Why we need a new Bill of Rights

Why we need a new Bill of Rights

By Dark Politricks

A recent satirical survey carried out by Mark Dice showed that people were willing to sign a petition banning Christian symbols, Christmas lights, bumper stickers and other forms of expression covered by the 1st Amendment. His bigger coup was showing up the American people for signing another petition banning the first amendment altogether.

It seems no matter what crazy things Mark says to the signers they willingly agree to remove their own freedom. He uses Obama, racism, the Tea Party and even the New World Order to persuade people to sign, not that they need much persuading.

Even when he thanks people for "helping to repeal free speech" or "repeal the first amendment" from the USA they happily nod, agree and then sign on the dotted line.


The people signing these petitions should obviously be ashamed of themselves but it goes to show the indoctrination that has been achieved by politicians and the media.

Job well done it seems! These people are almost too eager to sign their freedoms away.

Here in the UK we don't have a written constitution and our bill of rights (1689) which was inspiration for the USA is more concerned with limiting the power of the Crown, ensuring that our parliament is regularly elected and that the people we elect to it have the right to speak freely without fear of retribution from the Crown.

Remember that this was one of the first documents of its kind in the modern world so it's nowhere near perfect and it followed the English civil war in which we deposed and killed our monarch and then replaced him with a quasi-religious military family dictatorship or what historians call a "Protectorate".

This was a bit like North Korea today along with a puritanical religious nature and it involved a dictatorial dynasty i.e Oliver Cromwell and then his 3rd son Richard. The Cromwells, along with the military and their "Godly Governors" ruled the country until the monarchy was restored later in the century.

However our bill of rights, the preceeding Magna Carta, the writ of habeas corpus and it's codified version in law the Habeas Corpus Act plus the writings of many enlightened English philosophers of the time such as John Locke and Thomas Paine, helped inspire and create the US Bill of Rights.

However, whilst this bill is something to be proud of, and US school children are taught from an early age that the Constitution is the primary law of the land and no other law can supersede it, it seems nowadays that either the US Government doesn't preach what it teaches in its public schools or just believes, as George W Bush famously did, that it's just a piece of paper.

Since 9.11, laws such as the PATRIOT ACT have removed many rights enshrined in the constitution and many local courts in the USA have actually found it and the FISA court to be in blatant violation of the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano explains about the recent NSA Prism revelations that the US/UK governments are conducting massive surveillance on millions of people without a warrant, the mass spying of Americans, whilst allowed by the PATRIOT ACT breaches the constitution which trumps it in law, or is supposed to!


With Obama now being able to act like a king with the NDAA (The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013) behind him, and the country still be ruled under emergency laws enacted after 9.11, he is now able to do such things as:

-allow for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President." (Section 1021)

-to allow force (and military detention) against not only those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and countries which harbored them, but also anyone who "substantially supports" Al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces" (Section 1031)

-mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system (section 1032)

Therefore, he can now, if he so wished, declare you a terrorist or "domestic extremist" by using NSA hovered up and illegally obtained data, and then if he so wished either detain you without due process indefinitely, or if you lived abroad, send a drone to kill you and your family in the manner he dispatched Anwar al Awlaki and his son in Yemen.

The bill also basically dispenses with Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, which says that nobody can be punished for treason without heightened due process requirements being met. Lets wait and see what happens to Edward Snowden. Is he a traitor for exposing massive and illegal spying by the NSA or a traitor for letting the people know what the Government is doing to them?

Therefore with free speech under attack due to massive state surveillance and unwarranted search and seizure of property such as any electronical private effects e.g emails, direct message tweets or text messages. And as Mark Dice has shown, a populace all too willing to just "sign a petition" abolishing their rights without second thought I am asking you today what you think our rights should be in this modern-day and age.

Do we need extra protections from government surveillance?

Is the requirement for a well maintained militia and the bearing of arms still needed when the US military is the largest on earth and a few handguns wouldn't last long against the local police force let alone the US military - not that you can tell the two apart lately.

What about limits on free speech? Should you have the right to be offended or can I be racist, sexist, anti-religious and homophobic to you all without fear of punishment?

Taking a well-known section of the European Convention of Human Rights - Article 3, which prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Do Americans need to incorporate this into a bill after their water boarding, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo "enhanced interrogation" escapades?

What about Article 11 that supposedly protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions.

This seems to be trumped by local laws such as "free speech zones" in the USA or the much hated English Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which banned people assembling to "rave" i.e party.

This law also and allowed for courts to make certain inferences if a defendant remained silent in custody or for the police to take intimate body samples on arrest and keep them whether or not the accused is ever convicted in court - an act that has been found to violate European law multiple times.

It seems that in this modern day and age people on all sides of the Atlantic need a Bill of Rights that protects them from their own government. What I'd like to know is which rights are most important to you.

Some of these points cross over and in a new bill they would be sectioned together. Therefore you may want to vote for more than one but I want to know the right that you feel is most important to you in your daily life.

For example is your right to speak freely without fear of being bugged and arrested more important than a theoretical chance that you might overthrow your government with your firearms?

If something important is missing just add it in the other section and feel free to use the comment section to expand on your points if you do.




View the original article "A New Bill of Rights" at www.darkpolitricks.com.

Terrorism is not an excuse for the loss of our liberties

Terrorism is not an excuse for the loss of our liberties

By Dark Politricks

The war on terror has been used by the UK government as a battering ram to the rights of the citizens of this country. New laws have been passed including 2 new terrorism acts (2000 and 2006) which have restricted free speech, the rights of demonstrators to protest and have given the police new powers of stop and search and lets not forget the 28 days detention and control orders.

Now you may say "well you have nothing to fear unless you have something to hide" which is a bend over attitude that leads to fascism. I am not a terrorist but nor are most people who have been affected by this new age of fighting terrorism.

Its the thin edge of the wedge which has taken advantage of peoples justifiable fears about terrorist attacks to introduce laws that if only applied to real terrorists would be fine however who can forget the 82 year old Walter Wolfgang who was dragged out of the Labour conference for heckling Jack Straw under the terrorism act in 2005. Or what about Gordon Brown invoking the terrorism act to freeze Iceland's bank accounts during 2008?

Just these two acts alone prove how our government intends to use these new powers for reasons other than fighting terrorism.

Once the public has been forced into a mindset that demands protection from unseen shadowy terrorists and that they must be dealt with severely it then allows the government to widen the scope of what actually constitutes terrorism.

One day you are a protester exercising your legal right of protest the next you are a terrorist trying to overthrow the state with subversive acts. Take a look over the pond to see how the US government is trying to class gun owners, ex servicemen and Ron Paul supporters as domestic terrorists.

It seems that the US constitution is slowly being eroded bit by bit. I never used to understand the Americans fascination with their right to bear guns however the more I have read up about Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers and their desire to protect the people against the tyranny of government it makes perfect sense. I especially love the following two quotes that Jefferson made:

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not .warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I have come to have a renewed respect for the founding fathers of America and the contemporary patriots who want the US government to return to the constitution. The world would be a quieter and probably safer place if it did.

Even though Jefferson and Washington kicked their British rulers out during the war of Independence us Brits must never forget that the father of the revolution was Thomas Paine an Englishman whose books the Age of Reasonand the Rights of Man had enormous influence on the Age of Enlightenment and the revolutions of France and America.

Two new republics were born that decreed that man had inalienable rights that could not be taken away by government. Therefore when people see their government treating their constitution as "just a piece of paper"as George Bush famously called it and trampling over their rights including the right to bear arms as if their inalienable rights were just an outdated idea that had no place in this century then I can see why they get so upset over the 2nd amendment.

Here in the UK its too late as we are currently a disarmed nation since the massacres of Dunblane and Hungerford took our guns away but then unlike the Americans we never had an inalienable right to bare arms anyway.

In fact although the UK passed the first ever bill of rights in 1689 it was never thought necessary for us to have a written constitution like the French and Americans.

I personally think it would be in our own best interests to draw up our own document as soon as possible. Yes we have the Human Rights act of 1998 which the right wing media decries and complains about almost every other day as something that has been imposed on us from Europe. However ridiculous the examples the Daily Mail and Express use to denigrate this act seem we should never feel that getting rid of that act would be in our best interest.

Civil rights have been hard fought and won through years of battle between state and its populace and any document that tries to enshrine our rights for future prosperity should be cherished and held in high esteem. We should also remember that it was British lawyers that drew up the Europen Convention on human rights in 1950, that the act is based on, after the horrors of the second world war. So we should view this act as yet another example of us Brits bringing civil rights to the world rather than Europe imposing some alien concept on us.

From the Magna Carta in 1215, through to John Lockes and Thomas Hobbes social contract between man and the state through to the first Bill of Rights and then the Human Rights act we Brits have been at the forefront of civil rights and we should not let the fear of terrorism allow any of these hard won rights to be taken away as once gone they will probably not come back unless a Liberal Democrat government gets in power which seems most unlikely.

We are slowly walking down the path to a place that I don't want to call home. When George Orwells 1984 starts to become a commentary on modern times then we must all stop and ask ourselves what the hell is going on.

By Dark Politricks

The New UK Government Plans To Make Us All Terrorists

The New UK Government Plans To Make Us All Terrorists

By Dark Politricks

This is a recent video from Russell Brand about the new UK Tory governments plans for a new anti terror bill that will crack down on free speech and other civil liberties.

It seems that with every new government we get a new "anti terrorism" law passed, Tony Blair passed at least 2 that I can remember. They were mostly used for memorable things such as:

• Freezing all Icelandic money in UK banks after the Iceland Banking crisis - something which the Icelandic people have never forgiven us for. From my recent trip to Iceland I would not be surprised to see a statue of Gordon Brown put up in Reykjavik just so that people could throw tomatoes at it.
• Throwing out and then arresting OAP protestors from Labour conferences who dared shout out "liar" as the warmongers on stage defended their illegal war on Iraq.
• Allowing M16 / MI5 Agents to pass questions to CIA torturers at "black site" prisons and Gitmo, who then proceeded to abuse, humiliate and injure the prisoners many of which were innocent. The ones that are not, including leaders of the now destabilised mess of a country we "liberated" called Libya, are even now trying to sue the government for their complicity in torture e.g Abdul Hakim Belhaj. This included one incident in which one British jihadi’s fingernails were ripped out after MI6 suggested that a notorious Pakistani intelligence agency detain him, and MI5 and Greater Manchester police drew up questions to be put to him.
• Cracking down on tourists and other photographers within London taking photos of buildings as they could be "planning terrorist" attacks.

We should always be careful when "new" terrorism laws are proposed. Especially as with the current one it is to be "fast tracked" through government.

This means no proper debate over the merits of the bill and no proper time to propose amendments and changes to the bill.

Hopefully enough libertarian/liberal-minded Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and hopefully Tory back benchers will stand up against this act of tyranny.

As I said in my last piece, the UK Tory Government, freed of the shackles of coalition with liberals, are planning on repealing the Human Rights Act. A piece of legislation brought in by Tony Blair in the 90's but created from the European Convention on Human Rights which was drawn up by the Tory post war government to show to the world how civilised we should all be in future.

It is sad that a future Tory government is now going to remove this legislation due to a minority of cases where they have not been able to deport criminal immigrants due to their "right to a family life".

It seems that the Tories wish that if you are born in this country and your parents are not, that if they commit a crime they can now be ripped away from you leaving you with the choice to follow them to whatever horrible war-torn country they escaped from (Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Sudan...).

The question is what level of criminality requires this response. I can understand the Government wishing to get rid of terrorists, murderers and rapists but what about non-payment of Council Tax, a crime punishable by prison, which many British born OAPs have found themselves facing? What crimes would exact this level of response, does a list even exist?

It seems we English are sticklers for the rule of law even when we don't agree with small parts of it.

Instead of just ignoring section 8 of the Human Rights Act like France does whenever it wants to do something the EU prohibits we decide to throw the whole law away.

Instead of just declaring that the house of Commons is the supreme will of the people, and that if it votes to decide to remove someone from these shores because of a REAL terrorist crime then so be it, family or not. The problem comes with all the guff these bills include that label you and me "domestic terrorists" for speaking out against the Government, war, its foreign policy, support of Israel, or other civil rights that are being chipped away bit by bit never to return.

I have no problem if a REAL terrorist who is not a British citizen is deported at the end of his or her sentence. The problem is that the Government is proposing to throw the whole Human Rights Act away to achieve this instead of coming up with another solution.

If the House of Commons IS supposed to be the supreme will of the people because we have voted for it - try to forget the UKIP member who got 0 votes despite voting for himself for a moment, we don't have voter fraud in Western Democracies, it's just nasty evil countries like Russia that do things like that. Then a vote in the house should be enough to override any appeal on Human Rights grounds due to section 8. This is as long as the case has been proved beyond doubt, the convict has had his chance at appeal, and the criminal does in fact pose a threat to the country.

I am perfectly happy to see a UK Bill of Rights on TOP of, not INSTEAD of, the Human Rights Act, to achieve such aims if needed. I just don't want to see families ripped apart over nonsensical crimes or crimes that shouldn't even exist e.g drugs, protest, freedom of speech that goes against popular view etc.

David Cameron has gone on record to say that the belief that if you as a citizen "just followed the law you would be left alone", is now going to be turned on its head.

That in itself is worrying Hilter-esque language that could be taken to mean anything.

Wasn't an Englishman's home his castle?

Were we not the creators of law as it exists in many countries through the Magna Carta, Due Process, the idea that we are all innocent until proven guilty.

What about the social contract between citizen and state that meant we plebs had our rights and the government protected them and the country as long as we paid our taxes?

As Russell Brand says in the piece below, a similar piece of legislation which the Tories are basing their own law on, was recently brought into Canada and the people were appalled by it.

It meant that:

• Innocent words can be interpreted as terrorism - make of that what you will.
• Speaking "recklessly" which could lead to a terrorist act being committed is a crime. So speaking out about the increasing authoritarian nature of our world on this blog could lead to a mentally disturbed reader to go and fly a plane into a skyscraper and I would spend 5 years in jail - fair?
• Protesting could lead to government surveillance. So any kind of protest by Unions, Students, Occupy, or anybody against the increasing Police State be warned.
• Meddling with ANY CORPORATE INTERESTS could be interpreted as terrorism under the new UK act. So protests that prevent Vodafone from opening their doors (UKUncut beware!) or the use of Bitcoin or other electronic currencies that stopped the banks from monitoring your money could now be considered a crime.

Watch the video to see more and spread it.



Our rights are being eroded and we could all soon be considered terrorists for speaking our minds, protesting corruption and the corporate take over of our life.

Is that really terrorism or just the rights we should expect to enjoy as a member of a supposedly free country?



View the original article at Dark Politricks.

© 2015 By Dark Politricks

Iceland vs Gordon Brown

Iceland vs Gordon Brown

By Dark Politricks

If you follow me on twitter at @darkpolitricks you will know I have just had a few days in Iceland. It was on my bucket list of things to do before I die and I had some cash so why not. I just wish I brought a video camera or better camera as the amount of rants I heard from taxi drivers about Gordon Browns actions during the Icelandic banking collapse could have filled 60+ minutes.

I had to get taxis as standing around in minus 10C waiting for a bus that will most likely drive past you isn't much fun. However I am glad I did. Not only was every single taxi driver able to speak perfect English but they are on the ball when it comes to politics, international relations and how the world really works.

Every single person I talked to was sick to the teeth of Gordon Browns action to use anti-terrorism laws to freeze Icelandic money in British banks. Not only did this help worsen the economic crisis in Iceland but it made the Icelandic people think they had been betrayed by a friend and ally.

If you don't know, Iceland kept the Brits alive during World War II by sending over fish for us to eat whilst all our trans Atlantic ships were being destroyed by German U-Boats. A little known fact is that per capita, Iceland lost the most people in the war, more than Russia, more than the Jews and more than the USA and UK combined. They only have a population of 320,000 (now), so a lot less back then, so you can see how many a few thousand people's deaths would compare to the total population.

Iceland suffered their economic crisis between October 2008 and the 31 August 2011, which was the day where the international bailout support programme led by the IMF officially ended.

The economic crisis revolved around a few Icelandic banks which were offering stupidly high rates of interest which attracted many foreign investors including many UK local authorities. Our dear leader of the time, Gordon Brown, had told them to invest their money in the highest paying interest accounts they could find. The Icelandic banks were offering high rates and were thus used by many.

The problem was that these rates of interest were totally unrealistic and there was no security for screw ups. In the UK we get up to £85,000 protected if the bank goes bust. So the Government bails small account holders out up to that sum. However Iceland failed to do this for foreign investors and it sent Brown and co fuming.

Every taxi driver I spoke to said that anyone with half a brain cell could see these banks high interest schemes would fail in the end and they eventually did. However Gordon Brown was having none of it. The UK along with the Dutch, demanded that Iceland pay back all the monies owed with interest or they would be thrown out the IMF.

Gordon Brown froze any Icelandic money in UK banks and used anti-terrorism laws to do so. This prompted the Iceland's prime minister Geir Haarde to call it "a completely unfriendly act" and was disgusted that a supposedly friendly nation was calling their country terrorists.

More than 25% of the Icelandic population (over 80,000 people) signed an online petition called "Icelanders are not terrorists". The UK responded by cancelling its scheduled patrol of the Icelandic airspace in December 2008. As Iceland has no standing army of its own it relies on other NATO nations to take turns in protecting it. The UK pulled out of this agreement leaving Iceland vulnerable to attack.

Iceland basically stuck two fingers up at these threats, kicked their whole government out when they seemed to bend over to the demands and took matters into their own hands by voting in a coalition government led by the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Green Movement.

They even won a court case in the court of the European Free trade Area, when the UK and Holland took Iceland to court over the failure to payback depositors in the failed banks. The court ruled on the 29th January 2013 in favour of the Icelandic banks and saved the country from having to pay back billions to foreign savers.

The EFTA court dismissed an application by the EFTA surveillance authority, which claimed that Iceland had failed to comply with an obligation to ensure compensation of a minimum €20,000 to Icesave depositors in the UK and Netherlands. Over €6.7 billion was owed to UK and Dutch investors and whilst the UK paid back the investors out of their own tax payers money, they then demanded that Iceland was to pay back the money to them.

However logic and reason won the day and when Iceland's President's Olafur Grimsson refused to sign an amended law on repayment he forced a national referendum on the issue and 94% of Icelanders rejected the move to payback the cash.

The judges have sided with Iceland in the matter and it was plainly obvious that the rates of interest were unsustainable and a payback to foreign depositors was unfeasible. The Iceland banks are actually paying back some of the money by selling off assets so that people won't lose out - it is just the unrealistic rates of interest that won't be given back to savers.

At the time the crisis resulted in massive migration from Iceland yet Iceland's economy stabilized under the government of Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, and GDP actually grew by 1.6% in 2012. However many Icelanders remained unhappy with the state of the economy and government austerity policies. In 2013 they voted back in the same people who were in power during the crisis, the centre-right Independence Party but in coalition with the Progressive Party.

Relative to the size of its economy, Iceland’s systemic banking collapse was the largest suffered by any country in history. The amount of money owed by the 3 Icelandic banks taken into national ownership was equal to more than 11 times Icelandic GDP.

They also threw a load of banksters into prison - can you see a trend here? These people included:

• Baldur Guðlaugsson, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, who was sentenced to two years probation by the District Court of Reykjavík for insider trading.
• Aron Karlsson was sentenced to 2 years in prison by the District Court of Reykjavík for defrauding Arion Bank in real estate dealings.
• Lárus Welding, CEO of Glitnir, and Guðmundur Hjaltason, Managing Director of Corporate Banking of Glitnir, were sentenced to 9 months in prison by the District Court of Reykjavík for a major breach of trust.
• Friðfinnur Ragnar Sigurðsson, Glitnir employee, was sentenced to 1 year in prison by the District Court of Reykjanes for insider trading.
• Styrmi Þór Bragason, President of MP Bank, was sentenced to 1 year in prison by the Supreme Court for breach of trust.

The other thing to note is that whilst Ireland and Greece are now suffering like hell due to their Governments subservience to the banksters and their German EU masters Iceland is recovering well.

Instead of loading future generations up to the eyeballs with huge debt, and suffering serve austerity like many European countries Iceland is well on the way to recovery.

They have had one of the fastest economic recoveries on record. They stuck to their guns and told the banksters to fuck off. This is a lesson others should follow.


GDP of Nordic countries including Iceland from 2000 to 2007

Not only do the Icelandic people do things their way, but they are the leaders in the world for press freedom and Internet freedom.

Everywhere I went, whether it was the airport, the bus from the airport, the hotel, pubs, clubs or restaurants, all had free WI-FI. No logons just Internet access wherever I went, it was great.

No wonder many companies who don't want hassle from the NSA/GCHQ nexus of spy bitches base their servers there. It's just a shame we are sucking data straight from cables and main routers and until other countries build their own Internet infrastructure the axis of spying will continue to do so.

It is also not coincidence that the owner of Lavabit, who closed his business rather than succumb to threats to spy on his customers, was told by his lawyers that Iceland was one place he could move to and setup his business to escape NSA spying and Security Letters.

You can watch his interview on RT.com below.


The fact that anti-terrorism laws were used and abused by Gordon Brown shows that their true intention was nothing to do with terror but more to do with control over people.

The same laws were used to attack an 82 year man who dared protest the Iraq war during a Labour conference. Walter Wolfgang was dragged out of the conference for daring to heckle Jack Straw and detained under the terrorism act in 2005. They were also repeatedly used by the previous Labour government to detain and question tourists and other photographers "daring" to take photos of London landmarks.

Gordon Brown was only following in the foot steps of Tony Blair, the war mongerer who took us into 4 wars, destroyed many civil liberties and did more to destroy the picture of Labour as the "peoples party" than any other Prime Minister in recent years.

However whilst the UK is languishing in debt, the Greeks are begging on the streets and the Irish are cutting back services and trying to find ways to pay back their own banking debts the Icelandic people are doing just fine.

If you don't mind the cold, enjoy beautiful women and scenery then Iceland is one place to definitely consider going. Not only is everyone friendly but they all speak English and everyone I met was a good laugh. The fact that booze is so expensive yet the Icelandic people knock it back in gallons from 10pm to 6 am most nights must indicate that people are being paid enough to have a good time.

So whilst I had to apologise for my Governments behaviour constantly, I also let the Icelandic people know we also hated the Labour Government just as much as they do.

The fact that we are still suffering under many of Labours big brother laws, and that the farcical Protection of Freedoms Bill which promised so much when a Lib Dem idea yet turned into a "freedom from wheelclamping" bill just goes to show that none of our current political parties can be trusted when it comes to protecting our civil liberties and hard-won rights.

So just remember the next time the Daily Mail or Sun attacks the EU Human Rights Act or our PM threatens to pull out of it. We invented the thing in the first place after the 2nd world war. On top of that these rights protect you and me as well as the tiny minority of Jihadists the papers like to trot out as examples of the bill's failure. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is the appropriate saying!

We don't have a written Bill of Rights like the American's (not that it seems to be doing much to help them anymore) so we must take what we can.

Until we get our own Bill of Rights and proper protection of free speech, without journalists boyfriends being detained at airports for revealing the massive spying our Government does on us, we should be happy for anyone who sticks up for our liberty.

The Icelandic people saw us as friends. When Gordon Brown froze their money it made it hard for them to import goods and prices shot up in their country. His act did more to harm them than the banking crisis in the first place.

The fact that a court sided with them just shows that he was in the wrong and they were right to ignore his demands.

Well done Iceland.

View the original article Why Icelandic people hate Gordon Brown at darkpolitricks.com.

The Goldstone Report - 2011

The Goldstone Report - A look back at an earlier Zionist Jews report on an earlier war in the Gaza strip

By Dark Politricks

As the Middle East, and the streets of European cities shake, either from IDF attacks on churches and homes in Gaza, or from the thousands of feet protesting Palestinian apartheid at the hands of Israel. It might be good to look back at an earlier invasion of Gaza by the IDF, Operation Cast Lead in 2009, and what happened - according to one of their own Jewish Zionists who had helped stop South African apartheid, Richard Goldstone.

After what became known as the Goldstone Report came out, this staunch supporter of Israel, was called a self-hating Jew, and even an anti-Semite by the then Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz. 

Why? 

Well it was because he dared to tell the truth about the war, and the atrocities committed by both sides, Hamas and the IDF. He told of the summary executions of teenagers and men, lined up against walls and just killed, no due process. He also told of the killing of women and children, and the bombing of hospitals and homes. The collective punishment of a whole 2+ million people, for the deeds of a few.

This was over a decade ago, an earlier ground invasion of Gaza by Israel, and was again supposed to wipe out Hamas (which Mossad helped create to cause a split from Fatah), and stop the barrage of rocket attacks into Southern Israel. Sound familiar? 

I've had to go to the Wayback Machine to find this article from my site in 2010, I also had to check links to Israeli papers and other news sites that were not available anymore, even the UN had removed a report on the wars results, after what I suspect was an attempt to clean the web from a historical event. However luckily I came across old copies, which you can access yourself from the Wayback Machine.

Here is the old article from 2010 with links to original articles.

The Goldstone report and the Israeli accusations against its author

By Dark Politricks

The Goldstone report was commissioned by the UN to look into accusations of war crimes during the invasion of Gaza by Israel during 2009 which left over a thousand Palestinians dead mostly children and women. 

The Gaza strip is still being blockaded by Israel to this day with limited supplies of water, food and medical aid being allowed into what basically is a very large prison camp. There is basically no or very little economy inside Gaza and the people cannot move about freely or leave without permission from their guards even those suffering appalling injuries or sever health problems have had their request to leave for treatment delayed or refused by the Israelis.

The report by the Jewish Zionist South African judge Richard Goldstone, who has obviously been labelled a self hating Jew by the pro-Israel can do no wrong lobby, looked at crimes on both sides of the war and found that Hamas committed war crimes by firing rockets indiscriminately into Israeli populated areas but also that Israel broke international law by committing numerous crimes including:

• Shooting unarmed and even tied up civilians.
• Shooting teenagers who were carrying wounded civilians.
• Bombing Hospitals and homes.
• Collective punishment of a whole population for the misdeeds of some.

Israel was also accused of using banned weapons in civilian areas such as the White Phosphorus attack on the UN compound and on civilian areas which is expressly forbidden by international law.

Obviously Israel and Zionist supporters have not taken too kindly to being accused of committing war crimes and they used their influence and power in US politics to get Congress to support a bill striking down the report as “biased and unworthy of further consideration”.

The bill was passed 344-36. Dennis Kucinich who was one of the few good politicians to vote against the resolution made a powerful speech against the bill which I have outputted below:

“Today we journey from Operation Cast Lead to Operation Cast Doubt,” he said on the House floor on Tuesday. “Almost as serious as committing war crimes is covering up war crimes, pretending that war crimes were never committed and did not exist.”

“Because behind every such deception is the nullification of humanity, the destruction of human dignity, the annihilation of the human spirit, the triumph of Orwellian thinking, the eternal prison of the dark heart of the totalitarian.”

“The resolution before us today, which would reject all attempts of the Goldstone Report to fix responsibility of all parties to war crimes, including both Hamas and Israel, may as well be called the ‘Down is Up, Night is Day, Wrong is Right: resolution.”

“Because if this Congress votes to condemn a report it has not read, concerning events it has totally ignored, about violations of law of which it is unaware, it will have brought shame to this great institution.”

“How can we ever expect there to be peace in the Middle East if we tacitly approve of violations of international law and international human rights, if we look the other way, or if we close our eyes to the heartbreak of people on both sides by white-washing a legitimate investigation?”

“How can we protect the people of Israel from existential threats if we hold no concern for the protection of the Palestinians, for their physical security, their right to land, their right to their own homes, their right to water, their right to sustenance, their right to freedom of movement, their right to human security of jobs, education and health care?”

“We will have peace only when the plight of both Palestinians and Israelis is brought before this House and given equal consideration in recognition of that principle that all people on this planet have a right to survive and thrive, and it is our responsibility, our duty to see that no individual, no group, no people are barred from this humble human claim.”

It seems that Congress would rather take the side of Israel no matter what they did and when they vote in such numbers for a bill that few of them have even bothered to read purely on the basis that it is in support for Israel then one can only wonder why. Dennis Kucinich paid a price for his balanced perspective on foreign policy matters as he was later dropped from a Democratic fund-raiser in Palm Beach County because of his supposedly anti-Israeli stance in voting for the Goldstone report.

Indeed the political pressure from the Israeli lobby was also being put on the author of the report itself with the leader of the ADL (Anti Defamation League), Abraham Foxman, calling on Judge Goldstone to repudiate his own report with the following statement:

“I have had great respect for you over the years. Your work at the head of the South Africa Reconciliation Commission and in helping to find a just solution to the Bosnian conflict deserves the highest commendation.”

“Moreover, I know you to be a proud Jew who serves on the Board of Trustees of Hebrew University and who has a daughter living in Israel.”

“With this background, I wondered in the first place how you could take on the chairmanship of the investigation of the war in Gaza mandated by the UN Human Rights Council,” he said. “After all, the Human Rights Council has repeatedly demonstrated its bias against Israel and in its stated mission for the investigation began with assumptions presuming Israeli guilt.”

The pressure also came from those within the Israeli government and the finance minister Yuval Steinitz made the following statement when asked about Goldstone:

“Some people can be unfair, unjust, unbalanced and even of bad character. So it is with Jews. Just as a non-Jew can be anti-Semitic, a Jew can also be anti-Semitic and discriminate against our people and despise and hate our people.”

It seems that nothing is good enough for the Israelis and even though the UN put a vehemently pro Israeli Zionist such as Goldstone in charge to investigate matters it just wasn’t good enough to elivate fears of anti-Israeli bias. This really does play into the hands of true anti-Semites as it seems to observers that Israelis believe they can do no wrong. No country can be above reproach and get away with war crimes and that includes the USA, the UK and Israel however it looks like that anyone who questions Israeli behaviour is either an anti-semite if they aren’t Jewish or a self hater if they are, no matter how much legitimate authority they have to do so.

This hypocrisy and double standards can be seen by the way that an Israeli treats war crimes. The crimes of the second world war which affected the Jewish community so much helped to change international law in that someone accused of a war crime in one country can be tried in another. This concept of universal jurisdiction is one which Israel has used itself in its prosecution of suspected NAZI war criminals and they were one of the first countries to support the formation of permanent court of law for crimes against humanity.

However as soon as occupied territories (Palestine) were added to the mandate that the court could cover they suddenly changed their mind about this lofty ideal that crimes against humanity hold no national boundaries and voted against the founding of a permanent International Court of Justice joining the likes of China and Libya.

The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was none too pleased about the Goldstone report either and when he visited the UN to make a speech in September 2009 he told the assembly exactly what he thought about the report and the Human rights council who he said was “a misnamed institution if there ever was one.”

“Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted….”

“…Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers. 

“That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.“

“We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way. “

“Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.”

“Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.”

Rather than debate the reports findings and whether or not Israel has the right to defend itself which it undoubtedly does just like the Palestinians do when they are attacked, we should let the reports author explain its findings himself. 

The following videos are of an interview between Judge Goldstone and Bill Moyers, in which the judge discusses his report in detail and explains why the actions taken by the Israeli Defence Force were war crimes, rather than just acts of war and collateral damage.

Even the full Goldstone report into the Gaza conflict, which Israel seems to have tried to wipe all knowledge from the web, can be found here: the UN report into Gaza.

By Dark Politricks

The UK is in trouble, how do we fix it before it breaks?

By Dark Politricks

I have just watched the Andrew Marr show with his interview with David Cameron which covered an number of interesting matters such as the influence of lobbying and lobbyist especially his closeness betweeen the government and Rupert Murdoch, the economic crisis which has seen the UK enter a double dip recession.

Thinking of this interview and the state our country is in at the moment and with a bit of previous thought that has always remained in my consisouncess I believe we need to come up with a basic plan of steps that can help to restore our country.

These steps should not be ideologically bound and should be considered in a "what works, works" conceptiuial basis. Whether you are a Tory, Liberal or Socialist we all are suffering under the same problems and a solution that works should be considered whether or not it neatly fits inside your ideological view box or not.

The Economy

The private sector has not rushed into fill all the public sector jobs that are being lost. People are being put on the dole which increases government payments for jobseeker allowance and housing benefit and in turn increases the amount we need to borrow and therefore increases national debt. Therefore the question needs to be asked whether or not in makes more logical sense (and in turn basic mathematical sense) to keep on this track.

Many people might blame our tax rates and they might be right. If it can be proven that lower company taxes or a flat tax rate system will bring in more actual revenue to the governments coffers then I have no problem with it.

However corporation tax has already been dropped, our tax free allowance raised twice already, the higher rate of tax dropped from 50% to 45% and no influx of private sector jobs has occurred yet.

Here is something that ought not to be just a thought experiment. I would love to know if some university professor with too much time on his well paid hands has tried workig this out or not and please if anyone knows the answer let me in on it.

In the 1980's our PM of the time Maggie Thatcher went to war with the miners. Many mines were unprofitable but they supported whole villages and towns and were often the only place for people in the local area to work.

Therefore when the mines were closed whole swathes of the country were made unemployed and in time due to the 3 million unemployed people on the dole the government told the employment agency to shift people onto disability allowance if there were eve the slightest thing wrong with them so that the figures were reduced and they could claim success in the war against unemployment.

This is the same government (although a different generation) that is now trying to get people off the disability allowance they had put them on to help win elections. Hypocrisy?

There were no private companies in these places for the people to go to work in and most of the miners were unskilled manual labourers with little other skills. The only "fix" given by the government of the time was from Norman Tebit who said "Get on your bike" and look for work.

Many of these miners are still jobless and many of the towns and villages that were based around the mines are now desolate wastelands full of empty or broken houses, drugs, drink and other social problems.

Now if someone at the time of this massive descission could have done the maths and worked out whether over the next 20-30 years the amount of money spent in dole money, sickness and housing benefit, extra police, court and prison costs and all the other long term costs that come with massive social deprivation and compared it with the subsidies or lost money from the mines which would come out on top?

Is it better to have a town full of people all working, all feeding their familes, all with a sense of pride in their community living in a town with lower social deprivation at the cost of a government subsidy?

Put aside your libertarian or socialist views and consider it from a basic mathematical point of view. Which do you think costs more?

This is the question we should be asking now with the current public sector cuts. Without knowing the actual true cost of the massive mine closure over 30 years I would surmise that it is cheaper to keep people working and off multiple government subsidies (dole, housing etc) and keeping a loss making mine open - another government subsidy.

So it comes down to a simple question of which subsidy is more benefiial for society? The ones handed out in dole and police wages or the one keeping open the mine and along with it the town that works there.

Remember that the higher cost of current government subsidies for unemployed people has brought our borrowing levels up NOT down and it is only our low interest rates that have kept our heads above water and not turned the UK  into a permanent London riot all year long like Greece and Spain.

Stimulating the Economy

Just a few off the top of my head.

• Tax breaks for UK companies that make their products within the UK and don't offshore them to slave labour camps like China.
• Tax breaks for companies who hire long unemployed people e.g if you have been unemployed for over 1 year or even 6 months.
• More emphasis on ensuring companies are not hiring illegal migrants and keeping UK citizens out of jobs through the use of slave labour. A National Insurance card must be provided, photocopied and saved for every employee and provided on demand by people who's actual job is to prevent slave labour from occurring.
• Closing all tax loopholes and ensuring any international company who wants to sell their goods in one of the biggest markets in the world has a UK company setup on these shores and all relevant corporation tax paid to our treasury from that company.
• Setting up a UK PLC company that is owned by all the taxpayers of the country who will recieve dividends from the company each year - used to stimulate the company. They would battle in the economy like any other company for private work but for government contracts they should get first dibs - and why not I ask? The Labour government has shown us through PPI how much money was (and still will be for the next 20 odd years at least) on these private public investment schemes. The UK PLC company would be filled with UK workers with valid national insurance cards, the long term unemployed, ex prisoners, other people struggling to get work AND any other workers who apply to vacacnies when required. The only benefits this company would have compared to others is in the non private workspace e.g government contracts.

1. It gets first refusal on any government contract whether it be an IT system or new Hospital building or even just a maintenance role at a school. Why pay a private company hundreds of pounds to change a light bulb when we should be able to do it cheaply? Believe me through Gordon Browns PPI system we do pay hundreds of pounds to change light bulbs in hospitals and schools all around the country.
2. If it makes a profit the profit is divided between expanding the company and paying dividends to us taxpayers who will then use that money stimulating the economy in the private marketplace.
3. It is a first port of call for the long term unemployed and others seeking work to find a job working for their country.

Banking.

1. We need to create a national bank that has proper interest rates for savers and encourage people to save money again at a rate that makes it worthwhile.
2. We need a bank that is owned by the people of the country and is willing to loan out money to small businesses who are the companies who give people jobs.
3. We need a bank that is owned by the people that's job isn't to make money purely from money e.g gambling, as we know all the big players do with their high frequency trading and front running.
4. We need s bank that is owned by the people where the profit is given out to the shareholders of the company each year (the taxpayers of the country) and not in million pound bonuses to a few of their best AND most of their worst gamblers.
5. We already have huge stake-holds in more than one bank. We should take the whole thing over and turn it into a bank run for the people of the nation for the benefit of the nation.

Can you imagine as a working tax payer being given a yearly cheque for a few thousand pounds to spend as you wish because you as a taxpayer are also a shareholder in a national bank?

This is one way to stimulate the economy as well as incentivise people without jobs to get jobs and to start paying tax.

The European Union

We should leave the European Union as soon as possible. We should give them an ulimatium either make the whole shaky house of cards what is should have been a free trading zone, with free movement of people and goods and not a semi quasil supra government in which unelected people can weild enormous power and the elected EU government can weild little.

The Euro should never have gone ahead as it was clear to many people at the time that the North and South European countries were two totally different systems that would never mesh together and it was only with the help of the criminals at Goldman Sachs that allowed countries like Greece to hide their huge debts and get on board the Titanic with no-one noticing.

We will save money and keep our own embassies and seats at the UN instead of what is surely on the EU's roadmap a huge polical union like the USA in which the EU is the only embassy in each country and the EU Foreign Minister makes descisions for all European nations.

Whilst there are some good things in the EU there are plenty of bad and I cannot see the balance being tilted the other way anytime soon.

The case of Abu Qatada has shown our weakness in the face of unelected European judges and whilst I am happy to know that an appeal lodged at the European Court of Human Rights will take up to 7 years to be heard and maybe prevent Gary McKinnon from being deported to the USA the flipside is also true and it prevents us from deporting dangerous criminals like Abu Qatadar.

Law, Equality and Liberty

The case of Abu Qatadar brings me onto the legal system in the UK.

We should create our own Bill of Rights on the same lines as the US Bill of Rights and that every single person wether they be a policeman or royal is covered by the Bill and everyone in the UK is equal under the law.

I want to know 100% that I will be given the same treatment by the judiciary as the Queen if she let her pack of Corgi's maul a child to death or drink drive into a bus stop full of people killing many of them. Only when we are all equal under the same law - a British made law and one that is the highest law in the land can we call ourselves free and equal.

Alongside this the true "Freedom Bill" should be implemented post haste not the weak and feeble cut down version making its way through parliament at the moment. It is a disgusting stain on the Lib Dem's character that they allowed the Tories to rip out everything good about the bill and turn it into a wheel clampers justice bill.

These reforms will rebalance our extradition treaty with the USA, restore our right to silence under police interview, give back our right to protest near parliament and many more important laws the pro-surveillence governent of Labour (and now seemingly the coallition) had brought in.

The English should have their own parliament to solve the West Lothian question and to prevent Scottish MP's voting to raise UK students tuition fees whilst they can keep University free in their own country.

We should do away with this mismash of devolution which Tony Blair started and go the full hog. 

We should have full devolution for all 4 parts of the UK in which citizens of those countries vote for their local MP to sit in their countries parliament on matters that affect their country alone and then sit within the Westminister parliament when the matter is UK wide e.g whether to go to war, to sign treaties with other nations and other important UK matters.

The English parliament can sit in the Houses of Parliament in Westminster and matters covering the whole UK will involve members of parliament from the Scottish parliament, the Welsh parliament and the Northern Irish one.

Immigration

I live in a town that due to Joanna Lumley is no longer recoognisable due to the ex Gurka veterans (who I have no problem with at all) bringing their whole families over to live in this country. This would be fine if:

• They could speak English.
• They were not all given houses straight away, houses some of us have waited decades on the housing list for.
• They were not overloading our already strained and mercilessly cut public services.
• They would at least try and learn our culture and fit in. A thank you wave when you let someone through at a junction is not too much to ask - I know a little thing that many other people don't do but it's little things like this that really grind my gears (quote Peter Griffin)

People come to the UK from Africa with HIV and turn up at the nearest hospital and then given the best treatment around for free whilst someone who has live in this country their whole life and can trace their history back hundreds of years is treated contentably by the NHS when they have a serious illness.

I am not against immigration as it was badly needed after World War II and when English people won't take the jobs someone needs to do them.

• What I am against is the fact that whole swathes of the UK are now ghettos where a white person would feel threatened to walk at night.
• Where on a bus ride in certain towns you can hear a myriad of conversations, that is apart from English.
• Where if you open a door to a woman in a head scarf or let her pass in the street she won't even look at you in the eye let alone say thank you. I know their culture forbids it but this is Britain not Saudi Arabia and we treat women as equals not slaves therefore we should expect some modicum of "fitting in" if we are going to allow tens of millions of people all from various cultures into our country.

I feel that we should have tigther border controls and that anyone wishing to migrate to this country should be able to pass an entrace exam on our history as well as basic English before being allowed on our soil.

Once they have completed there exams they should be given a citenship ceremony in which they are presented their national insurance card. A card by the way which should be mandatory display at any doctors, hostpital or benefits agency. 

We all got them when we were 16 and any new immigrant should be proud to achieve the right to hold one. They are not national ID cards but they are a sign you are entitled to work, pay tax, claim benefits and this should include health care.

Not only will this help social cohesion it will install a sense of pride at achieving British Citizenship. We should abolish the stupid tests Labour brought in which were more about how to claim benefits than history and our existing culture. Labour ruined this country in more ways than can be counted.

We want people who want to live here and accept our way our life. I don't want our government sending troops to foreign lands so that they can say that "we fight them over there so we don't fight them over here"  whilst at the same time we have thousands of men and women within our shores looking at our culture in disgust and planning payback for all that "collateral damage" we do across the world. It goes both ways and I definitely don't agree with the wars we are in.

There are so many other things I could go on about including stopping the wars, ending the surveillence state, removing our tongue from the USA's ass and much more but I think I have said enough for one morning. Lets cross our fingers and pray to the great big Spaghetti monster in the sky that some of it becomes true.