Tony Blair

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Policies

“Infidel territories belonging to Muslims”: “Greece, Spain, Albania, Romania, and even Austria appear to be Muslim territory according to HuT. Not to mention China.

PHEW! CHINA? That lets us Brits off the hook then! And the rest of us! We won’t have to let them ‘die trying’ after all.” CHINA!? Ha-Ha-Ha etc.

UPDATE: Friday, 24th July: Turkey arrests 200 HuT members. It’s easy for them. Turkey has banned HuT.

22nd July, 2009

FOX News on Hizb ut Tahrir’s FIRST America Conference

FOX News on the Conference held by Hizb ut-Tahrir in Chicago, Illinois, July 19, 2009 (Obama’s home town)

THE FALL OF CAPITALISM AND THE RISE OF ISLAM

Terrorism analyst Walid Phares reminds America’s TV audience that HuT has been in existence since 1953, (before Tony Blair and many of us were born.) BLAIR, BUSH and the west did NOT cause this group or Islamic terorism to come into existence.

STOP LETTING THEM FOOL YOU!

Phares – They have been indoctrinating “hundreds of thousands” of jihad terrorists. It is part of the chain. “They create the suicide bombers, intellectually”. They mean to destroy democracy as well as capitalism. Two specific points are made by Phares: 1. they are clearly comfortable in the USA, and 2. this is the tip of the iceberg.

“They are much bigger than what we think.”

From this indoctrination group such groups as Al Qaeda will recruit and HAVE done for years. Phares says, “They have been here before Al Qaeda and will survive Al Qaeda.”

Khilafah Conference USA 2009: Hizb ut Tahrir America NEW VENUE CONFIRMED

Report and video from Creeping Sharia

Video from the Hizb ut Tahrir meeting that took place at the Hilton hotel in Oak Lawn, Illinois on July 19, 2009 via the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

There is a second video on IPT’s website that is quoted below. Read some excerpts from IPT’s report below or read the entire report here.

Security at the conference was very tight. Oak Lawn police maintained a checkpoint outside the Hilton, and local police and HT’s own security people had a substantial presence inside the hotel. In the ballroom where the conference took place, men and women were largely segregated, with men in the front and women in the back. This became a significant point of contention between HT supporters and several members of the audience who objected to this arrangement. At one point, an unidentified Hizb ut-Tahrir speaker became flustered over this line of questioning.

“Men and women,” he blurted out, must be kept separate “to prevent people from behaving like animals.”

A woman in the audience responded: “How does intermingling between men and women make you animals?” HT panelists didn’t have a persuasive answer, and soon adjourned that session.

The conference was sometimes poorly organized. There was no list of speakers, forcing reporters to sometimes guess at the spelling of speakers’ names. But HT certainly appeared to be serious about working for the larger goals of the conference: abolishing capitalism and imposing Caliphate rule over the world.

According to Hizb ut-Tahrir, the world’s social and economic problems will not be fixed until the world is governed by Shariah and the government controls all major industries. Lenders would no longer be able to charge interest, which one speaker decried as a “poisonous concept.” Charity, or zakat, was advertised as the way to alleviate “economic inequality.”

HT’s efforts to rehabilitate its image won’t be helped by the menacing tone on display Sunday. One late-afternoon panelist suggested that modern industrial powers could fall to Muslims the way Mecca fell to Mohammed nearly 1,400 years ago.

A speaker identified by conference organizers as Imam Jaleel Abdul Adil said that “if they offer us the sun, or the moon, or a nice raise, or a passport, or a house in the suburbs or even a place to pray at the job, on the condition that we stop calling for Islam as a complete way of life – we should never do that, ever do that – unless and until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt.”

Later, the following dialogue ensued between the imam and a member of the audience over whether Shariah or the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land in the United States (click here to see the clip):

Audience member: “Would you get rid of the Constitution for Shariah, yes or no?”

Imam: “Over the Muslim world? Yes, it would be gone.”

Audience Member: And so if the United States was a Muslim world, the Constitution would be gone?”

Imam: “If the United States was in the Muslim world, the Muslims who are here would be calling and happy to see the Shariah applied, yes we would.”

Audience Member: “And the Constitution gone. That’s all.”

Imam: “Yes, as Muslims they would be long gone.”

While Hizb ut-Tahrir’s controversial message attracted demonstrators and some media attention, the group at least is open about its ambitions. It not only is determined to destroy capitalism — it would shred the United States Constitution as well in favor of Shariah law.

Also reported here at Desert Conservative and at Jihad Watch and at Seeing Red AZ

PLEASE NOTE: This group, contrary to the report above is NOT banned in Britain. Tony Blair tried right after the terror attacks in London on 7/7/2005 but was pressured to drop the idea by Britain’s security services who feared civil unrest, AND by civil righters who always look after the rights of minorities while allowing the majority to stew, AND by Human Righters who threatened to take the British government to the European Court of Human Rights if they tried to ban it.

And they would have won.

Thus Blair was forced to drop the ban idea, despite his better judgement. So HuT has been allowed to grow and recruit jihadists from their London-based worldwide HQ. And Gordon Brown and the main opposition Conservatives under David Cameron DO and SAY nothing!

Roll on a new PERMANENT President of the EU who KNOWS how to tackle extremism across the European board, before we become Eurabia, courtesy of such as Hizb ut-Tahrir.

And if this leader isn’t Tony Blair, we might as well hold our hands up in abject surrender.

MY AMERICAN FRIENDS – CHALLENGE OBAMA! CHALLENGE HIM NOW.

America has no excuse not to ban this group, unless your president can find one.

Shocking video at the above site:

Arab Festival 2009: Sharia in the US

This is a video of David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi asking questions at Arabfest, Dearborn. The date is June 21st, 2009. There was a booth at the festival which had a banner titled “Islam: Got Questions? Get Answers.” From their table, we picked up a pamphlet claiming that Islam promotes peace. We noticed that it was full of poor logic and errors, so we decided to make a video refuting it. We went to the booth that gave us the pamphlet to give them the opportunity to defend their claims. Security, however, stepped in and forced us to turn off our camera.

We left the booth, received advice from police, and found out that the actions of the security guards were illegal. We went back to the booth to record a potential answer again. Realizing that the Muslims present had no answer, we left.

When we came outside, we were asked some questions by two young men, who had been sent by security to entrap us. While we responded to them, festival security started assaulting us, as you will see in this video. The conclusion of this video is a mob of festival security attacking our cameras, pushing us back, kicking our legs, and lying to the police.

We ask you, is it a coincidence that the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States is the city where Christianity is not allowed to be represented (let alone preached) on a public sidewalk? Is it coincidence that in this city, people will say “No way!” when we say “This is the United States of America”?

Is this what will happen when Islam takes over the United States?

Tags:end capitalism, end democracy, Hizb ut-Tahrir, HuT, Illinois conference, the rise of Islam, Tony Blair banning Hizb ut Tahrir, video Hizb ut-Tahrir Illinois USA
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, Al Qaeda, Americans convert to Islam, bin Laden says, Barack Obama, Economy - Britain & Worldwide Downturn, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Human Rights and HR Act, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Islam, Law - British Domestic & International, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Press - Truth & Lies, Religion & Religious Issues in Politics, Sharia Law/Sharia Finance, Terrorism | 6 Comments »

Comment is NOT Free! (The Guardian)

July 21, 2009

UPDATE: 23rd July – The Guardian Censorship continues

21st July, 2009

Comment is NOT Free!

Quietzapple – Censored by The Guardian for being Pro-Government

Recently someone has been in touch with me in deep anger over the censorship and seeming dictatorial behaviour of certain Free Speech Guardian Cif moderators.

He has sent me this:

Comment is NOT Free!

Censored – for being pro British Government!

What would induce anyone to complain to The Guardian thus?

Dear Sir/Madam,

You are are currently pre moderating my comments prior to posting or withholding them from view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/quietzappple/comments

As I am one of the few who regularly take a pro HMG (Her Majesty’s government) view this amounts to political censorship of the most gross kind, detrimental to the reputation of your newspaper, as is intended by some of those who take an anti Labour view.

This seems to have stemmed from a recent post you deleted which was aimed at several Daily Telegraph/Guido posters complaints, which, as they averred in one of their posts which you also deleted, were designed to get me banned from your site.

Please advise,

In practice Quietzapple is finding 2 in 3 of his posts, none of them abusive, libelous or otherwise objectionable to anyone except that he speaks from a generally pro Government line which will upset the right and left alike.

Guardian moderators are “volunteers.” Who volunteers one wonders?

Rather a coincidence that the moderately phrased posts of a moderate – for example lauding family, working and pension tax credits, and the improvements in women’s entitlements – are being “pre-moderated” while, for example:

MrPikeBishop: BTW Poll, a lot of us would like be be like the Nordics – but how are we going to persuade thirty million people to piss off someplace else?

stands in the face of reasoned objection?

Amusingly Quietzapple’s last post to be deleted alerted the Guardian to the triumphal rantings of nazis from the Telegraph on a Polly Toynbee blog, where they threatened to drive him from the site, as they claimed to have driven him from the Telegraph blogs.

“Yes they repeatedly called me an SFB – “Son of a Fucking Bitch” – and worse, but really it was the “Communites’ Editor” Shane Richmond deleting months worth of posts to which they rarely had any answer, and in particular one pointing out that the American immigrant journalist Janet Daley’s attack on other immigrants coming here supposedly to take advantage of the NHS were hypocritical which did it for me.

“Abuses, censorship and libels are not the new Hypocrisy, but they are adjuncts the extreme right and their billionaire inspired press are happy to use on the telegraph, or the Guardian.” he said.

BLAIR SUPPORTER’S THOUGHTS

I have never gone down particularly well at The Guardian.

If you don’t instinctively want to skin alive Tony Blair there’s clearly something wrong with you as far the peace-and-lovers on there are concerned.

But I have not yet been blocked, although one or two of my comments , though never personally abusive, have been deleted. Usually after they have posted my comment and then noticed that I have said something about the CIF pages being the ‘hangout for the insane’.

Well? True isn’t it? At least I don’t call for their hanging from the nearest lamppost.

We seem to be facing irrationality and censorship of the most worrying sort at The Guardian’s Cif pages. We’re used to it at The Mail, but nothing better can be expected from the perspective of their Tory bias. The Guardian’s censorship, on the other hand, is of people who are generally LEFT politically, but not Left enough for them. This censorship is clearly in action when moderators frequently delete the few opposing voices, even though they are usually the civilised non-abusive voices. They can always claim, without presumably having to PROVE it, that they removed comments because of a request by another commenter in their comment tickbox – “complain about this comment”.

Often tempted, I have never asked for a comment to be removed, even when they are clearly libelous and incite murder. I prefer to leave such inciteful abuse there for more balanced readers to see exactly what we are dealing with on the CIF pages.

REGULAR CIF COMMENTERS

Such commenters as the foul-mothed PikeBishop seem to be heroes to the Guardian CIF-ers. I have referred to their mindset before, and it is clearly anti-democracy, anti-government, anti-Britain, anti-Blair, anti-Bush, anti-Brown. They are hardly typical conservative voters on the whole, though some undoubtedly are. I recognise, when I visit there, which is infrequently, some Liberal Democrat policies being floated. But I do not conclude that they are all Liberal Democrats.

I have long wondered if anarchists and inflitrating foreign individuals are responsible for a lot of their patent prejudice.

CIF MODERATORS

Moderators at The Guardian are self-selecting, apart from a few according to their FAQ page.

EXCERPT -

Q: Who moderates the moderators? Do moderators work for the editor of a particular blog or part of the site?
A: The majority of our moderators are part of the central Community Team which is part of guardian.co.uk and reports to the Editor, guardian.co.uk.

All moderators work closely with editors and editorial staff across the guardian.co.uk site and many have specialist knowledge or experience which means they work predominantly in one or more subject areas. As part of our growing recognition that editorial and community management need to work closely together, some moderators therefore report directly into the editor of a particular section or site (e.g. Comment is free).

However, the Community Standards, which the moderators are responsible for enforcing, are set centrally, although we consult with the senior editorial team when revising them. Additionally, the Community Team regularly reviews activity on the site with relevant editorial departments, as well as updating them on any policy or approach changes.

While site editors don’t directly influence moderation policy or daily process, moderation decisions are sometimes taken after consulting with editors who have specialist knowledge about particular subject areas.

Incidentally, we ask staff members and blog contributors (e.g. freelance authors) to report potential problems in participation areas using exactly the same method as everyone else. If a staff member spots an issue, they report it in the normal way to bring it to the attention of a moderator, who will then make a decision based on the usual criteria. Authors don’t moderate their own content.

Q: I have a complaint about moderation, how do I escalate it?
A: Unfortunately, the huge (and growing) quantity of user content on guardian.co.uk means that we can’t enter into correspondence regarding specific moderation activity, although all correspondence will be read. If you have suggestions or questions about any aspect of moderation and community participation on guardian.co.uk, you can write to community.suggestions@guardian.co.uk or cif.moderation@guardian.co.uk (as appropriate)

Tags:Censorship, Cif Guardian, CIF moderators, comment is free, free speech at The Guardian, letter to the Guardian, quietzapple
Posted in BBC, Broadcast Outlets & Press, Blair Supporter's Favourites, British Politics, Major Political Issues, Britain & World, Press - Truth & Lies, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press | 2 Comments »

10% of European Muslims believe attacks against civilians “morally justified”

July 21, 2009

Comparing Muslim populations in EU cities and in prisons

21st July, 2009

OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY -

90% of European Muslims DON’T believe attacks against civilians are justified

Come on, now – let’s be positive!

Sources – here – Infidels are cool, via here -Tea & Politics and here – (Italian sites) Magdi Allam and here – Unpolitically Correct (good title, eh?)

‘Infidels are cool’ sums it up (for non-Italian speakers)

Europe: Poll says 10% of European Muslims believe that attacks against civilians are morally justified

In Europe, nearly 2 million Muslims (10% of total number) are convinced that terrorist attacks targeting civilians are morally justified. Of that number, nearly 1 million live in France, nearly 260,000 live in UK and another 390,000 live in Germany. One tiny detail that Newsweek, in its article “Dispelling the Myth of Eurabia”, has absolutely not considered.

Meanwhile, UK has released 20 jihadists who pose “a real danger for UK”, but have not sent two of them, accused and condemn for raising £250,000 for Al-Qaeda, to Algeria because “their safety would be at risk”.

If Islam wins, it would not be because of its qualities, but because of the idiocy of the people in charge. If the people who are accused of funding, supporting and carrying on jihad, are not risking anything, even when they are trying to destroy Western socities and supporting Shariah Law and the Caliphate, in the end Western Governments are really supporting violent types, against peaceful citizens.

Tags:10% European Muslims attacks justified, poll on EU Muslims on terror attacks
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, Human Rights and HR Act, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Islam, Law - British Domestic & International, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Religion & Religious Issues in Politics, Terrorism | 10 Comments »

The Ubiquitous Mandy is on 35 out of 43 Cabinet Committees!

July 21, 2009

Another guy who likes to put himself about a bit?

21st July, 2009

THE PM … BUSINESS SECRETARY … IS HERE, THERE & EVERYWHERE

(Cue for a song? Click to hear the Beatles, below)

Photo credit: Peter Gallina. Pic taken at City Hall a few weeks ago during the London economic conference, as used at Paul Waugh's Standard article, 21st July, 2009.

AND THRIVING ON IT

Peter Mandelson, the present saviour of Gordon Brown, the Labour party and the government is presently on 35 of the 43 cabinet committees. It’d be easier to work out which committees he’s NOT on.

After you realise that this is partly because ALL LABOUR’S BIG BEASTS have already shuffled back to the jungle in despair, you have to wonder – (well I do … forgive me while I indulge) – just who is the guiding hand behind the guiding hand?

Just asking.

List of Cabinet Committes updated today by the Cabinet Secretary

Article from Paul Waugh at The Standard

‘Downing Street have finally released the list of Cabinet Committees and their composition today. This is always an end of term event and often reveals just where the true power lies in the Government.

Under Tony Blair, Prescott had lots of committee chairmanships under his belt but Charlie Falconer often acted as his eyes and ears.

Under Gordon, the number of committees seems to have increased, but much more importantly Peter Mandelson’s influence is underlined categorically.

Out of 43 committees, the Prince of Darkness now sits on no fewer than 35 oF them. Yes, that’s right, he’s a member of 35 Cabinet committees.

The Empire of Mandelsonia now includes health, domestic policy, public spending, immigration, climate change, trade, the economy, Afghanistan, democratic renewal, Africa and “life chances”.

Here’s the full list:

National Economic Council NEC
Better Regulation NEC (BR)
Democratic Renewal Council DRC
Domestic Policy Council DPC (which he deputy chairs)
Domestic Affairs DA
Borders and Migration DA (BM)
Communities and Equalities DA (CE)
Food DA
Families, Children and Young People DA (FCY)
Health and Wellbeing DA (HW)
Justice and Crime DA (JC)
Local Government and the Regions DA (LGR) (which he chairs)
Public Engagement and the Delivery of Services DA (PED)
Life Chances LC
Talent and Enterprise LC (TE)
Economic Development ED
Environment and Energy ED (EE)
Housing, Planning and Regeneration ED (HPR)
Olympic and Paralympic Games ED (OPG)
Productivity, Skills and Employment ED (PSE)
Constitution CN
National Security, International Relations and Development NSID
Europe NSID (EU)
Overseas and Defence NSID (OU)
Africa NSID (OUA)
Afghanistan and Pakistan NSID (A&P)
Trade NSID (T)
Protective Security and Resilience NSID (PSR)
Public Services and Public Expenditure PSX
Public Sector Pay and Pensions PSX (P)
Pandemic Influenza Planning MISC 32
Post Office Network MISC 33 (which he chairs)
Flood planning MISC 36
PM’s ad hoc Committee on International Climate Change
PM’s ad hoc International Climate Change Negotiations

It’s worth noting that even when Michael Heseltine was DPM, he sat on less than a dozen Cabinet committees.

UPDATE: Just added up Gordon Brown’s committees and he sits on 12.

There is a clear Cabinet pecking order emerging. The Chancellor sits on 27 committees, Jack Straw on 25, David Miliband on 23. Bob Ainsworth is on 19.

FURTHER UPDATE: Conservative Party chairman Eric Pickles has just seized on this:

“It is quite obvious that Peter Mandelson is the real unelected Prime Minister pulling the strings from number 10.

“He is Gordon Brown’s political life support machine keeping the plotters at bay. He sadly typifies the Prime Minister’s unhealthy reliance on unelected officials.”

Photo credit: Peter Gallina. Pic taken at City Hall a few weeks ago during the London economic conference.’

Source credits:

Thanks to The Standard’s Paul Waugh for this, via tip from Peter Hoskin at The Spectator

The Beatles – Here There And Everywhere

Tags:35 out of 43, Beatles, Cabinet Committees, committees, Evening Standard, here, Paul Waugh, Peter Hoskin, Peter Mandelson, Spectator Coffee House blog, there and everywhere, Tony Blair, ubiquitous Mandy
Posted in British Politics, British Prime Minister, Brown (Gordon Brown & his Labour Government, from June 2007), Peter Mandelson | 4 Comments »

British NON-Muslims Turning to Sharia Law

July 21, 2009

21st July, 2009

The Times has also learnt that the MAT is planning to triple the number of its courts by setting up in ten new British cities by the end of the year. It will expand its network further by acting as an advisory body to dozens of other Islamic courts, with the intention of achieving national consensus over rulings and procedures.

Non-Muslims turning to Sharia courts to resolve civil disputes (Times)

Sheikh Suhaib Hasan, of the Islamic Sharia Council, says problems such as knife crime would be resolved if Britain implemented Islamic penal codes. (source Times, 21st July 2009)

Increasing numbers of non-Muslims are turning to Sharia courts to resolve commercial disputes and other civil matters, The Times has learnt.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) said that 5 per cent of its cases involved non-Muslims who were using the courts because they were less cumbersome and more informal than the English legal system.

Freed Chedie, a spokesman for Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, a barrister who set up the tribunal, said: “We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not.”

In a case last month a non-Muslim Briton took his Muslim business partner to the tribunal to sort out a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company. “The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” said Mr Chedie. “The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”

He said that the tribunal had adjudicated on at least 20 cases involving non-Muslims so far this year. The rulings of the tribunal are legally binding, provided that both parties agree to that condition at the beginning of any hearing.

Anti-Sharia campaigners, who claim that the Islamic system is radical and biased against women, expressed alarm at the news. Denis MacEoin, who wrote a recent report for the think-tank Civitas examining the spread of Sharia in Britain, said that MAT’s claims about non-Muslim clients “raises all sorts of questions”.

He added: “You really need to ask why. What advantages could that possibly have for them going to an Islamic court? Any [Sharia] court is going to be implementing aspects of a law that runs contrary to British law, because of the way it treats women for example.”

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said that organisations should be free to conduct arbitration under Sharia, provided that it did not infringe British law and was a voluntary process.

Baroness Warsi, the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action, who is Muslim, said that there were many forums for arbitration and alternative dispute resolution in Britain. “There is no problem with that, as long as it is always subject to English law,” she said.

Although Sharia courts have been operating in the civil jurisdiction since the early 1980s, they have been doing so only in the shadows and in an ad-hoc fashion. The Civitas report estimated that there were 85 Sharia councils in Britain.

As such, if the MAT was successful in bringing a number of the existing councils into line with its own courts, it would in effect create Britain’s largest national co-operative of tribunals.

Mr Chedie said that the plan would legitimise Sharia because all the courts under its umbrella would be “consistent in their rulings”. The MAT, which has legal legitimacy under the Arbitration Act 1996, already operates in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. At its annual conference in October it will decide its ten new locations, which are likely to include Leeds, Luton, Blackburn, Stoke and Glasgow.

The tribunal is inviting 24 Sharia councils to attend the conference so that it can train them on procedures and rulings in an attempt to achieve national consistency. Most Sharia courts deal only with divorce and family disputes but the MAT also rules on commercial matters and mediates over forced marriages and domestic violence.

Mr Chedie said: “We would train most of the imams so that a lady in Glasgow would receive the same form of service as a lady in London. Sharia councils are already falling into line under us. There is hysterial and inherent prejudice against Sharia, but the overwhelming opinion of the judiciary is that English law and Sharia are compatible. It is only people at the right end of the political spectrum who are scaremongering.” Mr Chedie argued that the legitimacy of the MAT was further enhanced because non-Muslims had started to use it for arbitration.

Mr MacEoin said he was sceptical that the MAT could achieve unity because there were several different schools of thought when it came to Islamic law. He added that the Muslim community was already deeply divided over ideology.

Hat tip for this story to R IP British Legal System

Tags:Baroness Warsi, Civitas, Denis MacEoin, Freed Chedie, Inayat Bunglawala, Islamic Sharia Council, MAT, muslim arbitration tribunal, Muslim Council of Britain, non muslims turning to sharia law, one law for all, sharia law, Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, Sheikh Suhaib Hasan
Posted in Human Rights and HR Act, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Islam, Law - British Domestic & International, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Religion & Religious Issues in Politics, Sharia Law/Sharia Finance | 1 Comment »

Cherie takes on Cif-ers over Sudan’s President Bashir & “war crimes” charges

July 21, 2009

Cherie Blair’s website

(Read entire Cherie Booth article – “Africa’s obstruction of justice” pasted here below)

21st July, 2009

BASHIR TO THE ICC, SAYS CHERIE

Cherie Booth questions Africa's approach to war crimes charges against Sudan's President Bashir. Picture from Guardian profile: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/cherie-booth

(Cherie is one of the few well-known individuals whose surname(s) you never have to use for purposes of identification, which is helpful if you are trying to work out which hat she’s wearing.)

You have to hand it to Cherie Booth-Blair, famous lawyer and wife.

Three times a lawyer, she’s certainly got cojones, as her article in Saturday’s Guardian shows.

It isn’t easy these days putting any article on a Guardian Comment is Free page if it doesn’t, mais naturellement, decry the wicked west.

And criticising the African continent is an even BIGGER no-no.

But to have the gall to mention “war crimes” without including the name of a certain former British prime minister – WELL – that takes The Guardian biscuit! Happily, a technical glitch prevented the usual spew of spleen-venting and missing-the-point bellowing from the habitual peace ‘n’ love hangers ‘n’ floggers of all leaders western, especially one in particular, guilty or not guilty, tried or untried.

bashir

Cherie goes for Africa’s position over the present President of Sudan in no apologetic terms in this article co-written with Max du Plessis .

(Picture: Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s president, had an ICC arrest warrant issued against him on 4th March 2009.)

See ICC website – warrant issued for Bashir’s arrest.

Excerpt:

‘Today, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for the arrest of Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, President of Sudan, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He is suspected of being criminally responsible, as an indirect (co-)perpetrator, for intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property. This is the first warrant of arrest ever issued for a sitting Head of State by the ICC.

Omar Al Bashir’s official capacity as a sitting Head of State does not exclude his criminal responsibility, nor does it grant him immunity against prosecution before the ICC, according to Pre-Trial Chamber I.’

Interestingly, Omar al-Bashir yesterday cancelled a trip to Uganda, seeking to avoid a ‘diplomatic incident’ over ICC arrest warrants, according to this Guardian article published on Monday afternoon. So perhaps ALL African countries are NOT running scared of confronting Bashir.

This followed hard on the heels of Ugandan websites insisting that Uganda was legally bound to arrest Bashir if he landed there. For instance at Uganda’s at New Vision website, Agnes Kabajuni said on Sunday:

‘What is happening in Darfur is genocide and Hassan Ahmad el-Bashir as a principle agent (an indirect co-perpetrator) is indicted for intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan. Bashir is principle to the murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property.

Therefore, the Government has an international obligation as a member state of the UN to cooperate in the implementation of the Rome Statute, including arresting Bashir.’

The comparison between the alleged ‘crimes’ unsaid (T Blair) and the unsayable (Bashir) was easy to decipher even for the blindfolded at The Guardian. Cherie was spared the typically hundreds of “you’ve got to be effing jokings” that would undoubtedly have flown into the comment boxes had the tecnical glitch been ironed out at the start. The few that DID get the chance to comment were NOT exactly intellectually up to grasping the HUGE difference between Messrs Bashir and Blair.

The former has been charged, the latter has not.

Until someone is charged with “war crimes … crimes against humanity … illegal invasion” or any other alleged atrocity or misdmeanour, and then tried and found guilty, they are NOT GUILTY of anything.

So even now, Mr Bashir is NOT GUILTY of anything under the law, even though already charged and so far being protected by his continent.

His guilt or innocence was not the issue Ms Booth was raising in the article. It was the willingness or unwillingness of African nations to stand united with an international body, supposedly meant to dole out the same justice to western leaders, if and when there is ever a charge made against any of them.

WOULD THE EU PROTECT (for the sake of argument, you understand) TONY BLAIR?

Do you think the EU would stand against The Hague-based International Criminal Court if it decided that Tony Blair had a case to answer and issued charges for his arrest? If EU countries, even only a few of them, tried to protect him in this way, do you think Mr Blair would escape “justice”.

A rhetorical question (to which the answer is “NO” in case you were struggling with this).

On second thoughts – until this Bashir protection racket the answer might well have been “no”. Now that African countries have decided to thumb their noses at the ICC, things may well have changed for more than just AU leaders suspected of war crimes.

The inability or unwillingness to grasp these simple concepts and how they impact on international bodies is what separates such Guardian commenters as Khaled Diab and Kalian – (the latter still fighting yesterday’s colonial battles) – from sound judgement or even common sense.

But then, they already “KNOW” all about the crimes of their chosen “war criminal”, DON’T THEY?

Don’t they just … rhetorically speaking.

See Cherie Booth’s Guardian article here (now closed to comments.) Also to be found at her website here.

A woman holds a poster of Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir at a demonstration in Khartoum against the international criminal court. Photograph: Reuters/Zohra Bensemra. As in Guardian article, linked below, 20th July 2009

Sudanese president cancels trip to Uganda

The Sudanese president, Omar el-Bashir, has cancelled his trip to Uganda to avoid a “diplomatic incident” over whether he would be arrested under warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The president has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

Last Monday, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Uganda, a signatory of the Rome Statute that established the court, had a legal obligation to arrest the president if he attended a Smart partnership conference, due to begin on Sunday. Reluctant to upset the African Union, which is currently reviewing the allegations made against Bashir before deciding whether to support the ICC warrants, Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni, has not given a clear indication of whether his Sudanese counterpart would face arrest if he visited the country.

However, Museveni has apologised to the Sudanese leader for comments made early last week by the Ugandan minister for international relations, Henry Okello Oryem, that Bashir would be arrested if he arrived in Uganda.

“The two presidents spoke on how to solve this issue in a diplomatic manner,” said foreign ministry permanent secretary James Mugume. “The president was sorry that the media made it appear that Bashir would be arrested upon arrival in Kampala.”

It is believed that Bashir will now send another minister to the conference.

Africa’s obstruction of justice

By Cherie Booth and Max du Plessis

The African Union’s refusal to help deliver Sudan’s president to the International Criminal Court’s dock is depressing

When the international criminal court began in 2002, there was a widespread hope that those guilty of appalling crimes against humanity would finally be brought to justice. There was a belief too that the very existence of the ICC and its reach would be a brake on the behaviour of other warlords and dictators, increasing protection for hundreds of millions of people.

Those hopes have been badly dented by the African Union‘s decision earlier this month to withdraw co-operation with the ICC. In a profoundly depressing move, the AU summit in Libya resolved that its members would not arrest or extradite any African figure it indicted. This defiance follows complaints by some African states that the ICC was a “western court” that focuses on prosecuting Africans.

The immediate beneficiary of this decision – and the reason for it – is Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir. He is wanted by the ICC in connection with charges that his government and army have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. The text of the AU resolution effectively requests AU states not to arrest Bashir if he is in their country, nor to allow the ICC to conduct investigations on their territory.

The truly disheartening part of this resolution is that it is backed not just by those countries who have opposed the ICC from the start but also by those – the majority on the African continent – who have signed the Rome treaty. It is also a damaging reversal on their position a month ago. Then, at a meeting in Addis Ababa, bullying from Sudan and other hardline opponents of the ICC was resisted. Instead they declared the need for “unflinching commitment” to the ICC and “to combating impunity”.

Their statement signalled that the days of African states turning a blind eye to appalling crimes elsewhere on the continent – out of some mistaken solidarity – have gone. They talked about the need for “unflinching commitment” to the ICC and “to combating impunity”. It was a cool-headed response to those pushing for African countries to withdraw, or at least consider withdrawing, from the Rome treaty.

Following the Libya summit, this welcome commitment has now been badly undermined. In the last few days, however, some African countries have refused to drop their commitment to justice and human rights. At the forefront is Botswana, which expressed its opposition to the AU stance and re-affirmed its support for the ICC.

Foreign minister Phandu Skelemani said Botswana would “fully co-operate with the ICC in the arrest and transfer of the president of Sudan to the ICC”. This week, Uganda too has spoken of its commitment to the ICC and determination to meet its legal obligations. But this only puts into stark relief the conduct of other leading African nations who are signatories to the ICC and are now ready to ignore their legal obligations.

The position of South Africa is particularly important. This is not just because the country can be proud of the leadership role it played in setting up the ICC. It is also because it is one of only three states in Africa to have incorporated the ICC statute’s provisions into national law.

At the time, this seemed a significant step that showed the country’s commitment to international criminal justice. With ICC judges confirming the arrest warrant for president Bashir in early May, it was presumably a big factor in his decision not to visit South Africa for president Jacob Zuma’s inauguration later that month. It was heartening then to see that Bashir – having weighed his liberty in the balance – opted not to be among the guests joining the celebrations in Pretoria.The rule of law had an effect, if only on Bashir’s travel plans.

The ICC is, of course, in its infancy. Constructive criticism of its work is important to its maturity and development. But the AU’s statement is not about helping the ICC work better. It is simply to protect someone who stands accused of the most serious crimes against humanity. It has the potential both to undermine the ICC and its important work on behalf of hundreds of thousands of African victims.

The ICC came into existence during Kofi Annan’s time as UN secretary-general. He remains a passionate supporter, and has shown little patience for those Africans who see it as a western court. He warned recently that there was “little hope of preventing the worst crimes known to mankind, or reassuring those who live in fear of their recurrence, if African leaders stop supporting justice for the most heinous crimes just because one of their own stands accused”.

He is right. As the dust settles around the AU meeting, it is disheartening to see politicians showing their solidarity with the Bashirs of the world rather than with the victims of mass rapes, murders and mutilations. In the interests of the rule of law and victims’ rights, it is to be hoped that the leadership shown by Botswana will begin to gain support.

Cherie Booth QC is a barrister at the Matrix Chambers. Max du Plessis is a senior research associate at the Institute for Security Studies, Pretoria

RELATED

NOTE: The International Criminal Court (the ICC) is NOT recognised in Sudan.

The AU, African Union, of 53 African states (Wikipedia)

Read Sudan Watch by Blair Foundation Blogspot (NOT Tony Blair)

Sudan Tribune - 20th July, 2009: Botswana & Chad, and seemingly Uganda have broken ranks with the other AU members on the present ‘reprieve’ for Bashir.

Sudan Tribune – July 5, 2009: ‘The government of Botswana criticized the decision by the African Union (AU) granting a continent-wide reprieve to the Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir from arrest pursuant to the International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant.

On Friday, the leaders of 30 African countries that have ratified the Rome Statute issued a resolution in Sirte, Libya announcing that they will not honor their obligations under the convention relating to apprehension of ICC indicted individuals.

The Sudanese foreign minister spokesperson Ali Al-Sadiq said that Bashir is now free to travel to any African country without fear of arrest.

Al-Sadiq further said the decision is binding to all African countries without having to wait for the parliaments to ratify the resolution.

But the Botswanaian foreign minister Phandu Skelemani made surprise statements suggesting that the resolution was forced upon its members

Legal Brief Africa notes BBC reports at variance on Uganda’s approach to arresting Bashir, here first, here second.

Sierra Leone: Sierra Leone court monitoring programme, SLCMP, has condemned the APC government for backing the stance of other Africa nations in denouncing the call of the international criminal court, ICC to arrest and extradite Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir in Libya.

Guardian February 2009 report as Bashir was about to be indicted. It is worth noting which countries are on which side on this issue.

Excerpt:

“Judges in The Hague prepare to indict Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s president – putting western governments on collision course with Africa, China and Russia.”

“Britain, France and the US are up against a united front of African and Muslim countries, backed by China and Russia, over the imminent indictment of Sudan‘s president, Omar al-Bashir, for war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Darfur.”

Tags:africa, Botswana, Chad, Cherie Blair, Cherie Booth, Guardian, ICC arrest warrant, International Criminal Court, omar al-bashir, Sudan President Omar el-Bashir, Uganda, war crimes charges
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, africa, Cherie Booth Memoirs | 2 Comments »

Belittling MPs – Expenses Saga & the Power of the Press

July 21, 2009