ANTI-HUMAN-RIGHTS PLAN UNLIKELY TO GET SUPPORT

Posted by Jim on May 20, 2015

Brian Feeney. Irish News( Belfast). Wednesday, May 20, 2015.

The current Conservative government plans (never to be fulfilled) to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a so-called British Bill of Rights Act have proved very useful. They have prodded the Republic’s government into action.

In a strong address to the Seanad last Thursday Charlie Flanagan said: “The protection of human rights in Northern Ireland law, predicated on the European Convention of Human Rights, is one of the key principles underpinning the Good Friday Agreement.” He went on: “The protection of human rights in Northern Ireland law, predicated on the ECHR, is one of the key principles underpinning the agreement.”

He also reminded the British government, for his address was aimed at them and its more clueless members such as our proconsul[ Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers]: “Protecting the human rights aspects of the Good Friday Agreement is not only a shared responsibility between the two governments in terms of the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland, but is also an obligation on them as parties to the international treaty, lodged with the UN, in which the agreement was enshrined.”

The threat to international human rights posed by Cameron’s ranting right has acted as a stimulus to an Irish government which over the past four years has been notable for its detachment from The North. Its inherent hostility to Sinn Féin as a rival for votes in the Republic has meant that instead of promoting the interests of northern nationalists ministers have sought to act as ‘honest brokers’. That’s an absurd position when faced with a government more biased towards unionists than any since Lady Hacksaw’s[ Maggie Thatcher] time.

Our proconsul’s ill-informed response that scrapping the Human Rights Act would not affect the Good Friday Agreement is just plain wrong. Furthermore her remarks show that she does not understand the powers of the UK Supreme Court vis á vis the European Court.

Then again she is such an unthinking Cameron loyalist (or maybe just a loyalist?) that she probably automatically blurts out a defence of any Conservative proposal.

The best dissection of the woolly and unthought-out plan comes from Cameron’s former attorney-general Dominic Grieve QC. In an interview on Sky Grieve pointed out that the Human Rights Act is “embedded” in devolution in the Scotland Act, in Wales and The North “and in the case of Northern Ireland it is part of an international treaty with the Irish Republic so it’s difficult to see how any change to replace it with a Bill of Rights could be done against the wishes of any of those parties”.

Removing certain rights would, Grieve points out, leave the UK incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Membership of the EU requires adherence to the ECHR.

Others have pointed out that there could be the ridiculous and untenable position where, since Westminster isn’t about to undo devolution, people in Scotland, Wales and the north would have different rights from people in England.

Then there’s the delusion that scrapping the Human Rights Act would make it easier to boot unsavoury people out of Britain. No, because their own country might not take them but also the International Convention against Torture prevents sending people to countries where they might be tortured or killed.

Which makes you wonder how people can be extradited to the United States, but that’s another issue. The US, which happily beats and tortures people, obviously has no human rights act as you would gather, but still can’t get rid of dozens of men in Guantanamo because no-one will take them. So how’s that easier?

In the end Cameron and his acolyte Gove will be unable to get their legislation passed even with the anti-human rights DUP supporting him unquestioningly. Conservative MPs like Grieve will tear the proposals to shreds. Others such as David Davis have already said they will oppose it. Lord Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice and human rights expert, and others like him, will ridicule Gove’s plans in the Lords beginning with demolishing the idea that the UK Supreme Court is not supreme and that the European court is a ‘foreign court’ when a British judge sits on every UK case. The first question for our clueless proconsul is, what human right do you want to get rid of first?

Adams greets prince on first day of royal visit

Posted by Jim on May 19, 2015

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams caused controversy today when he met
‘Prince of Wales’ Charles Windsor in a meet-and-greet opportunity during
the first day of his four-day royal tour through Ireland.

Mr Adams arrived at the National University of Ireland, Galway at about
midday and said he presumed he would shake Charles’ hand during his
visit to the college. He said he hoped the meeting would contribute to
reconciliation in the north of Ireland.

“I don’t have any expectations other than this being an engagement which
I hope is symbolic and practical, and will assist that entire process,”
he said.

After some behind-the-scenes choreography, Charles approached Adams and
while gripping a cup of tea, exchanged pleasantries before Adams
introduced him to local Sinn Fein representative Trevor O Clochartaigh.

In Derry and Belfast, relatives of some of those killed at the hands of
Charles’ Parachute Regiment in the Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy
massacres led protests against the visit, and reiterated their demands
for truth and justice.

There were also calls for the British government to finally hand over
files relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, which took place 41
years ago this week. Sinn Fein’s MP for west Belfast Paul Maskey joined
the Ballymurphy protest, even as his party leader was preparing to
welcome the royal visitors.

In a statement issued ahead of the meeting, Adams noted that the prince
had been bereaved by an IRA attack in which his cousin, (‘Earl’) Louis
Mountbatten, was killed in 1979. But he also said that Charles’s
regiment in the British Army had been directly responsible for the
murder of scores of Irish civilians.

“Prince Charles is Colonel-in-chief of the Parachute Regiment, a unit of
the British army responsible for killing many Irish citizens, including
in Derry, Ballymurphy, Springhill and other communities across the
north.”

“But he also has been bereaved by the actions of republicans. Thankfully
the conflict is over. But there remains unresolved injustices. These
must be rectified and a healing process developed.”

Tory party grandee, (‘Lord’) Norman Tebbit, accused Mr Adams of having a
“guilty conscience” for saying that British Army paratroopers were
responsible for a number of massacres.

Tebbit, the former Cabinet minister who was himself injured in an IRA
bomb attack in 1984, said Adams’s references were the sign of a “guilty
conscience”. “It is what I would have expected,” he said. “Those with
the most guilty conscience talk the most.”

Tomorrow, Lissadell House is part of the royal itinerary in Sligo, which
begins with a civic reception. Former Sinn Fein mayor of Sligo Sean
McManus, whose son Joseph was killed in a gun battle with British Crown
forces in the North in 1992, will attend the function.

Anti-monarchy campaigners who organised a roadside protest in Galway
condemned reports that Irish schoolchildren are being coached on how to
use royal protocol while speaking to Charles and his wife Camilla.

Meanwhile, republicans in Dublin are organising a vigil at 6pm this
evening at O’Connell Street in memory of all the victims of British
state violence.

‘INDEFENSIBLE’

Kate Nash, whose 19-year-old brother William was shot dead by British
Parachute Regiment soldiers during Bloody Sunday said she was furious at
Sinn Fein’s approach to the visit.

Thirteen people were shot dead by the British Army on Sunday, 30 January
1972 at a civil rights march in Derry. A 14th man died later from his
wounds.

“I’m disgusted and furious at the very fact that Sinn Fein are going to
be entertaining Prince Charles here. What they are doing is utterly
disgraceful. It’s indefensible.

“If Prince Charles did anything like use his influence to get the
disgraced parachute regiment disbanded, then I would welcome the man
himself,” she said.

“Sinn Fein are in the business of cleaning up the dirty war that was
inflicted on the people here during the troubles.”

Ms Nash said she failed to see what healing could be gained from the
meeting, and that her brother “has still not got justice.”

“It’s almost five years since we had an apology from the British prime
minister concerning Bloody Sunday and to date not one soldier has been
questioned about those crimes.

“Surely if the man (Prince Charles) has some integrity, he should reject
that title and use his influence to have the parachute regiment
disbanded.”

The British Government Planned Genocide of Irish—in 1972!

Posted by Jim on May 17, 2015

BY MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER

FOR CENTURIES THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT have tried to suppress and exterminate their neighbours the Irish. But that’s all ancient history, isn’t it? Unfortunately, no. A formerly secret document outlines a brazen plan by the British government to commit what can only be described, in international legal context, as genocide against the Protestant and Catholic populations of the British mini-statelet of Northern Ireland, created in 1921.

BY MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER

Admirers of Britain’s ruling class will have a tough time explaining away a shocking top-secret document from July 1, 1972 released in 2003 by Britain’s Public Records Office. The 21-page document, or appendix—of which there were only 10 copies produced—was a closely held “contingency plan” by the then-government of “Conservative” British Prime Minister Edward Heath (PM from June 19, 1970 to March 4, 1974).

The plan would have ordered the forcible removal of 200,000 to 300,000 Irish Catholics out of Northern Ireland and into the Republic of Ireland. Protestants would also be forced to migrate. A total of one-third of Northern Ireland’s population would be shuffled around.

The appendix states categorically that such a plan could not be accomplished peacefully and would require complete ruthlessness “in the use of force.”

The document, Redrawing the Border and Population

Transfer, was signed by Sir Burke Trend, Heath’s cabinet secretary (in office from 1963 to 1973). It was written jointly by representatives of the foreign secretary, the defence secretary and the British secretary for Northern Ireland, among others.

Evidently, the British rulers did not bother consulting with Ireland’s prime minister, Jack Lynch (served 1966-1977), about the drastic measure, nor with Catholic or Protestant leaders.

The officials advised Heath: “We have, as requested, considered the possibility of redrawing the border with the republic and effecting compulsory transfers of population within Northern Ireland or from Northern Ireland to the republic.”

Under the terms of this scheme, which the drafters said should be considered only in case of an “extremely grave emergency,” London’s ruling class intended to cede some territory on the border to the Irish Republic, from which land some 200,000 Protestants would then be moved into what remained of British Northern Ireland. At the same time, some 300,000 Catholics would be forced into the Republic of Ireland.

British officials noted that “military planning [was] well in hand” for the purpose of effecting the dual transfers, but recognized that there was the possibility of “outrage from the United States and other British allies” and that the scheme would be problematic in terms of implementation.

However, the fact remains that the so-called “democratic” government of Britain was actually considering such a plan. The only reason the plan was rejected was due to practical grounds, rather than any principled objection to the forced resettlement of half a million people.

Had the plan been carried out, both the Irish Catholics and the Irish Protestants could have charged the British government with genocide under the terms of the international Genocide Convention.
Genocide is defined in the convention as the commission of any of a number of enumerated acts “with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

The acts specifically cited in implementing legislation for the convention include killing, inflicting serious bodily injury, or causing mental impairment through torture or drugs of members of the group.

Also cited is the subjection of the victimized group to conditions of life designed to bring about its demise, restricting births within the group or transferring, by force, children of the group to another group.

Certainly, the forced and forced transfer of the Irish people would therefore constitute the crime of genocide.

It is interesting to note that in 1999, the Tony Blair government of Britain faked “outrage” over allegations that the Yugoslavian government of Slobodan Milosevic had drawn up a plan to forcibly relocate Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian population.

No evidence of this claimed plan, designated “Operation Horseshoe,” was ever presented.

Yet the British ruling class asserted that the very possibility of the existence of such a plan justified NATO’s ensuing bombardment of Yugoslavia, which inevitably killed at least 500 civilians (some sources say 1,200 to 5,700).

There has been no call by the present British government for the 1972 British genociders to be held to account.

ENDNOTE:
1. Incidentally, 1972 was the bloodiest year of Northern Ireland’s 25-year civil war. On “Bloody Sunday,” January 30, British troops shot 27 unarmed civil rights protesters in Derry, 14 of whom died.

MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER is a prolific author, journalist, media critic, talk show host and marketing professional residing in Washington, D.C. He has been active in the Revisionist movement for 28 years.

Source : http://www.fmotl.com/BritsPlannedGenocideOfIrishIn1972..htm

FINUCANE SHAM EXPOSED

Posted by Jim on

Documents presented to a judicial review this week have confirmed that
the British government staged a fake ‘review’ three years ago before
announcing its predetermined decision to rule out a public inquiry into
the killing of Belfast defence lawyer Pat Finucane.

Government memos show that former British Direct Ruler Owen Patterson
“went through the motions” of examining options in an effort to avoid an
inquiry, counsel for the murdered lawyer’s widow told the High Court.

The memos also show that the focus was on managing any political
fall-out over the refusal to order an inquiry. Barry Macdonald QC said:
“I make no apology for saying the Secretary of State (was) engaging in
this sham process.”

Mr Finucane was gunned down in front of his wife Geraldine and their
three children by a British-led loyalist death squad at their north
Belfast home in February 1989. Mrs Finucane is challenging British Prime
Minister David Cameron’s decision in 2011 to rule out an inquiry into
the shooting.

Cameron commissioned Crown barrister Desmond de Silva to review all
documents relating to the case and produce a ‘narrative’. In December
2012 de Silva’s report confirmed British agents were involved in the
murder and that it should have been prevented. However, it concluded
there had been “no overarching state conspiracy” and said there was no
need for further inquiry.

The Finucane family furiously rejected the findings as a whitewash.

MURDER BY PROXY

A four-day judicial review in Belfast this week heard that the killing
was part of a British state engagement in loyalist terrorism with
“murder by proxy”. The assassination featured a policy of infiltrating,
manipulating and resourcing loyalist paramilitaries to carry out
“extra-judicial executions”.

Mr Finucane “was identified by State agents, including particular police
officers and army officers as suitable for assassination, and he was
shot dead at the behest of state agents in front of his family in a
particularly brutal fashion,” Mr MacDonald told the court.

“The army and police and security services have all been implicated to
varying degrees in the events surrounding Mr Finucane’s death and the
operation of this policy that led to it.”

More recently, the British government unlawfully reneged on a commitment
to hold a public inquiry. Pledges to set up such a tribunal, based on
the recommendation of retired Canadian judge Peter Cory, were made by a
former Labour government in 2004 and reaffirmed in the following years.

Counsel for the British government argued in court that issues of cost
and speed had to be taken into account.

Responding, Mr Macdonald insisted that the then British Direct Ruler
Owen Patterson had made it clear he was against any more public
inquiries “full stop”. He said that “an elaborate process of
consultation” was carried out following legal advice.

“He had committed himself in opposition to having no more costly,
open-ended inquiries,” Mr Macdonald said. “They go through the motions.”
He said the internal correspondence of government officials showed that
they had “a clear result in mind”.

Internal documents between the British Prime Minister and civil servants
in November 2010 refer to the need to “think carefully” about “handling”
the fallout with their Liberal Democrat coalition partners, Sinn Fein,
the Dublin and US governments, who were all in favour of a public
inquiry.

“There is no mention of how to handle unionists and others who were
against having an inquiry,” he said. “It does tend to suggest they knew
what the decision was going to be. That there would not be an inquiry.”

CULTURE OF OBSTRUCTION

Mr MacDonald referred to government papers that acknowledged the police
and British army engaged in an “active and significant obstruction” of
an investigation carried out by former London police deputy commissioner
John Stevens.

The barrister also revealed that as well as three investigations carried
out by Stevens, the British government conducted its own confidential
assessment of the collusion claims in 1999 – a never-published document
entitled the Langdon report. The existence of the report emerged only
during the legal discovery process ahead of the judicial review.

Mr MacDonald said all the various investigations detailed evidence that
warranted examination in a public inquiry, and that successive
commitments had created a “legitimate expectation” that an inquiry would
be held.

He said the change of administration in May 2010, with Mr Cameron’s
coalition government taking over from Labour, was soon followed by the
decision to reject a public inquiry and instead commission de Silva’s
sham review of the case documents.

He also quoted correspondence from one of David Cameron’s closest
advisors which described the murder as “far worse” than anything alleged
in Iraq or Afghanistan, and that no argument existed to defend not
holding a public inquiry. Those views, according to Mr Macdonald,
strengthened the case for ordering a full examination of the
circumstances.

“An inquiry is required in this case, and the decision not to have one
is indefensible both morally and legally,” he said.

Mr Finucane’s son John and daughter Katherine were in court for the
hearing, as was the murdered lawyer’s brother Seamus.

Speaking outside court, John Finucane said the judicial review had
provided an insight into the decision-making processes at Westminster
regarding his father’s case.

He said: “What this case this week has shown is that we have a
difficulty with a hidden narrative being provided to us and the public
at large.

“What we want to see, which is reflected by the support that we receive,
is a very public examination of what went on. We wish to challenge
narratives. We wish to cross-examine witnesses, challenge documents and
really find out for ourselves exactly what went on.”

1798: The Year of Liberty

Posted by Jim on

Posted by Joe Gannon on May 13, 2015