Racist Pro-Zio-Nazi activists ask MPs to halt non-violent BDS protests


Australian BDS-protest-out-side-court-a

Zio-Nazi activists have urged British MPs to implement new legislation that police could use to stop non-violent, pro-BDS protests.

Manchester-based Zio-Nazi group North-West Friends of I$raHell have urged politicians to give police more power to stop boycotts of businesses by pro-Palestine solidarity activists.

As cited in a report by The Jewish Chronicle, the group’s co-chair Racist Anthony Dennison wants the Public Order Act amended “to allow police to halt non-violent protests, if they disrupted ‘the lawful right of customers and shops to trade’.” This is not I$raHell RACIST Dennison.

Zio-Nazi Dennison commented: “Peaceful protest can be intimidating, if demonstrators are stood outside a shop, holding placards with horrible images, are customers really going into that shop?”

Shame on you Nazi’s

Posted in Palestine Affairs, UK, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

I$raHell Involvement in Britain’s National Security

Global Research

‘When the British Army decided to spend £800 million on a new fleet of 54 reconnaissance drones, it chose to buy the Watchkeeper, a variant of Israel’s Hermes 450. This order is now being delivered by a joint venture controlled by ………. an Israeli defence company.’

Was this a consideration that persuaded the Cameron government to change the law on Universal Jurisdiction to allow Israeli military personnel to visit the UK without fear of private prosecution for alleged war crimes and could it be a factor in the overt support of Mr Cameron for the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) lobby in Westminster? Could it also be the reason that this government takes no action to prevent Israel’s continued expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that clearly violate international human rights law – or are all of these facts merely coincidental circumstance?

Whichever it is, it would appear to be dangerous in the extreme to allow Britain’s national security to be interdependent upon a non-European, undeclared, nuclear power in the Middle East that treats both the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions with such  contempt.

When taken together with other, unpublished, defence contracts, it is essential that the British people be made fully aware of the extent and scale of Israeli government collaboration that has been allowed to take place within the security of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind that the state of Israel is in the Middle East, not Europe, and just as obviously, is a non-member of the European Union and is not subject to its laws.

This is a concerning situation that would not appear to be in the interests of the national security and defence systems of either Britain, or the EU.


Posted in UK, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Boycott Save the Children: War Criminal Tony Blair Wins Save The Children’s “Global Legacy” Award

Global Research
Tony Blair Must Be Prosecuted

As reported in the November 20 issue of the Independent:

Tony Blair was last night recognised for his humanitarian work at a glamorous gala to raise funds for a global children’s charity – in front of guests including Lassie the dog.  The controversial former Prime Minister received the Global Legacy Award at the Save the Children Illumination Gala 2014, which was held at The Plaza in New York City.”

And this isn’t some sick, satirical joke. The man who was to a huge extent responsible for killing, injuring, displacing and immiserating several hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children (among his many other crimes and misdemeanours) has been recognised ‘for his humanitarian work’ by one the ‘Western’ world’s foremost child welfare NGOs.

And me saying that he ‘is to huge extent responsible for the killing, injuring, displacement and immiseration of several hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq’ is not just rhetoric.

To that end, it’s worth looking in a bit more depth at the scale of the catastrophe inflicted on Iraq’s children by the war that Tony Blair launched and continues to defend.

In March 2013, the charity War Child released a report entitled ‘Mission Unaccomplished’. This report documented how:

  • ’51% of 12-17 year olds do not attend secondary school’
  • ‘One in four children has stunted physical and intellectual development due to under-nutrition’.
  • ‘In 2011 a survey found up to 1 million children have lost one or both parents in the conflict’.
  • ‘In 2010, 7 years after the conflict began, it was estimated that over a quarter of Iraqi children, or 3 million, suffered varying degrees of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder’.
  • ‘Between December 2012 and April 2013, ‘An estimated 692 children and young people have been killed’ in conflict related violence, and more ‘than 1,976 children and young people have been injured’. These figures are almost certainly underestimates’.


The report also points out that the numbers presented above  ‘come to life when you realise the pain, trauma and suffering behind them.  Every number in the statistics above has a story to tell and a life attached to it’.

Going back further, the Iraqi Red Crescent had documented in 2008 how ‘children under 12 made up 58.7 percent of’ Internally Displaced Persons in the country.

The U.N. had documented how only 40% of Iraqi children had access to clean drinking water due to the effects of the war, and how they in general lacked ‘access to the most basic services and manifest a wide range of psychological symptoms from the violence in their everyday lives’.

While in 2003, The Guardian reported on how:

British and American forces were accused yesterday of breaking international rules of war after admitting that they were using cluster bombs against targets in Iraq.

The report went to explain how:

Alex Renton, overseeing Oxfam’s aid work from Jordan, said the cluster shells could cause “unnecessary harm”. The UN children’s fund, Unicef, expressed concern that Iraqi children might confuse the yellow food packets being handed out by American forces with the bomblets, which had identical colouring.


That Tony Blair’s policies helped to inflict immense and ongoing hardship on the children of Iraq is beyond question. While he may not have personally been firing the cannons and dropping the bombs, as one of the architects of the aggression against Iraq he is ultimately responsible for the ‘accumulated evil of the whole’, as per the Nuremberg judgements.

What, then, could possibly explain Save The Children’s decision to give a man who is widely reviled as an amoral war criminal, and rightly so, such an award?

Personally, I think one reason could be that their Chief Executive is a fellow named Justin Forsyth. According to his biography on the Save The Children website, Forsyth was in 2004:

  . . . recruited to Number 10 by Tony Blair where he led efforts on poverty and climate change . . . He was to stay on under Gordon Brown, becoming his Strategic Communications and Campaigns Director.


So Forsyth was actaully an underling of Tony Blair (and then Gordon Brown) at precisely the time they were ravaging Iraq.

I’d hazard that he shares broadly the same pro-Establishment values and ideological assumptions as Blair, and has taken those pro-Establishment values and assumptions with him to Save The Children. And when you think of just how rotten the British Establishment is, that can’t be a good thing.

This isn’t the first time that Save The Children have demonstrated that they are unhealthily close to the British and U.S. Establishments, either.

In 2013, for example, they appointed Samantha Cameron, the partner of British Prime Minister David Cameron, as their ambassador to Syria.

It’s worth remembering that David Cameron’s government were (and still are) arming and training elements within the rebel opposition, and thus constituted one side in the conflict, at the very time Samantha Cameron was appointed.

And as a little thought experiment, what might the reaction have been had they instead appointed Lyudmila Putin, the partner of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, as their ambassador to Syria? I very much doubt that it would have gone almost totally unremarked upon, as Samantha Cameron’s appointment did.

To take another example, The Guardian had reported in 2003 on how Save The Children had been:

ordered to end criticism of military action in Iraq by its powerful US wing to avoid jeopardising financial support from Washington and corporate donors

And then how:

Senior figures at Save the Children US . . . demanded the withdrawal of the criticism and an effective veto on any future statements blaming the invasion for the plight of Iraqi civilians suffering malnourishment and shortages of medical supplies.


An affair which surely needs no further commentary.

I’ve often thought that the bigger and more established humanitarian and human rights NGOs don’t come in for anywhere near as much scrutiny from the liberal-left as they should. They kop an awful lot of criticism from the right, but it seems to me that for a section of the liberal-left,  their research carries an air of unimpeachable neutrality and unquestionable moral probity.

And i’m not saying they don’t do some good work. But at the very least, their output helps to shape popular attitudes towards matters of war, peace and governance in general, and should be engaged with more critically for that reason.

I’ve also often thought that an analytical model similar to – if distinct from in some important respects – the one Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman applied to corporate media performance might be useful in assessing NGO performance. What role, if any, does funding, ideology, sourcing, management/ownership and flak play in shaping their output?

For a start, it might help to explain why former officials of the U.S. and U.K. government keep on ending up in positions of power in these organisations.

It would take a bigger brain than mine to undertake such a project – although activists like Keane Bhatt are doing great work in this area – but last night’s utter travesty shows why it would be useful.

Posted in UKComments Off

EU Wobbles Amid Conflicting Priorities


Exclusive: The 28-nation European Union was always a tenuous affair, pulling together historic enemies and nations with conflicting economic priorities, but now those stresses – a triple-dip recession and differences over Ukraine and immigration – are threatening to splinter the EU, writes Andrés Cala.

By Andrés Cala

The European Union views itself as the defender of much that is right in the world – standing for human rights, embracing international law, generous with developing nations, protective of the environment, insisting on fiscal probity in economics while maintaining a sturdy social safety net at home. But this self-image of righteousness often conflicts with reality while also spurring divisions among the EU’s 28 nations about which moral imperative should take precedence.

Indeed, one could argue that the EU’s conflicting concepts of righteousness are undermining Europe’s ability to resolve the most serious problems at home and abroad, especially because the Continent’s de facto leader, Germany, is increasingly at odds with its neighbors.

President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron talk at the G8 Summit in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, June 17, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron talk at the G8 Summit in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, June 17, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

For instance, Germany takes a moralistic stance in insisting on fiscal austerity even in the face of high unemployment and human suffering in several EU nations that instead want deficit spending and public investments to spur growth and avert (or minimize) the EU’s third recession since the financial crash of 2008. France, Spain and Italy have been leading this anti-austerity drive, also citing moral arguments about saving Europeans from poverty and despair.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, with the EU’s most powerful military, favors “humanitarian” interventions supposedly on behalf of democracy and human rights in places such as Syria and Ukraine. Yet, while boasting about its commitment to human rights, the UK bristles at the EU’s liberal policies allowing the free flow of EU citizens across traditional national borders, a dispute that has led to speculation about the UK possibly going its own way.

“Britain will always step up,” British Prime Minister David Cameron said recently about the need to address global injustices, “not just because it is morally right, but also because it is the best way of protecting our people and dealing with the instability that threatens our long-term [economic] prosperity.”

But some in Europe question the wisdom and legality of the UK’s interventions in other nations’ affairs, especially given the bloodshed and disorder surrounding the British military’s role in the U.S.-led Afghan and Iraq wars. To the UK’s critics inside the EU, it’s also unclear if Cameron’s hard-line against the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad – while couched in moral terms – might not lead to even worse violence if Sunni extremists from Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State end up the winners in Damascus.

Similarly, the UK’s stern anti-Russian stance over the crisis in Ukraine – shared by some other countries in both Europe’s west and east – has the prospect of causing more pain for the peoples of Ukraine, Russia and even Europe than any good that might result from prying Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence and pulling it into the EU’s orbit.

Concern over the consequences of possibly overplaying the West’s hand in its showdown with Russia on Ukraine is strongly felt in Germany where Chancellor Angela Merkel has tried to walk a middle line, harshly critical of Russia in rhetoric but hesitant to engage in a full-scale economic war with a major trading partner that supplies much of the EU’s natural gas.

“I can’t see how [sanctions against Russia] would help us move forward economically,” German Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel said this month. “It’s right that Angela Merkel [is] focusing on dialogue – and not confrontation as others are. … I think it’s totally wrong to react with permanent NATO saber-rattling on the Russian border.”

Moreover, the moral issue of Ukraine is not clear-cut since Germany and the EU contributed to the crisis by giving Ukrainians, especially those in the western provinces, unrealistic expectations about the prospects for easy prosperity if they signed an association agreement with the EU and possibly joined NATO.

Those dangled hopes, in a country of crushing poverty and corrupt politics, spurred on mass demonstrations that destabilized the elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych and ousted him in a coup d’etat in February. That split Ukraine between west and east and opened a chasm that led to secession demands from ethnic Russians, followed by a nasty civil war. Ukraine became the scene of a proxy struggle in a new Cold War between Russia and the U.S./EU.

The possible encroachment of NATO into Ukraine on Russia’s border also crossed a red line drawn long ago by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Soon, the sides were posturing over Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and annexation by Russia as well as arguing about an uprising in Ukraine’s eastern Russian-speaking provinces where Yanukovych had his political base.

“If the West is honest with itself, it has to admit that there were mistakes on its side,” said former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in a recent interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel.

When asked whether the West shared responsibility in escalating the conflict, he said “Europe and America did not understand the impact of these events, starting with the negotiations about Ukraine’s economic relations with the European Union and culminating in the demonstrations in Kiev. All these, and their impact, should have been the subject of a dialogue with Russia. This does not mean the Russian response was appropriate.”

Russia can live with the fragile status quo of a pro-Western government in Kiev and autonomous ethnic Russian provinces in the east, but the crisis could quickly deteriorate if a shaky cease-fire completely breaks down and the civil war resumes in full. Merkel has warned that if Russia’s military openly intervenes, that would provoke an escalation of sanctions to punish Moscow – even if the sanctions would also punish Germany and the EU.

In the event of a full-scale civil war in Ukraine, the U.S. and UK would likely push Germany aside and organize a more hawkish military response, further disrupting the economic situation inside the EU.

These divisions over geopolitics – among countries that historically have pursued sharply different foreign policies – have left the EU unable to speak with anything like a single voice, essentially making Europe an indecisive and stagnant player in global affairs.

Germany also is facing a strong EU backlash against its orthodox economic policies which were imposed on the EU to rein in European government debt especially in Mediterranean nations. This strategy initially helped restore faith in the EU’s ability to recover from the financial crisis, but now those policies are being blamed for the region’s economic stagnation.

Many Europeans even blame Merkel’s austerity recipe for tipping Europe back into yet another recession, which is made potentially more dangerous by the prospect of deflation, the decline in consumer prices that can result from weak demand or an insufficient money supply. A similar debt trap hobbled Japan’s once vibrant economy and left it limping for the past two decades.

If deflation is not countered – by raising demand or expanding the money supply – it can begin a downward spiral of falling profits, declining investments, stunted consumer spending, debt delinquency, unemployment and bankruptcies. Such a crisis could spread quickly through the EU backbone, the 18-member eurozone which shares the euro as a common currency and limits what individual countries can do to address their own economic problems.

But Germany remains strongly opposed to any form of monetary easing, mindful of its catastrophic experience with hyperinflation throughout its history.

Amid this economic malaise, the EU is alarmed by the rise of radical parties, from the left and right, and by a nationalist and euroskeptic resurgence which is blamed on the austerity policies demanded by Germany. France especially has been jolted by the gains of the extreme-right National Front, even if that surge represents more a protest against the traditional parties than a popular commitment to the National Front’s platform.

Further adding to the EU’s uncertainty, Cameron has proposed a 2017 referendum in UK on whether to quit the EU. At this point, Cameron seems to be facing a likely reelection defeat in 2015 after years of economic pain, but his biggest threat may come from the growing anti-European movement within his own Conservative constituency which he is seeking to placate with the promise for a get-out-of-the-EU referendum.

In any case, the future EU looks likely to have a more diverse approach to leadership with Germany’s role diminished by the greater assertiveness from France, Spain, Italy, the UK and other major European countries. And, the European nations will surely continue to express their differences over what the Continent’s moral priorities ought to be.

Posted in UK, USA0 Comments

The UK Labour Party is Not Socialist ” VIDEO ”

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr


poll indicated that half of the British voters figure that Zionist Ed Miliband should be dumped as Labour leader before the next general election.

Some 49 per cent think that Miliband should be replaced – including 43 per cent of Labour supporters. It is hard to imagine, but Miliband is even less popular than Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg who managed to alienate just 44% of the voters.

As the Brits were expressing their disapproval of ‘Red Ed’ and his clumsy politics, the Labour leader found the time to socialist with the Jewish Lobby.


Posted in UK, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

UK local council boycotts I$raHell squatter products


A British local council has voted to boycott products made in Jewish squatter colonies in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian West Bank, one of the first such moves by an elected body in the UK.

The boycott resolution, adopted by Leicester City Council on 14 November, cited Israel’s continued breach of international law, the Geneva Conventions, UN resolutions and its occupation of Palestinian territories, Friends of Al-Aqsa, a UK-based non-profit-making body, reported.

Boycott Israeli goods

“Leicester is a city renowned for its tolerance, diversity, unity and its strong stance against all forms of discrimination,” said the text of the motion.

The move was welcomed by pro-Palestinian groups, including Leicester-based Friends of Al Aqsa (FOA), which called it a “step in the right direction”.

“Israel has been dehumanising Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip for decades while profiting from their resources and labour,” said the FOA’s chairman, Ismail Patel.

“I hope other councils and organisations in the country will follow Leicester’s example and say no to the continued oppression of Palestinians,” he added.

Posted in UK, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Britain and the Global Economy in Crisis


Why don’t you believe them? “Red lights are flashing on the dashboard of the global economy”.

Global Research

David Cameron, Prime Minister of Britain wrote an article which was published in The Guardian yesterday .  The headline “Red lights are flashing on the global economy” in my opinion is very true  what followed the headline with was not.  In this article which was penned after leaving the G-20 summit, Mr. Cameron went on to mostly tell the truth about the global woes but was very careful to exclude Great Britain.  To me, this sounded like some sort of “whistle stop” campaign about how well Britain is being managed and their risk is the possibility of being tipped over by global events.

“Well managed” he purports?  This is not even close to being so and the “austerity” he speaks of is only a pipe dream and no longer even an option.  I would ask him a few questions were he willing to take any, such as “didn’t Britain try austerity for 6 months or so only to find out it cannot be implemented without an economic and financial implosion”?  I might even ask him how he feels now that Britain sold 60% of their gold reserves at the worst prices possible since 1979 …but that wouldn’t be a gentlemanly question would it?

In any case, let’s look at the headline ..”red lights are flashing on the dashboard of the global economy”.  This is true nearly all over the world.  As a matter of fact, the “engine” for global growth just announced one of their diesel tanks as empty.  It’s been discovered that China’s “shadow banking system” had a huge increase in bad debt .  Understand that this is not the “core” banking system but this did add to China’s growth acting as an afterburner of hot and easy credit.  A reversal of this credit will surely drag on the economy and will probably even surprise the complacent as to where it shows up.  “Where” being further news on hypothecated, re hypothecated and re re re hypothecated commodities.  We still don’t know fully how the warehouse frauds uncovered earlier in the year will fall, a decline in credit from the shadow banking system can only reveal more fraud!

So David Cameron “covered his butt” with the headline, when the time comes he can now say “I told you so, you should have listened to me”.  Unlike David Cameron who is still in office and trying to cover his reputation, there are two ex U.S. government officials who are and have been telling you the truth for years, Paul Craig Roberts and David Stockman.  Mr. Roberts was asst. Treasury Secretary from 1975-1978 and David Stockman was the Director of OMB under Reagan.  When I read or first heard their opinions I can remember thinking “WOW, this guy is from the government and telling the truth!”.  This is still so today and both of these men seem to be getting louder and much more urgent in their warnings.  Neither hedges nor flip flops in their opinions which I respect as much as I do their logic.  They have been and are telling you the absolute truth and doing so in my opinion out of pure “character”!  They both say “it’s over” from a mathematical standpoint, I don’t understand why anyone even questions what they say?

Another ex “federal” employee who has been boisterous lately is Alan Greenspan.  I have recently written how he is out selling books and trying to clean up his legacy.  Part of this has been to admit gold in fact is money, it is better than any fiat ever and that there will be “great financial difficulties” at some point.  Mr. Roberts and Mr. Stockman, unlike Alan Greenspan, are not out on the speaking circuit trying to clean up their legacies, they are firmly and cleanly intact.  They I believe are trying to help anyone who would listen while Alan Greenspan’s motive in my opinion is one of “don’t blame me, I warned you”.

There are others of course but these four will suffice for what I am trying to get across to you.  “why don’t people believe them”?  Yes I know, if you are reading this then you probably do believe them but why don’t the masses?  I have an opinion on this, I think most people know “something” is wrong, VERY wrong.  Many don’t really know what it is and wouldn’t really understand it unless handed to them on a platter.  Most people are not “wired” to understand economics or finance.  Some, many, are just too worn down by daily life to bother “figuring it out” while others (MANY) just want to bury their heads in the sand …because the truth is just too ugly to bare!

I do understand the concept of the masses being slowly and methodically being “dumbed down” over the years.  Notice I used the word “methodically” which in my mind includes “intent”.  I say this because a knowledgeable and well informed population is hard to pull the wool over their eyes …a dumbed down population on the other hand will (has) stand by and accept things the “way they are”.  This is important because our “money” system is fake and fraudulent, sadly only one or two out of 100 in the West understands this.  The rest of the world still “gets it” which is why Western vaults are being raided by Eastern buyers.

Once all is said and done, the majority in the West will finally get it but unfortunately this will be too late.  I have always said that “one second too late is equal to a lifetime”, unfortunately this is the case.  “We” cannot save the masses as they will not listen for whatever their personal reasons.  What we can do is try.  I would urge anyone reading this to pass my writings along to friends and loved ones that you care about.  When you come across Paul Craig Roberts or David Stockman’s writings or anyone else “who makes sense” …forward it!  Yes I know, you have tried this and either lost friends or became the “black sheep fool of the family”.  All you can do is try!  Time is very short now, we know this because the Achilles Heel, gold supply, has become very tight.  We know this because even career politicians like David Cameron have told you.  We know this because many Western nations have already proposed and signed “bail ins” where bank balances will be stolen upon the financial collapse.  We know this for so many various reasons, not the least of which is your own common sense.

To finish, I want to link to Mr. Roberts and Stockman’s latest work.  Does it sound like things are a “little bad”?  Or does it sound like the system is hopelessly broken?  Please understand this if nothing else,  Stockman and Roberts have no ax to grind whatsoever. They worked in government during a time when “serving your country” was still the mindset.  Please read their latest,  here  and here  these are their honest opinions!  It’s over …and only a matter of time until our world reflects this fact!


Posted in UK0 Comments

Unfree Trade Agreements: The Abdication of Democracy

Global Research
Cameron Obama

Dogmas, by their nature, are impervious to the fresh air of questioning revision. The dogma of free trade, much to the misfortune of non-corporate beings, is all to representative of this.  As Richard Denniss points out, “Like buying a house, it’s easy to get a free trade agreement if you don’t care what you get or how much you pay.”[1]  The principle of swapping a technology or a product one has with another country that does not have it, is a dandy thing, provided it takes place in the theorised control room of an economist’s vacuous world.  The legal and politics side of things tends to be left danglin, if, indeed, it is considered at all.

The cult of free trade was given voice in the UK Prime Minister’s recent address to the Australian parliament.  While David Cameron was also talking about subtracting freedoms from various UK citizens returning back from Syria and Iraq, he was also having a good go at sentiments of “protectionism”. “One of the greatest threats to our values and to our success is the spectre of protectionism.”[2]  We should resist it in “the modern integrated global economy”.

To that end, Cameron and other EU leaders are mulling over plans for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which, he has decided, “is a deal we want”.[3]  The EU member states engaged the European Commission to start negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States in June 2013.

To that end, Cameron is dismissive about domestic erosions and challenges provided by such arrangements.  “Some people argue in some ways that this could damage the NHS.  I think that is nonsense. It’s our National Health Service. It’s in the public sector, it will stay in the public sector.”  How could those flat-earth theorists assume that Britain’s NHS could be weakened by such a deal?  Len McCluskey of the Unite union certainly thinks so, suggesting that the NHS is “being taken over by Wall Street”.[4]

He has a point.  The Health and Social Care Act 2012 increased the number of private providers in the NHS system.  Since coming into force, the act has seen 70 percent of health services put out to private tender.  Suggesting that the NHS is an untouchable creature in a world of back door and overt privatisation is itself the nonsense behind the supposedly beneficial effects of a free trade arrangement.  Medical policy invariably spills over into corporate conduct, or corporate recalcitrance, if the market line refuses to play with the political one.  McCluskey’s point is simple: exempt it, or there will be union inspired blood.

Nor is McCluskey alone.  The EU itself is examining responses to a consultation on problems with the TTIP, garnering 149,399 online contributions, with 38.4 percent coming from the UK alone.[5]  In the words of the Consultation, completed on July 13 this year, “The key issue on which we are consulting is whether the EU’s proposed approach for TTIP achieves the right balance between protecting investors and safeguarding the EU’s right and ability to regulate in the public interest.”[6]

It is questionable whether the balance struck can ever be appropriate in such cases.  For one, it vests a barnstorming power in the hands of foreign investors if they feel the government in question has broken rules contrary to company interests.  This process is given a legal veneer of an international tribunal, which sounds much like validating an act of international pilfering.  The language in the agreement is never framed so bluntly – diplomats have termed this “investment protection” and “Investor-to-state dispute settlement” or ISDS.

George Monbiot suggests that this is a crumpling blow to the credentials of democracy, which goes to show that free trade deals of monumental proportions tend to undermine the role of parliament and the voices of the voting public.  They also suggest the abdication of public duty, where parliamentarians become empty projections and silent underminers of the public interest.  “Remember the referendum about whether we should create a single market with the United States?  You know, the one that asked whether corporations should have the power to strike down our laws?  No, I don’t either.”[7]

Such arrangements are becoming habitual, forming the euphemistic argot of political discourse.  Australia’s Abbott government is rushing pen to paper regarding a host of free trade agreements that will have similar effects.  Such pacts are being pursued with only the slightest murmur of protest, largely because the policy toffs are convinced that free trade is actually free of cost.  One such example is the impeding FTA with Beijing, lauded on the just concluded visit to Australia by President Xi Jinping.

Only the Greens have ventured to remind legislators that Chinese private and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) stand to profit in legal actions against the Australian government over ISDS provisions.  According to Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, Greens spokesman for Trade, “This is a new era in Australian governance.”  The ISDS provisions “opened a Pandora’s Box that will leave a lasting legacy of doubt over the Australian Parliament’s ability to make laws in the national interest without fear of litigation from a Chinese investor.”[8]

Canberra’s enthusiasm in this regard is misplaced, given the consequences of allowing the corporate beast into Parliament’s sacred domain.  Tobacco giants Philip Morris used the trade agreement between Hong Kong and Australia in 2011 to target Canberra’s decision that cigarettes be sold in plain packets marked by morbidly graphic health warnings.  Their argument was that the tobacco maestros be awarded money for diminishing the value of their trademarks.[9]  Philip Morris spokeswoman, Anne Edwards, anticipated “that the compensation would amount to billions.”

Cameron is simply dismissive of such cases, choosing to consider trade deals as minor adjustments with major benefits.  “We’ve signed trade deal after trade deal and it’s never been a problem in the past.”  Trade deals are one thing, but the free trade deal is a legal creature that seeks to transform domestic markets with a heavy corporate code fanged by legal sanctions. It removes citizens from the process, and privileges companies as private persons who can raid public purses when their products fall foul of domestic legislation.  Like similar agreements on the tables, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, it takes place in hermetic conditions.  There is minimal scrutiny.

The final unedifying feature of such pacts is that they tend to be so loaded with such heavy exemptions and dispensations, they sink.  Running into hundreds of pages, they are fodder for specialists in international trade litigation, putting pay to Cameron’s fantasy that trade “enables the specialisation that can enrich us all.”  Lawyers and companies muse even as domestic political systems vanish.  Be wary, then, of the hefty costs of any free trade agreement.


Posted in UK, USA0 Comments

British Islamophobia: Muslim charities slam ‘too much’ surveillance


British Muslim leaders and activists have denounced the government for keeping “excessive” watch on UK Muslims and charity groups.

A report by the think tank Claystone says of the 76 charities currently being investigated by the UK’s Charity Commission, 20 are known to be Muslim-led organizations.

Claystone, along with other Muslim advocacy organizations, have criticized what they see as the Charity Commission’s “targeting” of Islamic organizations, which they claim has intensified since William Shawcross took the helm.

Shawcross, who once told the conservative Henry Jackson Society think tank that “Europe and Islam” were among the world’s most “terrifying” problems, has previously highlighted the threat of extremists operating through Islamic charities.

Now activist and Islamic scholar Shabbir Hassanally believes such a trend will only backfire in the long run.

Hassanally has told Press TV’s UK Desk that “excessive surveillance is counterproductive as people have a right to privacy,” adding that the governments are responsible for such actions.

“Any organization, any government that is incessantly, insidiously spying and surveilling either the entire population or most of its population is ultimately doomed to fail,” he added.

The activist added that “the Western governments are nervous about Muslims mobilizing, coming together for any cause.”

He also noted that these governments “engendered and promote this idea of Islamophobia” to achieve their goals.

Meanwhile, CAGE, an Islamic advocacy organization has said that abstract uses of the term “extremism” had resulted in some charities being under “perpetual investigation,” which provokes suspicion towards Muslim activist groups.

Posted in UK0 Comments



Zio-Nazi BBC

Action Alert: BBC Bias continues as Palestinian murders ignored

* BBC Covers tragic Synagogue deaths in Jerusalem as headline news, and plays down Palestinian deaths.

* Write to the BBC and demand fair and balances reporting.

The BBC News online headline article today was ‘Bloody attack at Jerusalem synagogue’ featuring a report, analysis by a correspondent, a picture blog, and a live blog containing updates every few minutes.

Examples of the pictures used in the report and photo blog seemed to have been selected to bring out a strong emotive response amongst the audience. They included the bloodied prayer shawls of the victims, and images of what the BBC alleged were Palestinians celebrating the attack.

In contrast, recent reports on Palestinian victims of Israeli violence were muted:

* Palestinian bus driver, Hassan Yousef Al Ramouni, believed to have been lynched by Israeli settlers had not been mentioned at all by the BBC until the attack on the synagogue, where it was mentioned only in reference to a Hamas statement on the synagogue attack. AFP and major Israeli outlets reported Hassan’s death.

* On November 11th, the BBC reported the killing of 22-year-old Imad Jawabreh using quotation marks around ‘shot dead by Israeli army’ as if there was any conflicting report over who had shot Jawabreh.

By the fourth paragraph of the report, there was mention of attacks against an Israeli soldier and civilians in an attempt to contextualise the killing. By contrast, the article on the synagogue attack contains no reference to killings of Palestinians by Israelis.

Unlike the story on the synagogue attack, there is no live blog and no use of evocative imagery, instead a generic image of an Israeli jeep is used.

* The BBC only reported on the killing of Khayr al-Din Hamdan, shot dead by Israeli police while his back was turned once. The incident was caught on camera, but the BBC has not followed up on this clear example of police brutality.

Bring the BBC to account and question them over this bias reporting which conflates Israeli deaths while understating Palestinian deaths.

Posted in Campaigns, UK, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments


Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field