UK Plod Can Make Up 'Hate Crimes'

Surprise, Plebs! YET ANOTHER 'Hate Crime' in UK RT News EXTRACTS British police force classifies wolf whistles, unwanted sexual advances as hate crimes Published time: 13 Jul, 2016 12:39 Nottinghamshire police will record misogyny, including harassment of women, unwanted sexual advances and wolf whistling, as a “hate crime” in a bid to tackle sexist abuse. Domestic abuse is not included within the scope of misogyny hate crime, as it is dealt with under its own procedures. Police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland annually monitor five strands of hate crime: disability, gender identity, race, religion and sexual orientation. Forces can include their own definition of a hate crime. Link | RT News Hey, Plod? Think it might constitute a hate crime filling the country with invaders that are displacing and divesting native Britons?

Police State Britain - Raid & Prison for Twitter Troll

POLICE STATE BRITAIN 3 YEARS PRISON - TWITTER TROLL Twitter troll has been jailed ... for three years Canterbury Crown Court Section 4 of the 1997 Protection Of Harassment Act Cowan was arrested after police launched an investigation when Mrs Fergus complained about 'trolls' on Twitter blaming her for the death ... The judge added: 'Your offence involved sending the most vile and degrading messages via Twitter to Denise Fergus. ... police raided Cowan's home at the time in Margate, they found pictures of dead and mutilated babies and a photograph of Jamie Bulger's grave on her computer.  [COMMENT:  PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DEAD & THE MUTILATED (WHATEVER THE AGE OF THE CORPSE PHOTOGRAPHED) ARE NOT ILLEGAL TO POSSESS, AS FAR AS I AM AWARE.  THEREFORE, THIS IS IRRELEVANT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. ] By Darren Boyle for MailOnline Published: 04:42 EST, 15 July 2016 | Updated: 06:17 EST, 15 July 2016 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3690775/Twitter-troll-taunted-James-Bulger-s-mother-sadistic-abuse-including-pretending-murdered-toddler-blaming-death-jailed-three-years.html#comments http://archive.is/b0AnZ Much online outrage about this ... or Daily Mail would have us believe.  Of course, Daily Mail controls the comments that get published (or not), so the corporate media also controls the perception of 'public response' in relation to this (and other issues and events). While I think this is unsavoury behaviour and somewhat sick to have a collection of mutilated baby photos, police raiding Twitter trolls with a taste for trolling and a taste for the macabre, and imprisoning Twitter trolls for several years for the 'hurt feelings' of those that may elect to block undesirable users/messages in the online public domain, is, in my view, taking things to police state extremes. Does anyone think that the state authorities will stop at raiding and prosecuting merely those with bizarre online pursuits, or will these same state authorities use their powers to harass and shut down freedom of speech in general, when it comes to political positions and opinions the state disapproves of? SAMPLE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED COMMENT [CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE] Watch the corporate media give its blessing and encouragement to hefty imprisonment and public vilification of a native British internet troll. Meanwhile, actual crimes (ie crimes in the physical realm, not acts leading to hurt feelings or moral outrage) committed by those in protected groups (and groups prone to violently riot) are handled with kid gloves by the media, that often shuts down public comments — entirely. These 'morally outraged' clowns that come out of the woodwork to attack the likes of this woman are nasty trolls themselves, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for vilifying (likely) mentally disturbed persons, who are already being targeted by state law-enforcement punitive overkill. What amounts to global media scapegoating and pillory of what you might call a 'differently abled' (or perhaps even psychologically disturbed) young white woman by this lot of Daily Mail reader sheep, reminds me of the Monty Python films, where the baying crowds demand stoning.  LOL  ... and the white working class is deemed fair game for this abuse and exploitation by the corporate media and the police state. Blasphemy More 'Blasphemy' Charges ... CHECK OUT THE HEADLINE "Vile Twitter troll who called young Celtic supporter 'disabled piece of s***' banned from football"       16:01, 6 Jan 2016     Updated 16:05, 6 Jan 2016     By Charlotte Thomson ... he was forced to shut down his account a few hours after the offence because his tweets caused outrage across the country. Gibson was later charged and admitted acting in a threatening and abusive manner by sending sectarian messages online   ... ...  offence was aggravated by prejudice of religion and disability. ... the AFC fan escaped jail when he was sentenced at Aberdeen Sheriff Court and was ordered to carry out a community payback order. ... offender had been drinking while watching the Aberdeen v Celtic game before posting the "poorly judged" messages on the social networking sit ... messages would have been on for a very short time, perhaps a period of 20 minutes. ...  court heard that one of the tweets referred to Celtic skipper Scott Brown's sister Fiona, who lost a battle with skin cancer in 2008 aged just 21. ... stated that she was "in hell" along with Celtic legend Tommy Burns, who passed away just two weeks before her death due to the same disease. ... ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work in the community and banned from attending football matches - both professional and junior games - for a year. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vile-twitter-troll-who-called-7127793 http://archive.is/cKW5E However unsavoury the drunk rantings of some guy on Twitter, that the British state is aggressively (and selectively) policing remarks that are merely unpleasant, 'offensive' or whatever, ostensibly on behalf of the 'offended' and 'morally indignant' (and the 'vulnerable' that the state exploits as a shield for ever-widening incursions upon individual liberties), is worse (in my opinion) than the remarks that are being policed. Look at the amount of state power that is being projected onto the realm of the individual who made a public utterance that was not approved of (be it by the state, by the football fans, the 'morally sound' public, the media or whoever):  there's what sounds like online mobbing and harassment of the indignant 'moral' Twitter crusaders that shalt not be 'offended'; there's police intervention and charges; there's a court case; there's 200 hours of ordered state slavery (yes, modern-day slavery is what this is); and there is a year's restriction on this blasphemer's activities imposed by the state. On top of that there is the publicity surrounding the drama that was made of some drunk guy's inconsequential remarks and the media and public condemnation, that have put this individual in the spotlight on a national and on a worldwide basis, as a result of the media hyping that would have taken place. Yes, More 'Blasphemy' Charges ... The drunk football fan Twitter 'outrage' scenario is much like the drama that recently ensued over some other British football fan wearing a t-shirt of an 'offensive' slogan related to the Hillsborough football deaths. First the offensive t-shirt guy was thrown out of a pub.  Then his photo was taken and posted on Twitter.  Then he was mobbed by a Twitter 'campaign' of what amounts to mob abuse.  Then he was arrested for his 'offensive' behaviour, using broadly written, ridiculous laws that infringe upon individual liberty.   The Blasphemous T-Shirt Worcester man arrested on suspicion of public order offence A man from Worcester has been arrested by police today (Monday 30 May) after reports were received of a man wearing a t-shirt printed with offensive comments relating to the Hillsborough disaster. The man, aged 50, was arrested by officers this morning, under Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986, on suspicion that with intent he displayed writing which was threatening, abusive, insulting and caused harassment, alarm or distress. Members of the public called police after the man was seen wearing the t-shirt at the Brewers Arms pub in the St Johns area of Worcester yesterday (Sunday 29 May) he was asked to leave by the landlord. Superintendent Kevin Purcell said: "I understand the alarm and distress the offensive language shown on this t-shirt will have caused to both the people in and around the pub and further afield. "I would like to thank the landlord of the pub for his support and all the members of the public who were in the pub at the time and came forward to report it. "Police acted very quickly to arrest the individual and he remains in police custody at this time." Issued: 11.50am Monday 30 May 2016 Helen Blake, Corporate Communications https://www.westmercia.police.uk/article/19213/Worcester-man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-public-order-offence Once again, this is beyond absurd. The guy is wearing a t-shirt with a message people don't LIKE. He was asked to leave the pub by the landlord, which is fair enough if it is going to be a security problem on premises. That should have been the end of it. The way the police carry on about 'understanding' about the 'alarm and distress' at 'offensive language' comes across as comedy when you consider what is going on here:  it's a guy in a t-shirt that might be considered 'rude' or something, but it's merely a t-shirt.  Grow up, Britain. Are these the same people that defended Satanic Verses in the face of religious outrage and the same people that pay lip service to 'Western values', when feeling the blow-back from Western capitalist interventions in the affairs of the Middle East? Is 'offensive language' 'British Sharia's' very own 'Satanic Verses' or is it the 'blasphemy' of biblical times, or the heretic burning and witch-hunting of the Middle Ages, or something? I cannot believe what I am looking at here.  Is British society so fragile and are the British so spineless that they cannot withstand to hear or see expressions they simply do not approve of or consider 'civil'? It is beyond comprehension that the sheeple are so daft that they get on-board with the 'offence' and 'offended' melodrama and histrionics that are inflamed by the media, and that the sheeple let themselves live in an oppressive and absurd POLICE STATE, as a result of their 'offended' bleating and demand for a nanny state that is policed on behalf of wolves. Observation:  it looks like the dead have become yet another Western victim group.   At this rate, the West is going to run out of 'victims'. So that's two lots of incursions on civil liberties in the 'enlightened' and ostensibly 'secular' West, based on things that do not exist:  (1) 'god' (yet religion is granted special protections and privileges) and (2) the dead.  Wonder where that places my recent criticism of Boris Johnson (re The Spectator's Liverpool offending article)?  LOL ... this is getting complicated.  I still thing he's horrible for trying to dismiss a city's grief for a captive that had recently been barbarically slaughtered in Iraq (especially, as I believe the basis for that attempt to dismiss is political). The Spectator opens with a statement that is true in general of Western media influenced and manipulated society, in which there is an institutionally and otherwise entrenched victimhood (and accompanying state incursions on liberties) promoting agenda and propaganda: " ... mawkish sentimentality of a society that has become hooked on grief and likes to wallow in a sense of vicarious victimhood..."  [2004] But then the article unfairly attempts to single out the Liverpudlians in an attempt to dismiss the mourning for the Liverpudlian captive murdered in Iraq, so as to push what I guess is the (1) 'kissing up' and (2) suppression establishment two-step political move.  Actually, that's the standard move.  But 2004 would have been a special time for the British political establishment and their media mouthpieces:  a time of making sure that illegal British military presence in Iraq continued undisrupted by public opinion (at British capitalist investment, by taxpayer slavery, of £9.24 billion).  So that would have been the agenda of the BRITISH CORPORATE PRESS, acting in the interests of an elite that is ripping off, enslaving, dispossessing and deliberately victimising the common man. Yet it is the politicians and media that have endorsed this culture of victimhood promotion and of political suppression, that's reached an absurd and institutionalised point, while members of their rank (such as The Spectator) have the audacity to seek to twist that around for immediate political ends, in an attempt to gain political advantage over the very people that are victims of the ideology of divestment and suppression that was promoted by them in the first place. Stepping back from the 2004 article, I think The Spectator definitely has a point in general terms about society (not related to the murder in Iraq) and that maybe it would be better to resist that mentality and the effects of that ideology in society, as it leads to nothing but political impotence, suppression and divestment of rights of European working classes. *Hoping this makes sense ... I've stayed up a ridiculous amount of time and I may not make any sense at all.  LOL British Police State Page

British Police State: 'Pre-Crime' Punishment Policing

North Yorkshire Police Sexual Risk Order (SRO) LINK | Daily Mail 15 July 2016 Archive http://archive.is/JuknB Spiked Online 25 January 2016 http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/in-dystopian-britain-the-police-now-hunt-down-8216pre-rapists8217/17954  In Summary [Subjects of Sexual Risk Order (SRO)] must provide police with name, address and date of birth of anyone he plans to bed ‘at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place’ despite not being found guilty of a crime, he will still be treated as a criminal last for anything between two years and forever introduced in 2013, bring to life the dystopian idea of precrime given to people whom the authorities think ‘might commit an offence’ Britain in 2016 is policing ‘precrime’ entire, Magna Carta-derived basis of civilised law is called into question man has been deprived of rights even though he has not been convicted of a crime effectively been categorised as a pre-rapist Sexual Risk Orders bring sex under the purview of the law Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (+ replacements) control irritating habits [of those] not found guilty of an offence Extremism Disruption Orders are designed to police and punish ‘pre-terrorism’ controlling the ability of non-violent radicals to express their opinions society in which no zone of life exists independently of officialdom 25 January 2016 http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/in-dystopian-britain-the-police-now-hunt-down-8216pre-rapists8217/17954 UK Pre-Crime Law Enforcement Extremism Disruption Orders Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (+ replacements) Sexual Risk Order As this is taking place in a Britain that ignored sexual abuse of minors on a mass scale for years (Rotherham), why exactly is the British government and law enforcement intent on violating the rights of those that have not been found guilty of committing any crime, and violating the very principles upon which the law of the land is based? This is a massive incursion upon civil liberties that is taking place in the UK. These are state powers applied to persons who are not convicted of crime, and there are various other means to apply such 'pre-crime' constraint and punishment orders. ASBOs are most likely misused by British police, against Britons that the authorities wish to police politically. It would seem that these SROs are an expansion of existing expansive British state and law enforcement powers and reach.

NETHERLANDS - POLICE HARASSMENT, POLITICAL POLICING & POLITICAL SUPPRESSION

Article SOURCE https://www.nordfront.se/polisen-i-nederlanderna-slar-till-mot-medborgare-som-uttryckt-sig-invandringskritiskt-pa-natet.smr NETHERLANDS POLICE HARASSMENT, POLITICAL POLICING & POLITICAL SUPPRESSION Translation from Swedish Police in the Netherlands strike against citizens who expressed themselves critical of immigration online The editorial staff By the editors, 2016-02-01 redaktionen@nordfront.se OPPRESSION. In response to Nederländares [ie Nederlander] migration resistance to police now have established ten intelligence units that monitor what citizen writes on social media. Monitoring is then followed up with home visits to the immigration critics who deemed to have gone too far. As previously reported, has experienced a number of Netherlands loud protests and riots against the planned asylum accommodation, which also resulted in a number of asylum places stopped. At the same time, is now reporting the Dutch daily NRC Trade sheet on how Dutch police recently started cracking down on people who expressed themselves critical of immigration on social media, with several named examples. Mark Jongeneel, 28 years old from the municipality of Sliedrecht, got from his mother know that he tried by two policemen who just knocked on the door and who now was on his way to his place of work. When the police confronted him in the Office where he works as they should according to the Land have expressed something along the lines of: — You tweet a lot. We have ordered to ask you to moderate your tone. Your tweets can be regarded as seditious. What Mark had done was he on Twitter had written a couple of posts that included a new planned refugee accommodation in Sliedrecht. The tone of the posts should have been along the lines of: Sliedrechts City Council will come up with a proposal to receive 250 refugees for the next two years. What a bad idea! Should we let this happen?! In another case, so wrote the 43-year mechanic Johan van Kite from the town of Kaatsheuvel, outraged on Facebook if they advertised plans to place 1200 refugees at the resort: Let these leaders risk going to hell, we're going to all of them. Later that day, he was a 20-minute police visit, in which he describes how the authoritarian police officials pointed out that he was instigating a demonstration, after which they forced him to remove it, he wrote. Since then describes John the feeling that his liberty has been limited, and that he now feels aware that police read when he writes on Facebook. What the newspaper NRC experiences from a police statement, the Dutch police in this purpose set up ten pieces of intelligence units, with Digital detectives that in real time monitoring what is written on Facebook and on Twitter where you are looking for posts as "gone too far" in his criticism of the detention centres. Police gets here its legal support in the ban against so-called hate crimes and sedition, but according to police is the limit [ie definition arbitrary] for what is illegal diffuse and constantly open to new interpretations. After that post that "gone too far" discovered helps the local police with home visits to those individuals identified by the Digital detectives. The police are the last few months have struck against a large number of Dutch people in this way. At least 20 such home visits have taken place in Leeuwarden in October last year. The same thing occurred in Enschede. And in Brabant Kaatsheuvel so have at least three persons received a visit from the police. This makes overall newspaper NRC to talk about a police state, but a police spokesman for the local police in Malden defending the newspaper its actions with that particular tolerate demonstrations, but they have to be tillståndsgivna, and that freedom of expression certainly exists, where threats to Land just been speaking of recommendations. Mark see it all as an attempt to silence him, but attests to the newspaper NRC that he does not intend to let this keep him back. Swedish https://www.nordfront.se/polisen-i-nederlanderna-slar-till-mot-medborgare-som-uttryckt-sig-invandringskritiskt-pa-natet.smr ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT Europe is being forcibly invaded and Europeans are being raped by political policing and by the state enforcers of the invasion of Europe policy, pursuant to European Union / NATO member elites' agenda.  The invasion of ancestral European homelands, the state political policing, the police harassment and POLITICAL SUPPRESSION is being PAID FOR by the oppressed taxpayer.

Andrew Wilkie (TAS) - Warns Parliament: Australia - Police State

ꕤ Andrew Wilkie Warns Parliament Australia - Police State 10 September 2015 Source:  YouTube LINK  |  Wilkie Site OFFICIAL VERSION - LINK PDF| HERE MY TRANSCRIPT [For quotation purposes, confirm audio or official version] ** NOTE ** Square brackets signify my edit, and the headings in the list of ten are headings I have devised re each of the points made by Wilkie (rather than spoken/dictated as headings by Wilkie).   Andrew Wilkie Warns Parliament Australia - Police State https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoIXn066vj4&feature=youtu.be Andrew Wilkie Member for Denison, TAS Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Anything that diminishes the protection for the environment is obviously wrong and to be resisted, Deputy Speaker. So, too, to deny some Australian citizens the right to access all aspects of the legal system — no matter what the matter is — or to deny some Australian citizens the right to judicial view, in particular, is self-evidently wrong. In fact, anything that diminishes the protection of the environment —  anything that diminishes the rights of our citizens — is so self-evidently wrong that it's quite remarkable that it's come before the parliament and that we're even needing to debate the rights and wrongs of these issues. It is also wrong for us to look at these issues in isolation, because, Deputy Speaker, I suggest we need to take a step back at this point and have a look at the direction our country is going in a whole range of ways and, in particular, the direction we are going about the rights of our citizens and the way in which the rights of our citizens and our groups, be it environmental groups or any other groups, are slowly being diminished, in an incremental way; because, when you take a step back and you look at a whole range of decisions that have been made by this and previous governments, including the bill that's before parliament today, that would deny some Australians to access all aspects of the legal system, you can draw a conclusion that Australia has reached the stage of being almost in a pre police-state, where the rights of citizens have been diminished so far, where the power of the state has increased so much, that we are in, what I'll characterise as, a pre police-state. Deputy Speaker, when I turned my mind to this issue today and to preparing this speech, it took me very little time to quickly come up with some ten (10) characteristics of a pre police-state which exists in Australia right now, and I will quickly rattle through them, if you don't mind, Deputy Speaker. No. 1 - Australia Police State Characteristic [MASS SURVEILLANCE] For a start, the way all members of a community are now monitored by the state, on account of mandatory metadata retention, which passed this parliament some time ago, is already in law and will be implemented from next month. The community needs to understand that from next month, every phone call they make, every website they visit, every location signal sent from their mobile phone or other mobile device — electronic device — will be recorded by law, and can be accessed by the security services without warrant. This is something that has been rejected by many other developed countries. The scale of the mandatory metadata retention, which is being implemented in this country from next month, is almost unprecedented around the world in any developed country or democracy. No. 2 - Australia Police State Characteristic [MANIPULATION OF PRESS / MEDIA] Another characteristic of a pre police-state:  the way the media is being manipulated in this country. We have seen:  the way funding for independent broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS have been reduced; We have seen:  the way government ministers have bullied the ABC, bullied the Fairfax papers, have bullied some of the News Limited papers, at least the tabloids; We have seen:  the way, in this country, the Australian spreadsheet [ie broadsheet / newspaper format] has now become almost like Pravda was in the Soviet Union, as the official organ of the Australian Liberal Party. Again, this is a characteristic of a pre police-state, the way the media is being used and manipulated. No. 3 - Australia Police State Characteristic [MANIPULATION OF JUDICIARY] Another characteristic of a pre police-state is the manipulation of the judiciary, and it is remarkable that the government, Deputy Speaker, sees nothing wrong — nothing wrong at all —  in the fact that a Royal Commissioner would agree to go to a party political event. No. 4 - Australia Police State Characteristic [STATE SECRECY - OPACITY - LACK OF TRANSPARENCY] Another characteristic of a pre police-state, Deputy Speaker, is the secrecy that we see with this government and the ludicrous level of secrecy that surrounds our response to irregular immigration, and the development of this term,'on water operations', whatever that is. All we know is that it is some sort of term that means, we're not going to tell you what's going on, even it is being paid for by you and even if it is being done in your name, even if is of very great humanitarian significance. No. 5 - Australia Police State Characteristic [NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR ARRESTS - MERE SUSPICION OF 'TERRORISM'] Another characteristic of a pre police-state:  the fact that in law, in this country now, you can be arrested on suspicion, in the absence of any hard evidence, when it comes to terrorism. This, of course, is contained in one of the approximately [seventy (70)] separate pieces of legislation that have passed the Australian parliaments since 9/11 [ie 2001]. The fact that in Australia you can be arrested, in the absence of hard evidence, just on suspicion of thinking that you are going to do something in the future. No. 6 - Australia Police State Characteristic [DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL / INDEFINITE DETENTION] Another characteristic of a pre police-state — something that we see in Australia — is the fact that, in Australia, some people can be incarcerated indefinitely without a trial, and that's exactly what we are doing to some asylum seekers who are being incarcerated seemingly indefinitely, definitely without trial, in third countries where we send them to, when we send them to Manus Island in Papua New Guinea or to the Republic of Nauru. No. 7 - Australia Police State Characteristic [CONTEMPT FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW & INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS] Another characteristic of a pre police-state, Deputy Speaker, is that — there's no shortage of things I can rattle off here — is the fact that this government now shows complete and utter disregard for international law and any number of international agreements, that previous governments have agreed to. For instance, this government, ignores their own statute. This government ignores the Refugee Convention; this government ignores the Convention of the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. A healthy democracy, on that respects the rule of law, one that respects the rights of its citizens, one that respects the rights of the citizens of other countries, is a government that respects international law and international agreements. No. 8 - Australia Police State Characteristic [ELECTED REPS OF PEOPLE IN PARLIAMENT FORBIDDEN TO DEBATE & DECIDE RE IMPORTANT STATE MATTERS — EG. WAR / USE OF FORCE] Deputy Speaker, another characteristic of a pre police-state, is one in which the parliament, the elected representatives of the people, are forbidden to debate and decide on important matters of state. I mean, we had this situation yesterday where the government, in secret, decided to start bombing the sovereign state of Syria, and the matter was never allowed to be debated by the parliament, [and] was never voted on by the parliament. This makes Australia almost unique among our allies and among many developed countries:  the fact that in this country the parliament is not involved — is not allowed to be involved — in decisions about waging war. In the United States, the Congress has to debate and vote on declaring war. France, Germany, the Netherlands, their parliaments all are required by law to debate and vote on the use of force. Even in the United Kingdom, where it's not law, it's certainly convention, that the House of Commons, these days, will debate and decide on whether or not British military forces are committed to a conflict. But not in Australia.  Not in our pre police-state, where the parliament is not allowed even to have a proper debate — let alone a vote — about these sorts of matters. No. 9 - Australia Police State Characteristic [ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY / SYSTEM SAFEGUARD MECHANISMS] Deputy Speaker, another characteristic of a pre police-state we see in this country these days is the way our safeguard mechanisms are disregarded, or even bullied, if they get in the government's way. We saw the terrible treatment of the Human Rights Commissioner [Prof Gillian Triggs] when she spoke on the issue of asylum seekers. A good government, in a healthy democracy, would have listened to the Human Rights Commissioner, would have listened very carefully and would have been very careful to take the Human Rights Commissioner's advice and be seen to take that advice, but, instead, what we saw was a conga line of ministers all lining up to have a go at her, and to bully her. That is how an autocratic regime acts.  It is not how a democratically elected government would act.  It's not how our government should act.  It was a shame on this government the way it treated the Human Rights Commissioner. No. 10 - Australia Police State Characteristic [SECURITY AGENCIES - EXCEED LAWFUL POWERS] Another characteristic of a pre police-state, Deputy Speaker, is when security agencies start acting beyond their lawful powers. Although it was eventually halted, in the face of overwhelming public concern and protest, the fact that the  Australian Border Force (ABF) thought it was OK to conduct an operation on the streets of Melbourne, a few weeks ago now, where it would have acted unlawfully—         [ INTERJECTION  - male voice ]         "You know that's not right.  Stop telling lies." —by stopping people on the street to check their papers, so to speak, something that is not allowed in the Act:  beyond their legal power. But was there any legal condemnation from this government over this?  Was anyone sacked?  Was anyone held to account?  No. All we heard from the relevant minister, in interview after interview, were attempts to try and downplay the matter and say that:  ah, look, it wasn't that big a deal and it was just a badly worded press release. Well, no, it wasn't a badly worded press release.  It was worded exactly the way the Australian border force had intended for it to be worded.  A press release that went to the Minister's office beforehand — we're not sure exactly how many times — it seems to have been at least twice, perhaps three times, perhaps more. Now, Deputy Speaker, that's a long and pretty painful list to go through. But if I could come up with ten (10) characteristics of a police state and jot them down in a matter of minutes this morning, and I'm sure I could add to that with any number of other ways in which our democracy is diminished right now, what does it say about our country? And it puts this bill in quite a different light. If we were a healthy democracy without that list of ten (10) characteristics of a police state, if this bill just came in fresh and there was nothing else going on around us, maybe we would respond to it differently. I don't think we would, actually. I don't think we would, actually, Deputy Speaker, because I think — well, I know it's obviously — it's self-evident we shouldn't diminish the protections for the environment; it's self-evident that we shouldn't deny some members of the community (or some groups within the community) the right to access all aspects of our legal system, including judicial review. So it's a serious matter in its own right in this bill that's before the parliament.  But when you put it in the context of all of the other things that have gone on in recent years in this country, you start to understand that this country, not only is going in the wrong direction, but we've gone a long way in the wrong direction. And when you look back at history, and when you look at the lessons of history, when you look at once great countries that deteriorated over time, or their democracy deteriorated over time — and some even ultimately became police states — you see that often it happened incrementally.  Often, it didn't happen with one seismic event where a dictator came to power. Sometimes, these autocratic regimes were democratically elected and over time, bit by bit, the country deteriorated:  its democracy deteriorated, it's democracy was diminished, bit by bit, and then one day the community woke up and asked: How on earth did we get here? How on earth did we allow ourselves to now be living in a country that is so bad, that is so far removed from the wonderful democracy it once was? How on earth did we allow a democratically elected government to bit by bit, incrementally, one bill at a time, take us so far away from the healthy, wonderful democracy we once had? One of the problems, Deputy Speaker is, bit by bit, things become normal.  We get used to one little bit, then there's another little bit:  another bill. I've made the point that since 9/11 [ie 2001], there's been about seventy (70) separate pieces of legislation in this country to do with our national security, even though it could be argued that our laws at the time of 9/11 in 2001, were just about right:  it was clearly as serious criminal offence to murder back then.  It still is now. There is now doubt that much of that legislation, contained in those seventy (70) or so bills, is unnecessary.  We have gone too far in that regard. We must, however, ensure that we keep our safeguards in place. And that's one of the reasons that this bill is so bad:  that we would think it OK to deny some Australians their lawful access to the [inaudible/cross-talk]. — END VIDEO / AUDIO — ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Andrew Damien Wilkie b. Tamworth, NSW (54 years) appears very much a military man (formerly married to fellow army officer) Profession:  Soldier, intelligence officer Royal Military College, Duntroon (1984) University of NSW, BA Grad. Dips. Management & Defence Studies Armed forces rank:  Lieutenant Colonel Office of National Assessments (ONA) intel agency - 1999-2000 Raytheon, US defence co. Raythoen world's largest producer guided missiles ONA - again - (post 9/11 attacks) / intel agency / 2003 - resigned from ONA / (objected to Iraq invasion) Later, provided evidence to British & Australian inquiries re government involvement Iraq War published:  Axis of Deceit (2004) | here describes views on intel agencies & analysts' work history of Iraq War untruths of politicians & suppression of truth former Australian Greens member (resigned 2008) Independent member for Australian Parliament for Denison assumed office:  21 Aug 2010 source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wilkie ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Australian Treaty Series 1954 No 5 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva, 28 July 1951) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1954/5.html Australian Treaty Series 1991 No 4 Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, 20 November 1989) Entry into force generally: 2 September 1990 Entry into force for Australia: 16 January 1991 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1991/4.html International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) Entry into force generally (except Article 41): 23 March 1976 Entry into force for Australia (except Article 41): 13 November 1980 Article 41 came into force generally on 28 March 1979 and for Australia on 28 January 1993 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1980/23.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Prof Gillian Triggs President Human Rights Commission Australian academic specialising in public international law Other: education:  University of Melbourne / crowned Miss University in 1966 husband:  Alan Brown, former Australian diplomat [source:  AAW] ABC - Prof Gillian Triggs http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-30/record-on-asylum-seekers-may-hurt-un-council-bid-gillian-triggs/6816498 Australian Border Force (ABF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Border_Force ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- HUMOUR [CLICK image to enlarge] [CLICK image to enlarge] Closed Caption Gone Wrong ... lol OK, it's not that funny. But I thought it was rather funny at the time.   ;) Andrew Wilkie sounds really cool. I'm sure I'm on my way to developing a military fetish.  ;) Was shocked to find he's a military guy. Would have thought all the military personnel (or former military) would be really uptight pro police state types. Apparently not.  lol Like the sound of Wilkie. I'm not so much into the pro international laws & promotion of refugees' interests aspect; I'm more into the pro civil liberties and freedom from police-state aspect and pro interests of working classes, and am otherwise strongly in favour of strict immigration controls (which puts me at odds with the liberal left, humanitarians, and similar vocal others in the West). ꕤ

SNOWDEN, ASSANGE & WIKILEAKS: USA - NSA Police-State Dictatorship & Corporate Media State-Aligned Propaganda

John Oliver’s interview with Edward Snowden: Pseudo-satire in defense of NSA surveillance  By Thomas Gaist 9 April 2015 Comedy host John Oliver conducted an interview with National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden in Moscow recently that was broadcast Sunday on his HBO show “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.” In the process, Oliver exposed his solidarity with the American state and its vast, illegal spying operations. He took the opportunity of the conversation to come out harshly against Snowden’s decision to leak large quantities of NSA documents. Pushing for a confession that his actions were potentially “harmful,” the British-born Oliver demanded to know whether Snowden had personally read every single document contained in the files that the former NSA employee transferred to journalists beginning in the summer of 2013. “I have evaluated all of the documents that are in the archive. I do understand what I turned over,” Snowden replied. “There’s a difference between understanding what’s in the documents and reading what’s in the documents. Because when you’re handing over thousands of NSA documents, the last thing you’d want to do is read them,” Oliver retorted sarcastically. He went on, “You have to own that. You’re giving documents with information that could be harmful.” Oliver repeated the favored arguments of the Obama administration and intelligence establishment to the effect that the preservation of “national security” required the elimination of civil liberties, such as Fourth Amendment protections against arbitrary searches and seizures. “We all want perfect privacy and perfect safety, but those two things cannot coexist,” Oliver said, comparing the NSA spy programs to a “Badass pet falcon,” which he asserted could not live together with “an adorable pet vole named Herbert.” Oliver’s attack on Snowden reached extraordinary and insulting heights. At one point, he interrupted the internationally respected whistleblower for sounding too much like “the IT guy from work… Please don’t teach me anything. I don’t want to learn. You smell like canned soup,” Oliver said to the courageous defender of democratic rights, who has now endured nearly two years of persecution and exile. Oliver’s hostility towards Snowden and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is an expression of his staunch support, almost universally shared among well-to-do strata in American society, for the continuation of the US government’s surveillance programs. In a couple of brief asides, Oliver half-heartedly suggested that minor reforms to the system of authoritarian shadow courts and antidemocratic laws erected to legitimize the spying might be necessary. But the development and permanent maintenance of mass surveillance programs by the US government went unquestioned. If nothing else, the Snowden interview should help clear matters up for those who still had illusions about Oliver, Jon Stewart and their ilk. Behind their sophomoric antics, designed to dupe more naïve elements looking for something genuinely antiestablishment, lies a run-of-the-mill, conformist outlook, in keeping with the lavish material rewards they receive. (Oliver made an estimated $2,000,000 in 2013.) In one of a few moments when he adopted a serious tone, Oliver cited the failure of the New York Times to fully redact one of the NSA slides, an oversight he claimed was a “f***-up” that exposed a US intelligence operation against al Qaeda in Mosul, Iraq. In another, he warned viewers that WikiLeaks’ Assange was “even less careful than Snowden” about the material he was leaking. He mocked Assange, who remains trapped inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London as a result of his efforts to expose US war crimes, comparing him to “a sandwich bag full of biscuit dough wearing a Stevie Nicks wig.” Pointing to video clips of street interviewees who showed increased concern over surveillance after Oliver referred to reports that NSA agents view nude pictures sent by targets via email and text message, the comedy host contended that Americans’ interest in the matter does not extend beyond such matters. From here, Oliver arrived at the notion that the failure of even minimal reform of the surveillance operations to gain traction results from the fact that ordinary Americans can only be convinced to think about politics through appeals of the most backward kind. “Domestic surveillance, Americans give some of a sh** about. Foreign surveillance, American don’t give any sh** about,” Oliver said. When Snowden noted that such abuses are “seen as no big deal in the culture of the NSA,” and that agency employees “see naked pictures all the time,” Oliver issued another absurd slander against the US population. “This is the most visible line in the sand for people. ‘Can they see my dick?’” Oliver said. If wide sections of the population lack accurate knowledge about recent developments in government spying, it is the outcome of the systematic and deliberate efforts to conceal the truth by the corporate media to which Oliver belongs. Snowden made patient efforts to work around Oliver’s willful ignorance and class arrogance, seeking to explain that along with the “dick pictures” obsessed over by Oliver, the NSA is collecting every other form of data on the planet, from US and non-US individuals alike, in open violation of the US Bill of Rights and international law. “If you have your email somewhere like Gmail, hosted on a server overseas or transferred overseas or [if it] at anytime crosses outside the borders of the United States, your junk ends up in the database,” Snowden commented. “Google moves data internationally and NSA catches copies during this process, through PRISM, with Google’s involvement. All the major companies, Yahoo, Facebook, the US government deputizes them to be its surveillance sheriffs,” he added. Oliver is not engaging in political satire, of which there is a long and proud tradition, in any meaningful sense of the word. Genuine satire attacks the powerful, exposing their lies and hypocrisy. Oliver, on the other hand, instinctively aligns himself with the US ruling elite and its historically unprecedented surveillance apparatus, one of the foundations of a police-state dictatorship. Sunday’s installment of Last Week was an exercise in pro-NSA propaganda and cultural degradation. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/04/09/oliv-a09.html COMMENT Great article.  Wish I could think like this guy.  All I thought was:  what an asshole Oliver is, but I'd never have been able to articulate why as well as the article author. Article also ties in nicely with the one I looked at earlier:       Beyond Manufacturing Consent       By: Paul Street Manufacturing Consent:  United States corporate media’s role as propaganda organ for that nation’s imperial establishment US corporate media’s biggest contribution to the engineering of mass “consent.”      US corporate media function of transmitting      ideology and propaganda      in service to .. interrelated hierarchies of empire. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Beyond-Manufacturing-Consent-20150327-0024.html ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ OTHER Vilifying WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning by Hearsay http://wiseupaction.info/2015/04/11/vilifying-wikileaks-julian-assange-and-chelsea-manning-by-hearsay/ 'Vilification by hearsay' article in relation to the recent Sean Penn criticisms of WikiLeaks and Assange.

AUSTRALIA: AFP Access Journalists' Metadata / Australian Greens - STOP Data Retention

AUSTRALIA - POLICE STATE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Source - https://twitter.com/vanbadham/status/577955499703816192 See ADAM BRANDT video:   #StopDataRetention -- Adam Bandt https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=839543312747570 Adam Brandt is deputy leader of the Australian Greens. Why is there such a zeal to monitor what people do online? Labor has joined with the Liberals to push through poorly thought out legislation that violates the principle of prevention of government intrusion (eg state/police intrude only on those suspected of having committed a crime - not intrude upon entire civilian population, as is the case with mass surveillance & retention of data).  Brandt also pointed out that: Criminals can switch to international web-based servers and won't get caught by data retention bill, but the bulk of the unsuspecting population will (so this legislation does not serve the purpose it purports to serve). EUROPEAN UNION and NETHERLANDS have opted out of the data retention step, for good reason. Opens the public up to potential CIVIL LAWSUITS if information subpoenaed  (eg media conglomerates / copyright) -- HYPOCRITE LABOR JOINS LIBERALS TO RUSH THROUGH LEGISLATION Brandt says the public is told that there will be protection for journalists in the Bill and Labor says they'll back up the Liberal government, but no amendment has been circulated in the chamber or made publicly available and the Labor Party is prepared to take the LNP government on faith; but Greens are not.  Why should parliament be required to vote on legislation without a chance to properly look through amendments:  this is complicated & giving people protections from these kinds of laws is complicated. -- COMMENT Government intent on giving journalists protections?  Got to be kidding.  The police state is already violating the liberty of journalists. I'm shocked. If journalists are subject to state violation and intimidation, what hope of freedom has the average person got?