independent of all parties involved and in possession of all admissible evidence, could not be so sure, and so – as was their duty – acquitted the defendants of murder, but convicted them of “unlawful act manslaughter”. The crucial difference for sentencing purposes is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence. Irrespective of how old the defendant is, irrespective of any mitigating or extenuating circumstances, the court has no choice at all but to impose a life sentence. A life sentence involves the court setting a “minimum term” for the defendant to serve, at the end of which he must satisfy the Parole Board that his imprisonment is no longer necessary to protect the public. If he can’t, he will remain in custody until he can. If he is released, he remains on ‘life licence’ with conditions, breach of which can result in immediate return to prison. In the case of the murder of serving police officers, the law since 2015 has in fact required judges to impose “whole life orders” – life without parole.

Life imprisonment is serious. Even if the minimum term appears short, it is a mistake to assume – as the tabloids frequently do – that a prisoner will be released at that point. We have more prisoners serving life sentences than any other country in Europe. At the latest count, a quarter of all people in prison serving life sentences are serving beyond their minimum terms.

Manslaughter sentences, in contrast, do not always carry life imprisonment. They can, and sometimes do, but the court is not required to impose it. And to understand why, it’s necessary to look at the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter.

Murder, in England and Wales, requires that a person unlawfully kill another, intending either to kill or to cause really serious harm. The prosecution have to prove those elements so that the jury is sure. If the jury is anything less than sure, they must acquit. This is the principle underpinning our entire mode of criminal justice. In this case, the prosecution case was that the defendants knew that Pc Harper was being dragged behind their car, and that they intended to cause him really serious injury. The defendants denied that they knew that a person was being dragged – and the jury, having heard the evidence, could not be sure that they did. Hence the acquittals for murder.

“Unlawful act manslaughter”, by contrast, occurs when a person kills another as a result of an unlawful act, but without intending to kill or cause really serious harm. As long as it was objectively foreseeable that some harm may have been caused from the unlawful act, that is enough. Even if the defendant did not in fact intend that any harm would be caused at all.

This means that manslaughter covers an enormous range of cases. In all of these, the harm caused is of the utmost seriousness – death has occurred. But a defendant’s culpability varies significantly.

At the top of the scale, you have cases which are only a hair’s breadth away from murder: where a defendant committed a highly dangerous unlawful act, intending to cause serious harm (but just short of really serious harm), or where the unlawful act gave rise to an obvious, high risk of death. This includes cases such as Long, Bowers and Cole – which the sentencing judge acknowledged was “very close to a case of murder“. Exceptionally serious, where the starting point in the Sentencing Guideline is 18 years’ custody, with a range up to 24 years, and in which judges will be considering imposing a life sentence. Indeed, in the case of Long, the sentencing judge made clear that, but for his age, he would have received a life sentence. He also took a starting point of 24 years, before giving due reduction (“credit”) for Long’s guilty plea, as required by law.

At the bottom of the manslaughter scale, you have cases where there was no intention to cause any harm, and no obvious risk of anything more than minor harm – for example, where a gentle push causes somebody to lose their balance, strike their head and sustain a fatal head injury. In cases like that, there is a difficult balancing act for the court in reflecting the serious harm caused, but also the defendant’s relatively limited culpability. Such cases, you may not be surprised to hear, are unlikely to involve considerations of a life sentence.

But that is where Harper’s Law seeks to change things. Where the victim is an emergency worker, it is proposed that a mandatory life sentence be imposed, irrespective of culpability. While the original stated aim of the campaign – whole life orders in such cases – has not come to fruition, the notion of mandatory life sentences for manslaughter for a particular category of victim has. In future, defendants such as Long, Bowers and Coles will receive mandatory life sentences, even if acquitted of murder (although whether the proposed new law will apply to those who, like Bowers and Cole, were youths at the time of the offence, is unclear).

This blurring of the distinction between murder and manslaughter is really troubling. It means that, save in “exceptional circumstances” (as to which, see Joshua Rozenberg’s excellent post here), the careful exercise undertaken by a judge in possession of all the facts, determining whether an individual defendant convicted of manslaughter warrants a life sentence, is substituted for the white hot vengeance of a political slogan. If a drunk youth shoves a police officer and unintentionally causes death, he will be liable to mandatory life imprisonment, whereas – to take an example given by the incisive Matthew Scott – a landlord who asphyxiates his tenants by letting them a flat knowing it contains a dangerous boiler, would not. Is the first really more culpable than the second? Harper’s Law answers in the affirmative. It distorts how the justice system assesses culpability. And this matters. Because even though those affected are those unlikely to attract your sympathy, justice can only be done if, to use language that the Mail understands, the punishment fits the crime. We don’t achieve that by banning the use of measuring instruments.

The suggestion that this will in any way give emergency workers “extra protection” is equally spurious. There is no evidence at all that a mandatory life sentence for unintentional deaths will deter a single would-be killer, for reasons that speak for themselves. This is about vengeance, not deterrence.

Please don’t think this a defence of our current homicide laws – they are long overdue comprehensive reform, and it is to successive governments’ shame that they have ignored the sensible proposals of the Law Commission in favour of a series of cheap, headline-grabbing political tweaks.

Sadly, such has been the order of the day since ministers first spied the opportunity to appropriate Lissie Harper’s campaign. Immediately onto the bandwagon was Home Secretary Priti Patel, who today declared her support for the change in law, stating:

“Those who seek to harm our emergency service workers represent the very worst of humanity.”

Putting aside any questions of glass structures being erected by a person who has boasted about entering politics in order to put her fellow citizens to death and who is currently seeking to introduce legal immunity for people who unlawfully kill refugees, it is depressingly predictable that the Home Secretary has failed to understand the basic premise of the argument: those targeted by this law are expressly those who don’t seek to harm our emergency service workers.

The Attorney General, Suella Braverman, was equally eager to exploit Mrs Harper’s grief. Ms Braverman, a junior barrister with no experience of criminal law, who was appointed to high office for her obedience rather than her legal prowess, ignored the advice of her own experienced criminal lawyers (according to boasts made to the Daily Express by a well-placed, ahem, “friend” of the AG) and attempted to refer the sentences of the three killers to the Court of Appeal as “unduly lenient”. Spotting the paparazzi, she even insisted on presenting the case at the Court of Appeal herself, despite having never conducted a criminal case, and astonishingly briefed the press in advance that, if the judges refused her application, “it will be another example of wet, liberal judges being soft on criminals.” Ignoring this bizarre attempt at judge-nobbling, the Court of Appeal swiftly dispensed with Ms Braverman’s “striking and unusual” [judicial code for “batshit”] arguments and humiliatingly ruled that there was “no basis” to the Attorney General’s application.

Since then, two Justice Secretaries in a row, Robert Buckland and Dominic Raab, have mounted the hobby horse and flogged it to exhaustion. The latter – who in the face of an unprecedented backlog and workforce crisis in the criminal courts is unable to find time to meet the legal professionals working for free to keep the system hanging together –  has been soliciting interviews across the media spectrum to brandish ‘Harper’s Law’ as an example of his self-styled “vindaloo” mode of justice.

Nowhere in government is there a politician with the courage, the fundamental human decency, to offer, compassionately and sensitively, a message that may not be popularly received, but which needs to be delivered, to the public as much as the campaigners. That our sentencing laws cannot be changed because a victim wishes that the accused had been convicted of a different offence. That, however fervently Pc Harper’s loved ones disagreed with the outcome, a fair trial was held, verdicts were faithfully returned and the most senior criminal judges in the land affirmed that the sentences passed were entirely proper and in a accordance with the law – neither too short, nor too long. That we don’t improve our justice system by importing yet further legal and moral incoherence, imposing the gravest sentences in cases where the accused had no intention to cause really serious harm, let alone death. That, as justified as victims undoubtedly are in wishing nothing but the worst upon those who have caused such irreparable damage, justice is not achieved by restricting access to lawyers for those accused of serious crimes. That fury and a desire for undirected vengeance are entirely understandable, entirely human; but not the principled basis on which we should strive to reform our justice system.

Instead, we see ghouls and parasites at every turn, grinning jackals barely able to conceal their gleeful opportunism as they shoehorn their vacuous, tub thumping op-eds alongside those poignant, heartbreaking wedding photographs. As might be said about many other aspects of our criminal justice system, we all – not least victims of crime – deserve so much better.

______
source

Petition · Anyone guilty of killing an emergency services worker to be  jailed for life · Change.org

#UKLaw: Detention of a minor for his own protection! #PACE1984s38 #Art5ECHR #Statism vs #Autonomy

Detention of a minor for his own protection | Alice Kuzmenko | UK Human Rights Blog | 14 July 2020

The High Court recently dismissed a claim of incompatibility with Article 5 ECHR arising from a detention of a minor for his own protection in the case of Archer v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2020] EWHC 1567 (QB).

Background

On 17 February 2012, the Claimant, then 15 years’ old, was struck on the head and stabbed in his back and head by persons he described as members of a local gang, the Deptford Boys. This took place near to his home. He was treated at King’s College Hospital.

But on 22 February 2012, he was arrested on suspicion of violent disorder and possession of an offensive weapon. He was placed in a cell at 7:25am, and by 7:45pm he was charged with those two offences. He was, however, refused bail at 7:53pm. The reasons for refusal by Sergeant Smith are recorded as follows:

[…] it is believed necessary to further detain the person for their own protection, that the detained person has been arrested for a non-imprisonable offence and it is believed necessary to further detain to prevent physical injury to another person, that the detained person has been arrested for an imprisonable offence and it is believed necessary to further detain in order to prevent the commission of a further offence.

The grounds are Dp [sc. detained person] has been involved in a ‘gang’ related fight where he has sustained injuries that required hospital treatment. It is feared that if released on bail there will be repercussions where he may sustain further injuries or inflict violence upon his original intended victims.

On the morning of 23 February, he was taken to Bexley Youth Court, where he was remanded in custody.

It is this period of 13 hours from the refusal of bail to the remand by Court that the Claimant sought to argue was unlawful.

Issues in the case

The issues for Mr Justice Chamberlain to decide were twofold. Firstly, the compatibility of Section 38(1)(b)(ii) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) insofar as it purports to authorise the detention of minors in their own interest. If it does provide such authority, the Court would then examine whether it followed that parts of the Bail Act were also incompatible with Article 5.

The second was a factual issue of whether this particular claimant’s detention was contrary to Article 5 for having been detained for his own protection and therefore unlawful. If so, there would be a further question of the award of damages.

The statutory scheme for the detention of arrested persons

The provision that the court was concerned with was Section 38 of PACE, set out in full at [15] of the judgment, on the duties of custody officers after charging a person arrested for an offence. The key aspect of it is as follows:

(1) Where a person arrested for an offence otherwise than under a warrant endorsed for bail is charged with an offence, the custody officer shall, subject to section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, order his release from police detention, either on bail or without bail, unless—

(a) […]

(b) if he is an arrested juvenile—

[…]

(ii) the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that he ought to be detained in his own interests.

The Bail Act 1976 (“the 1976 Act”) governs decisions by the courts about the detention of those accused of offences. Section 4(1) provides that “A person to whom this section applies shall be granted bail except as provided in Schedule 1 to this Act.” Parts I and II of that Schedule contain exceptions applicable to those accused of offences punishable with and without imprisonment respectively. Paragraph 3 of each states the following:

The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare.

The law

Article 5 ECHR concerns the right to liberty and security. Paragraph (1) provides that “[e]veryone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” before setting out various exceptions. Central to this case is at Article 5(1)(c) as follows:

the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so[.]

Furthermore, Article 5(3) and (5) provide the following:

(3) Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

(5) Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Parties’ submissions

Richard Hermer QC for the Claimant submitted that Article 5(1) is exhaustive and must be interpreted narrowly. The singular exception to this relates to situations of armed conflict, as found in Hassan v UK; it is not relevant to this case. In Mr Hermer’s submission, the detention in the Claimant’s “own interests” was “unconnected to the expeditious processing of the criminal complaint”, thereby falling outside of the justifications available. The detention of the Claimant had no relationship to whether or not he would be brought before a court. In any event, there was an absence of any assessment of risks to the Claimant that would result from the grant of bail, beyond generalised assertions that risks existed.

Adam Clemens for the Defendant focused on the underlying rationale of the provision; detention in the Claimant’s interests was “inextricably related to, and dependant on, the facts of lawful detention and fear of commission of a further offence”, given that “the commission of a further offence involving an attack by the Claimant on others necessarily risked his being injured”. Releasing such individuals would be arbitrary and would offend a pragmatic construction of Article 5(1)(c). He relied on IA v France and Buzadji v Moldova as authority that short detention for the claimant’s protection, based on a genuine and honestly held concern for that claimant’s wellbeing, would not contravene Article 5(1)(c).

Judgment

The incompatibility issues

Chamberlain J accepted that a detention of a person under Article 5(1)(c) “must be effected for the purpose of bringing him before a competent legal authority”. He did not, however, accept the Claimant’s submission that this equates to the detention only being legal where the detention is necessary, in order for that purpose to be fulfilled. Rather, there can be multiple reasons for the detention, so long as the purpose is achieved. He gave the following helpful analogy at [43]:

To take a mundane example, I can walk to work or take the tube. If I decide to take the tube, my tube journey is still taken for the purpose of getting to work, even though it was not necessary to achieve that purpose. [emphasis in original]

As such, Chamberlain J found that even where a detainee, if released, would likely attend court, keeping them detained for their safety would still be for the purpose of bringing them before a competent legal authority because that remains the intended end point of the detention.

Moreover, Chamberlain J found support from the extensive case law providing that pre-trial detention is compatible with Article 5 in order to prevent the detainee from interfering with evidence or witnesses, or obstruct justice, even where these are not expressly justified under Article 5(1)(c). That is because they still fit the requirements imposed under Article 5(3) of holding continuing reasonable suspicion that the detainee committed the offence, and the detention is not arbitrary (ie: there are relevant and sufficient reasons for that detention). These two subsections of Article 5 must be read together.

Therefore, he concluded that the detention of a person held on suspicion of having committed an offence can be capable of justification under Article 5(1)(c) and Article 5(3), where that detention is necessary for the detainee’s own protection. As such, the question of declarations of incompatibility became redundant.

The lawfulness of the Claimant’s detention

Chamberlain J took guidance from IA and from S v Denmark as follows:

  1. Short period: The detention for a detainee’s own protection is only permissible for a short period, although the exact length of time depends on the particular circumstances and risk of danger in each case. For minors, this period ought to be for the shortest appropriate period of time.
  2. Focus on particular factors of the case: A generic concern for safety is insufficient. There must be circumstances particular to the detainee, including the nature of the offences and characteristics of the detainee, that give rise to the concern for safety.
  3. No reasonably available alternatives: This was more likely to concern cases with a longer period of detention than that of the Claimant. There must be a consideration given to alternatives that are reasonably available to protect the person. If there are such alternatives, it would be arguable that detention is not necessary.

With this guidance, he concluded that the Claimant’s detention was lawful.

First, it was a short period of time, about 13 hours overnight, before the Claimant was brought to court.

Secondly, the reasons given by Sgt Smith were sufficient in demonstrating a particular concern of the safety of this Claimant: the Claimant was stabbed in the context of gang violence, near to the Police station and his home – these gave rise to a real risk that the Claimant might be attacked if he were released.

Thirdly, he found that (although not expressly considered by Sgt Smith) it was difficult to see how it would be possible to establish an alternative protective measure for the Claimant in the short period of 13 hours of overnight detention, keeping in mind also the need to not make it impracticable for the police to fulfil their duties.

As such, the question of damages also fell away.

Comment

It is clear that the courts will take an expansive view of Article 5(1) when it comes to those who are vulnerable to risks of injury, such as potential revenge attacks considered in this case. This is the sensible approach when considering other case law by the Strasbourg Court. However, Chamberlain J is clear that detention can be compatible with Article 5 where it is to protect the detainee. Nonetheless, generic considerations will not suffice: extensive fact specific considerations of the particular circumstances faced by the detainees need to be undertaken.

This author considers that this judgment is unlikely to affect current bail practices, but serves as a reminder of the importance of using detention as a last possible resort and for the briefest possible period.

Alice Kuzmenko is a pupil barrister at 1 Crown Office Row. She will join Chambers as a tenant in September.

______
source

Detention of a minor for his own protection – round twoAlice Kuzmenko | UK Human Rights Blog | 23 November 2021 |

The Court of Appeal has recently upheld the High Court decision that Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) is not incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) insofar as it purports to authorise the detention of minors for their own protection, in the case of Archer v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2021] EWCA Civ 1662.

For a more detailed exploration of the factual background and High Court decision, please see my post on the UK Human Rights Blog following the lower court’s decision. 

Background 

In 2012, the Appellant, then a juvenile, was arrested on suspicion of violent disorder and possession of an offensive weapon. This happened five days after he was struck on the head and stabbed in the back and head by people he described as local gang members. He was charged with those two offences, but refused bail for the following reasons by Sergeant Smith:

[…] it is believed necessary to further detain the person for their own protection, that the detained person has been arrested for a non-imprisonable offence and it is believed necessary to further detain to prevent physical injury to another person, that the detained person has been arrested for an imprisonable offence and it is believed necessary to further detain in order to prevent the commission of a further offence.

The grounds are Dp [detained person] has been involved in a ‘gang’ related fight where he has sustained injuries that required hospital treatment. It is feared that if released on bail there will be repercussions where he may sustainfurther injuries or inflict violence upon his original intended victims

The following morning, 13 hours on from the refusal of bail, he was taken to Bexley Youth Court where he was remanded in custody. 

Legal Provisions 

The key provisions in this case are Section 38 of PACE: 

(1) Where a person arrested for an offence otherwise than under a warrant endorsed for bail is charged with an offence, the custody officer shall, subject to section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, order his release from police detention, either on bail or without bail, unless—

(a) […]

(b) if he is an arrested juvenile—

[…]

(ii) the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that he ought to be detained in his own interests.

and Article 5 ECHR:

  • veryone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

[…]

[…]

Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant challenged two decisions: that Section 38 is in principle capable of being justified under Article 5 on the basis that it is necessary for his or her own protection and further, that the Appellant’s detention was lawful on the facts. The grounds of appeal were that: 

  1. The Judge erred in concluding that Section 38(1)(a)(vi) and (b)(ii) of PACE were not incompatible with Article 5. Those provisions purport to authorise a deprivation of liberty outwith the purpose for which such a deprivation may lawfully be effected pursuant to Article 5(1)(c);
  2. The Judge erred in concluding that the appellant’s detention on 22/23 February 2012 was not incompatible with his rights under Article 5. The primary basis for that detention was Section 38(1)(a)(vi) and (b)(ii) of PACE and, for the reasons given in Ground 1, that is a deprivation of liberty outwith the purpose for which such a deprivation may lawfully be effected pursuant to Article 5(1)(c); 
  3. In the alternative, if the Judge was correct that detention for one’s own protection is compatible with Article 5(1)(c), the Judge erred in concluding that, on the evidence which was before him, the appellant’s detention was justified on that basis.

Parties’ submissions

On Grounds 1 and 2, Richard Hermer QC for the Appellant submitted that the primary position was that detention effected for the purpose of the Appellant’s own protection is not permitted under Article 5(1)(c). As such, the High Court gave an overly expansive meaning to the words “effected for the purpose” of bringing someone before the competent legal authority, particularly as the exceptions in Article 5(1) are exhaustive and to be interpreted strictly. As to Ground 3, Mr Hermer submitted that Police Sergeant Smith had no recollection of the appellant or his detention, and contemporaneous records revealed no consideration at all as to either exceptionality or alternatives to detention. Therefore, there was absolutely no basis (and in fact went contrary to the evidence) for the Judge to infer from the facts that it was difficult to see how it would have been possible to devise and implement alternative measures in the very short overnight period in question. 

The written submissions for the Respondent in seeking to uphold the High Court judgment focused on Article 5(1)(c), making submissions that it would be “plain wrong” if denial of bail on the basis of concerns about a juvenile’s safety could never be compatible with Article 5 unless expressly mentioned there. Further, the interpretation of Article 5 should be influenced heavily by the principled need to avoid arbitrary detention, and the flexibility to avoid making it impracticable for the police to fulfil their duties of maintaining order and protecting the public. As to Ground 3, it was submitted that the Judge was entitled to find that the circumstances were exceptional and to infer, as a matter of likely reality, that alternative protective measures were not reasonably available.

In oral submissions however, Mr Andrew Warnock QC took a different approach. He suggested that this was not even an Article 5(1)(c) case, as there is no dispute that the Appellant was lawfully arrested and placed into custody under that Article. Instead, he submitted, the case concerns whether there were factors justifying continuing detention under Article 5(3) – the custody officer was reviewing whether or not detention should continue, and detention for one’s own protection was held in IA and endorsed in Buzadji as a sufficient reason for detention to continue. Further, the fact that a child who poses a risk only to him or herself must be referred to the local authority (under Section 38(6)) does not mean that exercise of the power of detention for own protection can never be necessary and thus be incompatible with Article 5. 

Judgment

Grounds 1 and 2 

The court summarised the overarching question of the appeal as one of whether the detention of a person for their own protection, pursuant to subsection 38(1)(a)(vi) and 38(1)(b)(i) of PACE, is compatible with Article 5 of the Convention. They made three preliminary points:

  1. First, though the young age of the appellant is relevant to the assessment of the facts and circumstances of this case, it does not affect the fundamental question of principle that arises;
  2. There is a difference in the wording of subsections 38(1)(a)(vi) and b(ii) (necessary for own protection/ought to be detained in own interests), but that nothing turned on that difference;
  3. It was conceded in this case that the appellant was lawfully detained on the basis that there was a substantial risk of him committing further offences if released on bail

The Court started by rejecting the Appellant’s characterisation of the “own purpose” criterion [author’s note: this seemingly is meant to say “own protection”] [AK1] as a standalone basis for continued detention, whereas in fact the underlying basis for detention was the reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence. Therefore, in the court’s view, the proper characterisation of this case is of whether an individual can be kept in police custody for reasons of their own protection, provided that the police have a reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence. It concluded that:

There is nothing arbitrary about continuing to detain a suspect in the circumstances summarised by Police Sergeant Smith, i.e. continuing to detain someone who is otherwise lawfully detained for the purpose of production before the court, if releasing him puts his life at serious risk, something which would of course defeat the purpose of bringing him before the court.

and therefore that continued detention of an individual for their own protection, where there exists a reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence, is not inherently contrary to Article 5 of the Convention.

The Court also endorsed the High Court’s outline of the three limitations upon pre-trial detention of juveniles (see these detailed in the Author’s previous post. Briefly, the detention must be a short period, particular factors of the case require it, and there are no reasonably available alternatives), before rejecting Grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal. 

Ground 3

The Court of Appeal summarised the following questions as those needing consideration: 

  1. Was there a reasonable suspicion that the appellant had committed an offence which persisted through his detention?
  2. Did the review of the basis of the appellant’s detention, at which it was determined that he could be further detained for reasons of his own protection, happen promptly after his arrest? 
  3. Did the circumstances having to do with the nature of the offences concerned, the conditions in which they were committed and the context in which they took place, exceptionally, justify the detention?
  4. Were there any reasonably available alternative means to afford protection – i.e. was detention used only as a last resort? 
  5. Was the appellant’s detention for a short period of time (i.e. as short as possible)? 
  6. Was the appellant kept separate from adults?

To these six questions, the Court of Appeal considered that the High Court judge was both entitled and right to answer these questions in the affirmative. Further, they endorsed the following passage as correct on protective measures short of detention:

[A]lthough there was no express consideration of protective measures short of detention, it is difficult to see how it would have been possible to devise and implement such measures in the very short overnight period between Sgt Smith’s decision to refuse bail and the [appellant’s] appearance at Bexley Youth Court on the following morning. Although it is in general important that adequate reasons should be given addressing each of the limitations on the power to detain, it is also important not to apply the limitations in a way which would “make it impracticable for the police to fulfil their duties of maintaining order and protecting the public…

Through these considerations, the Court of Appeal found that in giving the fullest weight to the special considerations that apply to the pre-trial detention of a juvenile, they would also reject Ground 3. 

Comment

The force of the Appellant’s submissions is understandable, where there has been a clear expression that it was considered “necessary to further detain the person for their own protection”. However, there is a powerful argument in that release (in these circumstances) would put the Appellant’s life at serious risk. As such, his protection was in effect a necessary part of the purpose of getting him to the court. Throughout, however, was the reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence – without which it is agreed that there is no basis for detention. 

There was, in this case, the additional factor of the substantial risk that the Appellant, if released, may also inflict violence upon others. The claim and appeal has seemingly sidestepped this additional factor. Nevertheless, the judgment has reiterated the existence of that factor throughout, yet still framed its decision as one applicable even for the scenario where the factor may not have existed. It is plausible that in another case of such “own protection” detention, this judgment may be revisited, but it is clear from the recognition of the importance of the specific factual matrix that it may not be a case that we will see any time soon. 

______
source

Disclaimer: This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

#JFK #CIA: President John F. Kennedy: His Life and Public #Assassination!

President John F. Kennedy: His Life and Public Assassination | ejcurtin | Edward Curtin | 22 Nov 2021

The following article on the life of President John F. Kennedy, and his assassination on this date, November 22, 1963, is the lead piece in the eighth issue of Garrison: The Journal of History and Deep Politics that has just been published: “The Political Assassinations of the 1960s.” From JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X, to Hammarskjold and Lumumba, the 1960s were a tragic period when the CIA took over the United States and profoundly changed the course of history, and Garrison is indispensable for understanding that history and its importance for today.  This issue is double-sized (348 pages), a book really.  If you like the following article, please support and purchase Garrison

Despite a treasure trove of new research and information having emerged over the last fifty-eight years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. They have drunk what Dr. Martin Schotz has called “the waters of uncertainty” that results “in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed but nothing can be known, nothing of significance that is.”[1]

Then there are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission.

Both these groups tend to agree, however, that whatever the truth, unknowable or allegedly known, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, ancient history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred more than a half-century ago, so let’s move on.

Nothing could be further from the truth, for the assassination of JFK is the foundational event of modern American history, the Pandora’s box from which many decades of tragedy have sprung.

Pressured to Wage War

From the day he was sworn in as President on January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy was relentlessly pressured by the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, and by many of his own advisers to wage war – clandestine, conventional, and nuclear.

To understand why and by whom he was assassinated on November 22, 1963, one needs to apprehend this pressure and the reasons why President Kennedy consistently resisted it, as well as the consequences of that resistance.

It is a key to understanding the current state of our world today and why the United States has been waging endless foreign wars and creating a national security surveillance state at home since JFK’s death.

A War Hero Who Was Appalled By War

It is very important to remember that Lieutenant John Kennedy was a genuine Naval war hero in WW II, having risked his life and been badly injured while saving his men in the treacherous waters of the South Pacific after their PT boat was sunk by a Japanese destroyer. His older brother Joe and his brother-in-law Billy Hartington had died in the war, as had some of his boat’s crew members.

As a result, Kennedy was extremely sensitive to the horrors of war, and, when he first ran for Congress in Massachusetts in 1946, he made it explicitly clear that avoiding another war was his number one priority. This commitment remained with him and was intensely strengthened throughout his brief presidency until the day he died, fighting for peace.

Despite much rhetoric to the contrary, this anti-war stance was unusual for a politician, especially during the 1950s and 1960s. Kennedy was a remarkable man, for even though he assumed the presidency as somewhat of a cold warrior vis-à-vis the Soviet Union in particular, his experiences in office rapidly chastened that stance. He very quickly came to see that there were many people surrounding him who relished the thought of war, even nuclear war, and he came to consider them as very dangerous.

A Prescient Perspective

Yet even before he became president, in 1957, then Senator Kennedy gave a speech in the U.S. Senate that sent shock waves throughout Washington, D.C. and around the world.[2] He came out in support of Algerian independence from France and African liberation generally and against colonial imperialism. As chair of the Senate’s African Subcommittee in 1959, he urged sympathy for African independence movements as part of American foreign policy. He believed that continued support of colonial policies would only end in more bloodshed because the voices of independence would not be denied, nor should they be.

That speech caused an international uproar, and in the U.S.A. Kennedy was harshly criticized by Eisenhower, Nixon, John Foster Dulles, and even members of the Democratic party, such as Adlai Stevenson and Dean Acheson. But it was applauded in Africa and the Third World.

Yet JFK continued throughout his 1960 presidential campaign raising his voice against colonialism throughout the world and for free and independent African nations. Such views were anathema to the foreign policy establishment, including the CIA and the burgeoning military industrial complex that President Eisenhower belatedly warned against in his Farewell Address, delivered nine months after approving the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in March 1960; this juxtaposition revealed the hold the Pentagon and CIA had and has on sitting presidents, as the pressure for war became structurally systemized.

assassination of John F. Kennedy | Summary, Facts, Aftermath, & Conspiracy  | Britannica

Patrice Lumumba

One of Africa’s anti-colonial and nationalist leaders was the charismatic Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. In June, 1960, he had become the first democratically elected leader of the Congo, a country savagely raped and plundered for more than half a century by Belgium’s King Leopold II for himself and multinational mining companies. Kennedy’s support for African independence was well-known and especially feared by the CIA, who, together with Brussels, considered Lumumba, and Kennedy for supporting him, as threats to their interests in the region.

So, three days before JFK’s inauguration, together with the Belgian government, the CIA had Lumumba brutally assassinated after torturing and beating him. According to Robert Johnson, a note taker at a National Security Council meeting in August 1960, Lumumba’s assassination had been approved by President Eisenhower when he gave Allen Dulles, the Director of the CIA, the approval to “eliminate” Lumumba. Johnson disclosed that in a 1975 interview that was discovered in 2000.[3]

On January 26, 1961, when Dulles briefed the new president on the Congo, he did not tell JFK that they already had Lumumba assassinated nine days before. This was meant to keep Kennedy on tenterhooks to teach him a lesson. On February 13, 1961, Kennedy received a phone call from his UN ambassador Adlai Stevenson informing him of Lumumba’s death. There is a photograph by White House photographer Jacques Lowe of the horror-stricken president sitting in the oval office answering that call that is harrowing to view. It was an unmistakable portent of things to come, a warning for the president.

Dag Hammarskjöld, Indonesia, and Sukarno

One of Kennedy’s crucial allies in his efforts to support third-world independence was United Nations’ Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. Hammarskjöld had been deeply involved in peacekeeping in the Congo as well as efforts to resolve disputes in Indonesia, both important countries central to JFK’s concerns. Hammarskjöld was killed on September 18, 1961 while on a peacekeeping mission to the Congo. Substantial evidence exists that he was assassinated and that the CIA and Allen Dulles were involved. Kennedy was devastated to lose such an important ally.[4]

Kennedy’s strategy involved befriending Indonesia as a Cold War ally as a crucial aspect of his Southeast Asian policy of dealing with Laos and Vietnam and finding peaceful resolutions to other smoldering Cold War conflicts. Hammarskjöld was also central to these efforts. The CIA, led by Dulles, strongly opposed Kennedy’s strategy in Indonesia. In fact, Dulles and the CIA had been involved in treacherous maneuverings in resource rich Indonesia for decades. President Kennedy supported the Indonesian President Sukarno, while Dulles opposed him since he stood for Indonesian independence.

Just two days before Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963, he had accepted an invitation from Indonesian President Sukarno to visit that country the following spring. The aim of the visit was to end the conflict (Konfrontasi) between Indonesia and Malaysia and to continue Kennedy’s efforts to support post-colonial Indonesia with non-military economic and development aid. His goal was to end conflict throughout Southeast Asia and assist the growth of democracy in newly liberated post-colonial countries worldwide.

Of course, JFK never made it to Indonesia in 1964, and his peaceful strategy to bring Indonesia to America’s side and to ease tensions in the Cold War was never realized, thanks to Allen Dulles and the CIA.  And, Kennedy’s proposed withdrawal of American military advisers from Vietnam, which, in part, was premised on success in Indonesia, was quickly reversed by Lyndon Johnson after JFK’s murder and within a short time hundreds of thousand American combat troops were sent to Vietnam. In Indonesia, Sukarno would be forced out and replaced by General Suharto, who would rule with an iron fist for the next 30 years. Soon, both countries would experience mass slaughter engineered by Kennedy’s opponents in the CIA and Pentagon.[5]

Watch The American Media & The 2nd Assassination Of President John F.  Kennedy | Prime Video

The Bay of Pigs

In mid-April 1961, less than three months into his presidency, a trap was set for President Kennedy by the CIA and its director, Allen Dulles, who knew of Kennedy’s reluctance to invade Cuba. They assumed the new president would be forced by circumstances at the last minute to send in U.S. Navy and Marine forces to back the invasion that they had planned. The CIA and generals wanted to oust Fidel Castro, and in pursuit of that goal, trained a force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. This had started under President Eisenhower and Vice President Nixon. Kennedy refused to go along with sending in American troops and the invasion was roundly defeated. The CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy.

But it was all a sham. Classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned the date of the invasion more than a week in advance and had informed Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro, but—and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end—the CIA never told the President. The CIA knew the invasion was probably doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway.

Why? So, they could blame JFK for the failure afterwards.

Kennedy later said to his friends Dave Powell and Ken O’Donnell, “They were sure I’d give in to them and send the go-ahead order to the [Navy’s aircraft carrier] Essex. They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”[6]

This treachery set the stage for events to come. Sensing but not knowing the full extent of the set-up, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (who, as in a bad joke, was later named to the Warren Commission investigating JFK’s assassination) and his assistant, General Charles Cabell (whose brother, Earle Cabell, to make a bad joke absurd, was the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy was killed.) It was later discovered that Earle Cabell was a CIA asset.[7]

JFK said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Not sentiments to endear him to a secretive government within a government whose power was growing exponentially.[8]

Kennedy Responds After the Bay of Pigs Treachery

The stage was now set for events to follow as JFK, now even more suspicious of the military-intelligence people around him, and in opposition to nearly all his advisers, consistently opposed the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.

In 1961, despite the Joint Chiefs’ demand to put combat troops into Laos – advising 140,000 by the end of April – Kennedy bluntly insisted otherwise as he ordered Averell Harriman, his representative at the Geneva Conference, “Did you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”[9]  The president knew that Laos and Vietnam were linked issues, and since Laos came first on his agenda, he was determined to push for a neutral Laos.

Also in 1961, he refused to accede to the insistence of his top generals to give them permission to use nuclear weapons in a dispute with the Soviet Union over Berlin and Southeast Asia. Walking out of a meeting with his top military advisors, Kennedy threw his hands in the air and said, “These people are crazy.”[10]

In March 1962, the CIA, in the person of legendary operative, Edward Lansdale, and with the approval of every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the president with a pretext for a U.S. invasion of Cuba. Code-named Operation Northwoodsthe false-flag plan called for innocent people to be shot in the U.S., boats carrying Cuban refugees to be sunk and a terrorism campaign to be launched in Miami, Washington D.C., and other places, all to be blamed on the Castro government so that the public would be outraged and call for an invasion of Cuba.[11]

Kennedy was appalled and rejected this pressure to manipulate him into agreeing to terrorist attacks on Americans that could later be used against him. He already knew that his life was in danger and that the CIA and military were tightening a noose around his neck. But he refused to yield.

As early as June 26, 1961, in a White House meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s spokesperson, Mikhail Kharlamov, and Khrushchev’s son-in-law, Alexei Adzhubei, when asked by Kharlamov why he wasn’t moving faster to advance relations between the two countries, JFK said “You don’t understand this country. If I move too fast on U.S.-Soviet relations, I’ll either be thrown into an insane asylum, or be killed.”[12]

JFK refused to bomb and invade Cuba as the military wished during the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962. The Soviets had placed offensive nuclear missiles and more than 30,000 support troops in Cuba to prevent another U.S.-led invasion. American aerial photography had detected the missiles. This was understandably unacceptable to the U.S. government. While being urged by the Joint Chiefs and his trusted advisors to order a preemptive nuclear strike on Cuba, JFK knew that a diplomatic solution was the only way out as he wouldn’t accept the death of hundreds of millions of people that would likely follow a series of nuclear exchanges with the Soviet Union. Only his brother, Robert, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara stood with him in opposing the use of nuclear weapons. Daniel Ellsberg, a former Pentagon and Rand Corporation analyst, reported a coup atmosphere in the Pentagon as Kennedy chose to settle rather than attack.[13] In the end, after thirteen incredibly tense days of brinksmanship, Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev miraculously found a way to resolve the crisis and prevent the use of those weapons.

Afterwards, JFK told his friend John Kenneth Galbraith that “I never had the slightest intention of doing so.”[14]

The Fateful Year 1963

In June, 1963, JFK gave an historic speech at American University in which he called for the total abolishment of nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and the “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” and movement toward “general and complete disarmament.”[15]

A few months later he signed a Limited Test Ban Treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.[16]

In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965.[17]

All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev via Saturday Evening Post editor and anti-nuclear weapon advocate, Norman Cousins, Soviet agent Georgi Bolshakov,[18] and Pope John XXIII,[19] as well as  with Cuba’s Prime Minister Fidel Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. Of course, secret was not secret when the CIA was involved.

Kennedy, deeply disturbed by the near nuclear catastrophe of the Cuban missile crisis, was determined to open back channel communications to make sure such a near miss never happened again. He knew fault lay on both sides, and that one slipup or miscommunication could initiate a nuclear holocaust.  He was determined, therefore, to try to open lines of communications with his enemies.

Jean Daniel was going to Cuba to interview Fidel Castro, but before he did he interviewed Kennedy on October 24, 1963.  Kennedy, knowing Daniel would tell Castro what he said, asked Daniel if Castro realizes that “through his fault the world was on the verge of nuclear war in October 1962….or even if he cares about it.”  But he also added, to soften the message:

“I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.”[20]

Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top Pentagon generals. These clear refusals to go to war with Cuba, to emphasize peace and negotiated solutions to conflicts rather than war, to order the withdrawal of all military personnel from Vietnam, to call for an end to the Cold War, and his willingness to engage in private, back-channel communications with Cold War enemies marked Kennedy as an enemy of the national security state. They were on a collision course.

The Assassination on November 22, 1963

After going through the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis and many other military cliffhangers, Kennedy underwent a deep metanoia, a spiritual transformation, from Cold Warrior to peacemaker. He came to regard the generals who advised him as devaluing human life and hell-bent on launching nuclear wars. And he was well aware that his growing resistance to war had put him on a dangerous collision course with those generals and the CIA. On numerous occasions, he spoke of the possibility of a military coup d’état against him.

The night before his trip to Dallas, he told his wife, “But, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it.”[21]

And we know that nobody did try to stop it because they had planned his execution from multiple locations to assure its success.

Who Killed Him?

If the only things you read, watched, or listened to since 1963 were the mainstream corporate media (MSM), you would be convinced that the official explanation for JFK’s assassination, the Warren Commission, was correct in essentials. You would be wrong, because those corporate media have for all these years served as mouthpieces for the government, most notably the CIA that infiltrated and controlled them long ago under a secret program called Operation Mockingbird.[22] In 1977, celebrated Watergate journalist, Carl Bernstein, published a 25,000-word cover story for Rolling Stone, “The CIA and the Media,” in which he published the names of many journalists and media, such as The New York TimesCBS, Time, Newsweek, etc., who worked hand in glove with the CIA for decades. Ironically, or as part of “a limited hangout” (spy talk for admitting some truths while concealing deeper ones), this article can be found at the CIA’s own website.

Total control of information requires media complicity, and with the JFK assassination, and in all matters they consider important, the CIA and the MSM are unified.[23] Such control extends to literature, arts, and popular culture as well as news. Frances Stonor Saunders comprehensively documents this in her 1999 book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts And Letters,[24] and Joel Whitney followed this up in 2016 with Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World’s Best Writerswith particular emphasis on the complicity of the CIA and the famous literary journal The Paris Review.  Such revelations are retrospective, of course, but only the most naïve would conclude such operations are a thing of the past.

The Warren Commission claimed that the president was shot by an ex-Marine named Lee Harvey Oswald, firing three bullets from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy’s car was already two hundred and fifty feet past and driving away from him. But this is patently false for many reasons, including the bizarre claim that one of these bullets, later termed “the magic bullet,” passed through Kennedy’s body and zigzagged up and down, left and right, striking Texas Governor John Connolly who was sitting in the front seat and causing seven wounds in all, only to be found later in pristine condition on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital.[25] And, any lone assassin looking out the 6th floor window would have taken the perfect shot as the limousine approached within forty feet of the TSBD on Houston St.

The absurdity of the government’s claim, a ballistic fairy tale, was the key to its assertion that Oswald killed Kennedy. It was visually shattered and rendered ridiculous by the famous Zapruder film that clearly shows the president being shot from the front right, and, as the right front of his head explodes, he is violently thrown back and to his left as Jacqueline Kennedy climbs on to the car’s trunk to retrieve a piece of her husband’s skull and brain.

This video evidence is clear and simple proof of a conspiracy.[26]

Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?

But there is another way to examine it.

If Lee Harvey Oswald, the man The Warren Commission said killed JFK, was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin or not an assassin at all. There is a wealth of evidence to show how, from the very start, Oswald was moved around the globe by the CIA like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters by Jack Ruby two days later.

James W. Douglass, in JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, the most important book on the matter, asks this question:

Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?

This is a key question.

After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret, a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission) and being trained in the Russian language, Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union.[27] After denouncing the U.S., rejecting his American citizenship, working at a Soviet factory in Minsk, and taking a Russian wife—during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union—he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey, by Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-Communist with extensive intelligence connections recommended by the State Department.[28]

Oswald passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where, at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a photography and graphic arts company that worked on top secret maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba.

Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt. In 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ investigator, Gaeton Fonzi, de Mohrenschildt allegedly committed suicide.

Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April, 1963 where he got a job at the Reily Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reily. The Reily Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Banister, a former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Chicago Bureau, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplying weapons, money, and training to anti-Castro paramilitaries. Oswald then went to work with Banister and the CIA paramilitaries.

From this time up until the assassination, Oswald engaged in all sorts of contradictory activities, one day portraying himself as pro-Castro, the next day as anti-Castro, many of these theatrical performances being directed from Banister’s office. It was as though Oswald, on the orders of his puppet masters, was     enacting multiple and antithetical roles in order to confound anyone intent on deciphering the purposes behind his actions and to set him up as a future “assassin” or “patsy.”

James Douglass persuasively argues that Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”[29]

When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April, 1963, de Mohrenschildt exited the picture, having asked the CIA for and been indirectly given a $285,000 contract to do a geological survey for Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which he never did, but for which he was paid.[30]

Ruth and Michael Paine then entered the scene on cue. Ruth had been introduced to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. In September, 1963, Ruth Paine drove from her sister’s house in Virginia to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald and bring her to Dallas to live with her, where Lee also stayed on weekends. Back in Dallas, Ruth Paine conveniently arranged a job for Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Book Depository, where he began work on October 16, 1963.

Ruth, along with Marina Oswald, was the Warren Commission’s critically important witness against Oswald. Allen Dulles, despite his earlier firing by JFK, got appointed to a key position on the Warren Commission.  He questioned the Paines in front of it, studiously avoiding any revealing questions, especially ones that could disclose his personal connections to the Paines. For Michel Paine’s mother, therefore Ruth’s mother-in-law, Ruth Paine Forbes Young, was a close friend of his old mistress, Mary Bancroft, who worked as a spy with Dulles during WW II. Bancroft and he had been invited guests at Ruth Paine Forbes Young’s private island off Cape Cod.

Ruth and Michael Paine had extensive intelligence connections. Thirty years after the assassination, a document was declassified showing Ruth Paine’s sister Sylvia worked for the CIA. Her father traveled throughout Latin America on an Agency for International Development (notorious for CIA front activities) contract and filed reports that went to the CIA. Her husband Michael’s step-father, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell Helicopter, a major military supplier for the Vietnam War, and Michael’s job there gave him a security clearance.

From late September through November 22nd, various “Oswalds” were later reported to have simultaneously been seen from Mexico City to Dallas. Two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theater, the real one taken out the front door and an impostor out the back.

As Douglass says:

There were more Oswalds providing evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald than the Warren Report could use or even explain.[31]

Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that Oswald impostors were used, as he told LBJ concerning Oswald’s alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He later called this CIA ploy, “the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico . . . their (CIA’s) double-dealing,” something that he couldn’t forget. [32]

It was apparent to anyone paying close attention that a very intricate and deadly game was being played at high levels in the shadows.

We know Oswald was blamed for the President’s murder. But if one fairly follows the trail of the crime, it becomes blatantly obvious that government forces were at work. Douglass and others have amassed layer upon layer of evidence to show how this had to be so.

Who Had the Power to Withdraw the President’s Security?

To answer this essential question is to finger the conspirators and to expose, in Vincent Salandria’s words, “the false mystery concealing state crimes.”[33]

Neither Oswald, the mafia nor anti-Castro Cubans could have withdrawn most of the security that day. Sheriff Bill Decker ordered all his deputies “to take no part whatsoever in the security of that [presidential] motorcade.”[34]  Police Chief Jesse Curry did the same for Dallas police protection for the president in Dealey Plaza. Both “Chief Curry and Sheriff Decker gave their orders withdrawing security from the president in obedience to orders they had themselves received from the Secret Service.” The Secret Service withdrew the police motorcycle escorts from beside the president’s car where they had been on previous presidential motorcades as well as the day before in Houston and removed agents from the back of the car where they were normally stationed to obstruct gunfire.

The Secret Service admitted there were no Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza to protect Kennedy. But we know from extensive witness testimony that, during and after the assassination, there were people in Dealey Plaza impersonating Secret Service agents who stopped policeman and the public from moving through the area on the Grassy Knoll where some of the shots appeared to come from. The Secret Service approved the fateful, dogleg turn (on a dry run on November 18) where the car, driven by Secret Service agent William Greer, moved at a snail’s pace and came almost to a halt before the final head shot, clear and blatant security violations.  The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded this, not some conspiracy theorist.[35]

Who could have squelched the testimony of the many doctors and medical personnel who claimed the president had been shot from the front in his neck and head, testimony contradicting the official story?

Who could have prosecuted and imprisoned Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent personally brought on to the White House detail by JFK, who warned that he feared the president was going to be assassinated? (Douglass interviewed Bolden seven times and his evidence on the aborted plot to kill JFK in Chicago on November 2 is a story little known but extraordinary in its implications.)

The list of all the people who turned up dead, the evidence and events manipulated, the inquiry squelched, distorted, and twisted in an ex post facto cover-up clearly point to forces within the government, not rogue actors without institutional support.

The evidence for a conspiracy organized at the deepest levels of the intelligence apparatus is overwhelming. James Douglass presents it in such depth and so logically that only one hardened to the truth would not be deeply moved and affected by his book, JFK and the Unspeakable.

But there is more from him and other researchers who have cut the Gordian     knot of this false mystery with a few brief strokes.

Oswald, The Preordained Patsy

Three examples will suffice to show that Lee Harvey Oswald, working as part of a U.S. Intelligence operation, was set up to take the blame for the assassination of President Kennedy, and that when he said in police custody that he was “a patsy,” he was speaking truthfully. These examples make it clear that Oswald was deceived by his intelligence handlers and had been chosen without his knowledge, long before the murder, to take the blame as a lone, crazed killer.

First, Kennedy was shot at 12:30 P.M. CT. According to the Warren Report, at 12:45 P.M. a police report was issued for a suspect that perfectly fit Oswald’s description. This was based on the testimony of Howard Brennan, who said he was standing across from the Book Depository and saw a standing white man, about 5’10” and slender, fire a rifle at the president’s car from the sixth-floor window. This was blatantly false because photographs taken moments after the shooting show the window open only partially at the bottom about fourteen inches, and it would have been impossible for a standing assassin to be seen “resting against the left windowsill,” (the windowsill was a foot from the floor), as Brennan is alleged to have said. He would have therefore had to have been shooting through the glass. The description of the suspect was clearly fabricated in advance to match Oswald’s.

Then between 1:06 and 1:15 P.M. in the quiet residential Oak Cliff neighborhood of Dallas, Police Officer J.D. Tippit was shot and killed. Supposedly based on Brennan’s description broadcast over police radio, Tippit had stopped a man fitting the description and this man pulled a gun and shot the officer. Meanwhile, Oswald had returned to his rooming house where his landlady said he left at 1:03 P.M., went outside, and was standing at a northbound bus stop. The Tippet murder took place nine-tenths of a mile away to the south where a witness, Mrs. Higgins, said she heard a gunshot at 1:06 P.M., ran outside, saw Tippit lying in the street and a man running away with a handgun whom she said was not Oswald.

Oswald is reported to have entered the Texas Theater minutes before the Tippit murder. The concession stand operator, Warren Burroughs has said he sold him popcorn at 1:15 P.M., which is the time the Warren Report claims Tippit was killed. At 1:50 P.M., Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater and taken out the front door where a crowd and many police cars awaited him, while a few minutes later a second Oswald is secretly taken out the back door of the movie theater. (To read this story of the second Oswald and his movement by the CIA out of Dallas on a military aircraft on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, documented in great detail by James W. Douglass, is an eye-opener.)

The official narrative of Oswald and the Tippit murder begs credulity, but it serves to “show” that Oswald was a killer.[36]

Despite his denials, Oswald, set up for Kennedy’s murder based on a prepackaged description, is arraigned for Tippit’s murder at 7:10 PM. It was not until the next day that he was charged for Kennedy’s.

The Message to Air Force One

Secondly, while Oswald is being questioned about Tippit’s murder in the afternoon hours after his arrest, Air Force One has left Dallas for Washington with the newly sworn-in president Lyndon Johnson and the presidential party. Back in D.C., the White House Situation Room is under the personal and direct control of Kennedy’s National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, a man with close CIA ties who had opposed JFK on many matters, including the Bay of Pigs and Kennedy’s order to withdraw from Vietnam.[37]

As reported by Theodore White, in The Making of the President 1964, Johnson and the others were informed by the Bundy controlled Situation Room that “there was no conspiracy, learned of the identity of Oswald and his arrest …”[38]

Vincent Salandria, one of the earliest and most astute critics of the Warren Commission, put it this way in his book, False Mystery:[39]

This [announcement from the Situation Room to Air Force One in flight back to Washington, D.C] was the very first announcement of Oswald as the lone assassin. In Dallas, Oswald was not even charged with assassinating the President until 1:30 A.M. the next morning. The plane landed at 5:59 P.M. on the 22nd. At that time the District Attorney of Dallas, Henry Wade, was stating that “preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved in the shooting … the electric chair is too good for the killers.” Can there be any doubt that for any government taken by surprise by the assassination — and legitimately seeking the truth concerning it — less than six hours after the time of the assassination was too soon to know there was no conspiracy? This announcement was the first which designated Oswald as the lone assassin….

I propose the thesis that McGeorge Bundy, when that announcement was issued from his Situation Room, had reason to know that the true meaning of such a message when conveyed to the Presidential party on Air Force One [and to a separate plane with the entire cabinet that had turned around and was headed back over the Pacific Ocean] was not the ostensible message which was being communicated. Rather, I submit that Bundy … was really conveying to the Presidential party the thought that Oswald was being designated the lone assassin before any evidence against him was ascertainable. As a central coordinator of intelligence services, Bundy in transmitting such a message through the Situation Room was really telling the Presidential party that an unholy marriage had taken place between the U.S. Governmental intelligence services and the lone-assassin doctrine. Was he not telling the Presidential party peremptorily, ‘Now, hear this! Oswald is the assassin, the sole assassin. Evidence is not available yet. Evidence will be obtained, or in lieu thereof evidence will be created. This is a crucial matter of state that cannot await evidence. The new rulers have spoken. You, there, Mr. New President, and therefore dispatchable stuff, and you the underlings of a deposed President, heed the message well.’ Was not Bundy’s Situation Room serving an Orwellian double-think function?[40]

Oswald’s Prepackaged Life Story

Finally, Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty adds a third example of the CIA conspiracy for those who need more evidence that the government has lied from the start about the assassination.

Prouty was Chief of Special Operations in the Pentagon before and during the Kennedy years. He was the liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA, working closely with Director Allen Dulles and others in supporting the clandestine operations of the CIA under military cover. He had been sent out of the country to the South Pole by the aforementioned CIA operative Edward Lansdale (Operation Northwoods) before the Kennedy assassination and was returning on November 22, 1963. On a stopover in Christchurch, New Zealand, he heard a radio report that the president had been killed but knew no details. He was having breakfast with a U.S Congressman at 7:30 AM on November 23, New Zealand time. A short time later, at approximately 4:30 PM Dallas time, November 22, he bought the Christchurch Star 23 November 1963 newspaper and read it together with the Congressman.

The newspaper reports from the scene said that Kennedy had been killed by bursts of automatic weapons fire, not a single shot rifle, firing three separate shots in 6.8 seconds, as was later claimed for Oswald. But the thing that really startled him was that at a time when Oswald had just been arrested and had not even been charged for the murder of Officer Tippit, there was elaborate background information on Oswald, his time in Russia, his association with Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, etc. “It’s almost like a book written five years later,” said Prouty. “Furthermore, there’s a picture of Oswald, well-dressed in a business suit, whereas, when he was picked up on the streets of Dallas after the President’s death, he had on some t-shirt or something…

Who had written that scenario?  Who wrote that script…So much news was already written ahead of time of the murder to say that Oswald killed the President and that he did it with three shots…Somebody had decided Oswald was going to be the patsy…Where did they get it, before the police had charged him with the crime?  Not so much ‘where,’ as ‘why’ Oswald?[41]

Prouty, an experienced military man working for the CIA in the Pentagon, accused the military-intelligence “High Cabal” of killing President Kennedy in an elaborate and sophisticated plot and blaming it on Oswald, whom they had begun setting up years in advance.

The evidence for a government plot to plan, assassinate, cover-up, and choose a patsy in the murder of President John Kennedy is overwhelming.[42]

Five years after JFK’s assassination, we would learn, to our chagrin and his glory, that the president’s younger brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, equally brave and unintimidated, would take a bullet to the back of his head in 1968 as he was on his way to the presidency and the pursuit of his brother’s killers. The same cowards struck again.

Their successors still run the country and must be stopped.

Epilogue by James W. Douglass

“John F. Kennedy was raised from the death of wealth, power, and privilege. The son of a millionaire ambassador, he was born, raised, and educated to rule the system. When he was elected President, Kennedy’s heritage of power corresponded to his position as head of the greatest national security state in history. But Kennedy, like Lazarus, was raised from the death of that system. In spite of all odds, he became a peacemaker and, thus, a traitor to the system….

“Why? What raised Kennedy from the dead? Why did John Kennedy choose life in the midst of death and by continuing to choose life thus condemn himself to death? I have puzzled over that question while studying the various biographies of Kennedy. May I suggest one source of grace for his resurrection as a peacemaker? In reading his story, one is struck by his devotion to his children. There is no mistaking the depth of love he had for Caroline and John, and the overwhelming pain he and Jacqueline experienced at the death of their son Patrick. Robert Kennedy in his book Thirteen Days has described how his brother saw the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of the future of his children and all children. I believe John Kennedy was at least partially raised from the dead of the national security state by the life of his children. The heroic peacemaking of his final months, with his acceptance of its likely cost in his own death, was, I suspect, partly a result of the universal life he saw in and through them. I think he believed profoundly the words that he gave in his American University address as his foundation for rejecting the Cold War: ‘Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.’”[43]

References

[1] History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy, E. Martin Schotz, Kurtz, Ulmer, & DeLucia Book Publishers, 1996.

[2] JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It MattersJames W. Douglass, Orbis Books, 2008[1][2], p. 8 & p.212. Destiny BetrayedJames DiEugenio2nd Edition, Skyhorse Publishing, 2012, pp. 17-33.

[3] The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America’s Secret GovernmentDavid Talbot, Harper Collins, 2015, pp. 375389MORI DocID: 1451843 p. 464, p. 473 of “The CIA’s Family Jewels,” 16 May 1973, The National Security Archives.

[4] Investigation into the condition and circumstances resulting in the tragic death of Dag Hammarskjold and of members of the party accompanying him (United Nations General Assembly document,) Judge Mohamed Chande Othman, September 5, 2017, p. 49 and 50, Dag Hammarskjöld Plane Crash Recent Developments, UN Association, Westminster Branch UK.

[5] Edward Curtin interviews Greg Poulgrain on The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen DullesGlobal Research, July 22, 2016. Chapter 2 – JFK, Dulles and Hammarskjöld of The Incubus of Intervention. Greg Poulgrain, JFK vs Allen Dulles: Battleground Indonesia, Simon & Schuster, 2020.

[6] Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., American ValuesHarper Collins, 2018, p. 117.

[7] Dallas Mayor During JFK Assassination Was CIA AssetWho.What.Why, August 2, 2017.

[8] Peter Kornbluh confirmed this in a phone conversation with the author in May 2000. See The ULTRASENSITIVE Bay of PigsNewly Released Portions of Taylor Commission Report Provide Critical New Details on Operation Zapata, National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 29, May 3, 2000.

[9] Averell Harriman interviewed in Charles Stevenson, The End Of Nowhere; American Policy Toward Laos Since 1954 , 1972, p. 154.

[10] Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power, Simon & Schuster, 1994, p. 222.

[11] Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962, FOIA documents at National Security Archive.

[12] Pierre Salinger, P.S.: A Memoir, St. Martin’s Press, 1995, p. 253.

[13] Talbot, op. cit., p. 453.

[14] John Kenneth Galbraith, A Life in Our Times, Houghton Mifflin, 1981, p. 388.

[15] American University Commencement Address, President Kennedy, June 10, 1963.

[16] President Kennedy Radio and TV Address to the American People on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, July 26, 1963. Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water, signed at Moscow August 5, 1963, entered into force October 10, 1963.

[17] See James K. Galbraith, “Exit Strategy,” Boston Review, Sept 1, 2003

[18] Pierre Salinger, With Kennedy, Doubleday & Co., 1966, p.198.

[19] See Norman Cousins, The Improbable Triumvirate: John F. Kennedy, Pope John, Nikita Khrushchev – An Asterisk to the History of a Hopeful Year, 1962-1963, W.W. Norton & Co., 1972.

[20] Jean Daniel, “Unofficial Envoy – An Historic Report from Two Capitals,” The New Republic, December 14, 1963.

[21] Kenneth P. O’Donnell and David F. Powers, “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye;” Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Little Brown, 1972, p.25.

[22] See Operation Mockingbird, the only FOIA-released-by-CIA documents at The Black Vault. Carl Bernstein, “THE CIA AND THE MEDIA – How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up.” Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977.

[23] James F. Tracy, “The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know,” Global Research/ratical.org, 2018.

[24] Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts And Letters, New Press. 1999. See Also: James Petras, “The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited,” Monthly Review, November 1999.

[25] See Vincent J. Salandria, “The Warren Report?“ Liberation, March 1965.

[26] Zapruder Film in slow motion.

[27] Gerald D. McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, Univ. Of Kansas Press, 2005, review by Jim DiEugenio.

[28] Douglass, op. cit., p. 46.

[29] See James and Elsie Wilcott: CIA Profile in Courage, excerpt from JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 144-148, 421-422.

[30] Douglass, op. cit., p. 47-48.

[31] See Oswald’s Doubles: How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat, excerpt from JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 286-303, 350-355, 464-470, 481-483.

[32] Douglass, op. cit., p. 81.

[33] Vincent Salandria, The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes, presentation at the Coalition on Political Assassinations, November 20, 1998.

[34] Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Dean Craig, When They Kill A President, 1971.

[35] Douglass, op. cit., pp. 270-277 and endnote 75 of James Douglass’ 2009 COPA Keynote Address. Secret Service Final Survey Report for the November 21, 1963, visit by President Kennedy to Houston, cited in Appendix to Hearings before the HSCA, vol. 11p.529.

[36] Douglass, op. cit., pp. 287-304. DiEugenio, op. cit., pp. 391-2.

[37] Talbot, op.cit., pp. 407-8.  &  NSAM 263 (document 194), Foreign Relations of the United States, Vietnam v. IV, Aug-Dec’63.

[38] Theodore White, The Making of the President, 1964, Atheneum, 1965, p. 33. See also, , Let Us Begin Anew: An Oral History of the Kennedy Presidency, Gerald S. Strober, Debra Strober, Perennial, 1993, pp. 450-451.

[39] False MysteryEssays on the JFK Assassination by Vincent Salandriarat haus reality press, 2017

[40] Bundy Continued to Shape Hawkish Policies, in Vincent J. Salandria, “The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Model of Explanation,” Computers and Automation, December 1971, pp. 32-40.

[41] David T. Ratcliffe, Understanding Special Operations: 1989 Interview with L. Fletcher Proutyrat haus reality press, 1999, pp. 214-215.

[42] See The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection at The National Archives.

[43] James Douglass, “The Assassinations of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy in the Light of the Fourth Gospel,” Sewanee Theological Review, 1998

________
source