One Law For All

Teenager, 15, facing prosecution for holding a sign labelling Scientology ‘a cult’

onelawforall — Thu, 22 May 2008 10:24:42 +0000

“The force came under fire in 2006 for accepting thousands of pounds of
hospitality from the Church of Scientology.”
Need we say more?

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:38 AM on 21st May 2008

A 15-year-old facing prosecution for holding up a placard which branded
Scientology a “cult” has appealed for help to fight possible charges.

The unnamed teenager was served the summons by City of London police
after taking part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the Church’s
London headquarters, on May 10.

Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous were outside
the church’s £23m headquarters near St Paul’s cathedral when the boy was
“strongly advised” by police to get rid of the sign which said:
“Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”.
scientology

A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and
“strongly advised” him to remove the sign.

The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which
are threatening, abusive or insulting.

But the teenager refused, and a file is now being passed to the Crown
Prosecution Service for possible legal action.

Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager says: “I need
precedents, legal advice, definitions and defences.

“I intend to make a big folder with all the defence you can give me, and
in case this does get through to court, I will be well prepared.

“Also, what’s the likelihood I’ll need a lawyer? If I do have to get
one, it’ll have to come out of my pocket money.”

Ian Haworth from the Cult Information Centre said he would avoid
labelling any organisation a “cult”, but said bringing the issue into
criminal rather than civil law would be “very serious”.

He added: “If it wasn’t so serious it would be farcical.

“I’m very upset by what appears to have happened. I hope the CPS realise
that this is an error and that nothing happens to this young man.”

Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, told the Guardian: “This barmy
prosecution makes a mockery of Britain’s free speech traditions.

“After criminalising the use of the word ‘cult’, perhaps the next step
is to ban the words ‘war’ and ‘tax’ from peaceful demonstrations?”

The teenager is seen in a video on YouTube quoting Mr Justice Latey as
having said in a court judgment in 1984 that Scientology was a “cult”
and was “corrupt, sinister and dangerous”.

However, a spokeswoman for City Police said they had received complaints
about the use of the words “cult” and “scientology kills” and warned
protestors their signs breached the Public Order Act.

Chief Supt Rob Bastable said: “City of London Police upholds the right
to demonstrate lawfully.

“But we have to balance that with the right of all sections of community
not to be alarmed, harassed or distressed as a result of other people’s
behaviour.”

The force came under fire in 2006 for accepting thousands of pounds of
hospitality from the Church of Scientology.

However a police spokeswoman said this was done in accordance with the
force’s regulations.

Brian Micklethwait enrages the hand-choppers

onelawforall — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:49:44 +0000

Brian Micklthwait enrages the hand-choppers

Mother needing transplant cannot take dead daughter’s kidney

onelawforall — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:37:34 +0000

Doctors tell mother needing transplant she cannot take dead daughter’s
kidney, despite girl’s deathbed plea

When Rachel Leake developed complications from diabetes, her selfless
daughter tried to donate one of her kidneys to save her.

But 21-year-old Laura Ashworth died suddenly before the arrangements
could be completed – and her mother has now been told the organs will go
to strangers instead.

Family and friends, who all knew of Laura’s desire to be a live donor,
tried to get the authorities to change the decision.

They even enlisted the help of local MP Gerry Sutcliffe to lobby health
ministers on Mrs Leake’s behalf, but to no avail.

Laura died after suffering massive brain damage when she stopped
breathing because of a suspected asthma attack.

One of Laura’s kidneys went to a man in Sheffield and the second to a
man in London. Her liver was given to a 15-year-old girl.

“I am angry, really angry,” said Mrs Leake, who is 39. “I am not finding
comfort at the moment in the fact that she helped three people.

“All I wanted to do was carry out her wishes. She would have been so
upset that she was able to help other people and not her own mum.

“Even the transplant co-ordinator was crying her eyes out, she really
tried to get them to change their minds but her bosses would not budge.”

But as Mrs Leake, of Bradford, West Yorkshire, prepared to pay her last
respects to her only child, a transplant co-ordinator broke the
bombshell news that Laura’s kidneys would go to strangers.

Mrs Leake, now the main carer for Laura’s two-and-a-half-year-old
daughter Macie, is on the transplant list and has to undergo dialysis
three times a week.

She has suffered from kidney failure for seven years after developing
diabetes while pregnant with Laura. She had a kidney transplant five
years ago, but that organ failed after a year.

Laura, who was on the organ donor register, had told her mum she would
be a living donor but, crucially, this was never formally recorded.

The lifelong asthmatic suffered a coughing fit on the morning of March
31 this year and collapsed on the kitchen floor of the farmhouse she
shared with her daughter, mother and grandfather Jack Ashworth.

Paramedics could not open her airways and she was taken to the intensive
care unit at Bradford Royal Infirmary, but she had suffered brain
damage.

After two days it became clear that Laura, who worked at a vehicle
management company, would not survive.

Mrs Leake said she still did not know why her request to receive her
daughter’s organs was refused.

She said: “Everyone has gone mad and everyone is disgusted. The thing
that hurts the most is how Laura would feel. She would be devastated
that she was not able to help me.

“My sister has now written down her wishes that I get her kidney if
anything was to happen to her. I will not let this go – there could be
another person it could happen to.”

A spokesman for UK Transplant said the final decision in this case was
taken by the Human Tissue Authority.

“They were the ones who in this circumstance were asked if the
daughter’s kidney could go to the mother,” he said. “Their judgement,
under the law, was that it was not allowed to happen.”

No one at the Human Tissue Authority was available for comment.

An inquest into Laura’s death has been opened and adjourned at Bradford
Coroner’s Court.

Find this story atDaily Mail online

Dutch courage!

onelawforall — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:10:39 +0000

Dutch MP posts Islam film on web

Geert Wilders has called Islam’s holy book a “fascist” text

Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders has posted a controversial film critical of Islam’s holy book, the Koran, on the internet. The opening scenes show a Koran, followed by footage of the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.

The 15-minute film was posted on a video-sharing website.

Its planned release had sparked angry protests in Muslim countries. The Dutch government has dissociated itself from Mr Wilders’ views.

The film is called “Fitna”, a Koranic term sometimes translated as “strife”. Dutch broadcasters have declined to show it.

Images from the bomb attacks on London in July 2005 and Madrid in March 2004 are also shown.
BBC online

Colin Cook brings allegations against King Fahad Academy

onelawforall — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:53:18 +0000

Colin Cook

A man who taught English at the King Fahad Academy on East Acton Lane has made allegations to a tribunal this week that.

58-year-old Colin Cook is seeking £135,000 for lost earnings and claims unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation. All the allegations are strenuously denied by the school.

Mr Cook claims he was sacked for fabricated reasons while the school claims he was sacked for misconduct.

Amongst the allegations he made are that the school is run as an extension of the Saudi embassy rather than part of the UK, that an Ofsted inspection in March 2006 failed to pick up major issues including unqualified teachers and that he was sacked after accusing children of cheating in a GCSE exam.

At the time the allegations were first made just over a year ago in the Evening Standard, the schools’s Director, Sumaya Alyusuf, said: “The Evening Standard failed to put any of the allegations to me or any member of the academy’s staff prior to publication. The allegations, made by a disgruntled ex employee, are grossly offensive, highly inflammatory and entirely false and without foundation.”

Mr Cook also alleged that some pupils “talked as if they did not live in London at all”, while others made remarks about killing Americans, praised Osama bin Laden and the September 11 attacks. He also said a school party had been thrown out of Arsenal Football Club’s museum when Saudi children fought with other pupils.

The school, which opened in 1985 for the children of Saudi diplomats and is funded and controlled by the Saudi government, has denied ever teaching racial hatred. It insists that the offending passages in the books were misinterpreted.

February 20, 2008

Read online at www.ActonW3.com with additional links

Should governments block websites?

onelawforall — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:08:43 +0000

YouTube outage blamed on Pakistan

From

Turkey and Thailand have in the past also banned access to the site

Pakistan’s attempts to block access to YouTube have been blamed for a near global blackout of the site on Sunday. Google, the owner of YouTube, blamed the outage on “erroneous internet protocols”, sourced in Pakistan

BBC News has learned that the nearly two-hour long blackout was almost certainly connected to Pakistan Telecom and internet service provider PCCW.

The country ordered ISPs to block the video-sharing website because of content deemed offensive to Islam.

The BBC News website’s technology editor, Darren Waters, says that to block Pakistan’s citizens from accessing YouTube it is believed Pakistan Telecom “hijacked” the web server address of the popular video site.

What we need to know now is whether this was a mistake or a deliberate attempt by Pakistan to disrupt YouTube

Rory Cellan-Jones

Read more on Rory’s blog

Those details were then passed on to the country’s internet service providers so that anyone in Pakistan attempting to go to YouTube was instead re-directed to a different address.

But the details of the “hijack” were leaked out into the wider internet from PCCW and as a result YouTube was mistakenly blocked by internet service providers around the world.

The block on the servers was lifted once PCCW had been told of the issue by engineers at YouTube.

A statement from Google said that the problems lasted for “about two hours”.

“Traffic to YouTube was routed according to erroneous internet protocols, and many users around the world could not access our site,” it said.

Users are quite upset. They’re screaming at ISPs which can’t do anything

Wahaj-us-Siraj, convener of the Association of Pakistan Internet Service Providers

“We have determined that the source of these events was a network in Pakistan. We are investigating and working with others in the internet community to prevent this from happening again.”

PCCW said it was aware of the occurrence and was “reviewing the event with the appropriate internal and external parties.”

A leading net professional told BBC News: “This was probably a simple mistake by an engineer at Pakistan Telecom. There’s nothing to suggest this was malicious.”

IP hijacking involves taking over a web site’s unique address by corrupting the internet’s routing tables, which direct the flow of data around the world.

Cause of ban

Reports said Pakistan made the move because YouTube content included Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that have outraged many.

But one report said a trailer for a forthcoming film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, which portrays Islam in a negative light, was behind the ban.

HAVE YOUR SAY

Using religious beliefs as a reason to block websites is completely unacceptable

John, UK

Send us your comments

“They [Pakistan's telecommunications authority] asked us to ban it immediately… and the order says the ban will continue until further notice,” said Wahaj-us-Siraj, convener of the Association of Pakistan Internet Service Providers.

The government decision has caused uproar in Pakistan, according to Wahaj-us-Siraj:

“Users are quite upset. They’re screaming at ISPs which can’t do anything.

“The government has valid reason for that, but they have to find a better way of doing it. If we continue blocking popular websites, people will stop using the internet.”

Other countries that have temporarily blocked access to YouTube include Turkey and Thailand.
From BBC online

Ahmed, the dead terrorist

onelawforall — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:13:18 +0000

New Threats to Liberty in the 21st Century from Left and Right

onelawforall — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:31:26 +0000


6.30pm, Wednesday 20th February 2008

Westminster Arms (upstairs room)
9 Storey’s Gate
London
SW1P 3AT

Admission is free, but a donation at the meeting or later is always
welcome. The meeting is open to members and non-members alike. All
speakers are “contributors to debate”. 

* * *

The Society for Individual Freedom (http://www.individualist.org.uk) is
pleased to announce that its next guest speaker will be Dr Mark
Pennington. 

Historically, conservatives and socialists have shared a suspicion of
free markets and individual liberty. For conservatives, the market
economy represents a threat to established hierarchies and the stability
of tradition and religion, while for socialists market competition has
little to distinguish it from an anarchy where the strong oppress the
weak. Notwithstanding this scepticism concerning markets, conservatives
and socialists have often found themselves on opposing sides of practical
politics. 

Today, however, there are signs of realignment in the political spectrum.
From the rise of environmentalism and anti-globalism to ‘food and health
fascism’ the forces of left and right are uniting in an anti-libertarian
direction. This realignment presents both a threat to individual liberty
and a new opportunity for those who wish to defend it. Mark Pennington
will explore these threats and opportunities and the ways in which
libertarians can makes themselves relevant in 21st century politics. 

Mark Pennington is Senior Lecturer in Political Economy in the Department
of Politics, Queen Mary, University of London.

Ron Paul makes sense so why the BBC blanket ban on reporting him?

onelawforall — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:33:55 +0000

Dominic Lawson: Once again, MPs insult our intelligence

onelawforall — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:53:43 +0000

Lawson has got it right. Why should MPs be above the law and have priveleges not granted to the rest of us. The days are over when the Commons could be run as a private club for
members

Yesterday's Commons statement by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw â€“ and
the Parliamentary interventions that followed â€“ was a sublime example.
The statement followed the revelation of the bugging of two
conversations in Woodhill prison between an alleged fundraiser for
terrorists, Babar Ahmed, and his local MP, childhood friend and ex-
lawyer, Sadiq Khan.

There is an issue here of some importance: given that Mr Ahmed is in
prison fighting extradition proceedings from the US, there is an
interesting argument about whether his defence might be prejudiced by
the handing over to the American authorities of information gained in
such a manner. Yet the Members of Parliament show no interest in this:
they are, instead, only furious that Mr Khan, one of their number â€“ and
a man at no risk of extradition â€“ has been bugged, in clear
contravention, they claim, of the "Wilson Doctrine".

This refers to the statement by the then prime minister, Harold Wilson,
to the Commons in November 2006. It followed a series of speculative
stories in the press about the bugging of MPs by the security and
intelligence services. Wilson reassured MPs that: "I felt that it was
right to lay down the policy of no tapping of the telephones of Members
of Parliament."

It is, with the benefit of hindsight, amusing â€“ if you like black humour
â€“ that one of the MPs who rose to demand such an assurance from Mr
Wilson was Tom Driberg. The Queen, on the recommendation of Harold
Wilson, made Driberg a peer in 1975; but in 1999 the release of the
Mitrokhin archive revealed to the public that Driberg had been an active
KGB agent. It is obvious why Driberg should have been anxious about
being bugged. It is not obvious why, as a Member of the Commons (or
indeed, later as a Member of the House of Lords) he should have been
afforded special protection from investigation.

As a matter of fact, I cannot quite believe that he was. In response to
Driberg's very self-interested question, Wilson declared that: "If there
was any development of a kind which required a change in the general
policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security
of the country, on my own initiative make a statement to the House about
it."

What this characteristically clever Wilson get-out actually means is
that any MP could be bugged and no one would know that the general
policy had been abandoned until the Prime Minister (or, indeed, a later
one) thought it was safe to tell the House of Commons.

Just for example, does anyone really believe that Gerry Adams or Martin
McGuinness were suddenly made exempt from bugging during the period in
which they were Members of the House of Commons? It would be
inconceivable â€“ and yet that is what MPs seem to want to believe, in
their strange parallel universe.

They also consider it an outrage that the apparent bugging of Mr Khan's
conversations with his constituent took place without a specific
authorisation by the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister. Jack Straw's
statement was slightly obscure on the actual course of events, but he
seemed to imply that the detectives operating within the prison planted
the listening devices without any specific judicial or political consent
at all.

It's a bit late for the MPs to huff and puff about this now: it was
pointed out at the time of the passing of the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Bill in 2000, that it allowed for police and prison
cells to be bugged without the police or the Prison Service having to
pass through any of the statutory controls involving a member of the
judiciary, still less a Home Secretary.

I suspect that the continuing decisions on whether to bug Babar Ahmed's
conversations with visitors were being taken by a detective with a rank
no higher than sergeant. It seems most unlikely that when Mr Khan turned
up, that this sergeant suddenly thought: "Oi,oi! Doesn't this infringe
the Wilson Doctrine?" It is even less likely given that Mr Khan had been
visiting Babar Ahmed at HMP Woodhill before he became an MP. I certainly
wouldn't blame a detective for believing that if it was alright to bug
the prison conversations that took place between the two men before Mr
Khan became an MP, then it could not suddenly be out of the question to
continue with the surveillance.

There is no suggestion that Mr Khan himself is under any form of
investigation. Yet just suppose that a Labour MP were to be suspected of
involvement with Al-Qa'ida. It seems invidious that the police or
security services should have to ask one of that man's Parliamentary
colleagues â€“ who might even be a friend â€“ if they could have permission
to put him under surveillance. Yet that is what MPs demand as their
right.

I am bound to agree with Sir Swinton Thomas, the former Interception of
Communications Commissioner, who denounced the principle of the Wilson
Doctrine in these terms: "The doctrine means that MPs and peers can
engage in serious crime or terrorism without running the risk of being
investigated in the same way as any other member of the public. It is
fundamental to the constitution of this country that no one is above the
law or seen to be above the law."

Just before Straw stood to make his statement, the Speaker of the
Commons addressed the chamber about the issue of MPs' expenses. On the
surface the two statements were entirely unconnected. In fact there is
an exact congruence between the case of Sadiq Khan and that of the Tory
MP Derek Conway â€“ in which a Commons committee thought that a suspension
of ten days was an appropriate punishment for a misuse of funds which
would have led to instant dismissal in any other business. In both cases
it is clear that the House of Commons thinks that the normal rules do
not apply to its own members.

The argument for this exceptionalism is clear â€“ and centuries old. All
MPs are, by definition, "Honourable Members". That is why it is
impermissible to accuse another member of dishonesty in the chamber. An
"Honourable Member" could not possibly be a liar; ergo, such a claim
can
not be uttered. It's a splendid way to run a club â€“ it's the way the
City of London used to work before insider dealing was made a crime.

Unfortunately for the Parliamentary romantics, the days are over when
the House of Commons could be run as a private club for members: the
trouble is that most of the members don't seem to have realised.

The independent online