12 June 2020

PALESTINE BLEEDS: EXECUTION OF AUTISTIC MAN IS NOT AN EXCEPTION BUT THE NORM


Palestine Bleeds: Execution of Autistic Man is Not an Exception but the Norm



A 32-year-old man with the mental age of an 8-year-old child was executed by Israeli soldiers on May 30, while crouching behind his teacher near his special needs school in the Old City of Jerusalem.

The cold-blooded murder of Iyad al-Hallaq might not have received much attention if it were not for the fact that it took place five days following the similarly heartbreaking murder of a 46-year-old black man, George Floyd, in Minneapolis, at the hands of American police.

The two crimes converge, not only in their repugnancy and the moral decadence of their perpetrators, but also because countless American police officers have been trained in Israel, by the very Israeli ‘security forces’ that killed al-Hallaq. The practice of killing civilians, with efficiency and callousness, is now a burgeoning market. Israel is the biggest contributor to this market; the US is the world’s largest client.

When thousands of people rushed to the streets in Palestine, including hundreds of Palestinian and Israeli Jewish activists in Jerusalem, chanting “Justice for Iyad, justice for George”, their cry for justice was a spontaneous and heartfelt reaction to injustice so great, so blatant.

Al-Hallaq’s story might appear particularly unique, as the ‘suspected terrorist’ was killed while merely walking in King Faisal Street in Jerusalem, on his way to take out the trash. He was afraid of soldiers and terrified of blood.

“He was also afraid of the armed police officers who stood along the route to the special needs center he went to, where he participated in a vocational training program,” the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reported.

Al-Hallaq’s many fears, which may have appeared exaggerated by his family, turned out to be true. Even an autistic person in Palestine is not safe from the vengeance of soldiers.

But Iyad al-Hallaq did not need to die for Israel to maintain its pathological sense of ‘security’. The fact that he was already shot and wounded, and found bleeding in a roofless garbage room in Jerusalem’s Old City, was not enough to spare him that horrific fate. The fact that the man screamed in agony while hiding behind his caregiver, who pleaded with the soldiers, begging them to stop puncturing his already bleeding body with more bullets, was also not enough.
Still, the soldiers stepped forward, and from a very close range, fired three bullets into al-Hallaq’s midsection as he lay wounded on his back. Instantly, the young man, the ‘apple of the eyes of his parents’, ceased breathing.

“He was our mother’s love, her entire life,” Iyad’s sister, Diana said in an interview with +972 magazine. “She would hold his hand like he was a baby, and he would walk with her to the market, or the mosque or the clothing store. He was like her shadow. She worried about him and whether other kids would bother or hurt him.”

Caught off guard by the grisly nature of the murder and the mental state of the victim, Israel’s spin doctors moved quickly to contain the damage, initially spreading lies that al-Hallaq was carrying a toy gun at the time of the shooting, then backing off, promising an investigation.

But what is there to investigate? In recent years, the Israeli army has upgraded its code of conduct, adopting a shoot-to-kill policy of any Palestinian they suspect of attempting to harm Israeli occupation soldiers, even when the alleged Palestinian ‘attacker’ is no longer posing a threat.

In the case of Gaza, where protesters are separated from Israeli snipers by barbed wire and nearly a mile-long empty space, the Israeli military issued orders, as of June 2019, to shoot and kill ‘key instigators’ of the mass protests even while ‘at rest’. Hundreds of people have been killed in Gaza’s Great March of Return in this way, and the ‘key instigators’ included medics, journalists, young boys and girls.

Indeed, the killing of Palestinian civilians is a regular occurrence. It is the devastating routine with which Palestinians have been forced to co-exist for many years and for which Israel was never ever held accountable.

Only one day before al-Hallaq was murdered, Fadi Samara Qaad, 37, was killed by Israeli occupation soldiers while driving his car near the Palestinian village of Nabi Saleh, west of Ramallah.

The Israeli military immediately claimed that Qaad “tried to ram his car into a group of soldiers” before they opened fire, killing him on the spot.

This is the go-to Israeli military pretense that is often offered when a Palestinian driver is shot and killed by Israeli soldiers. Otherwise, the Palestinian victim, whether a man, a woman, or a child, is often accused of carrying a ‘sharp object’.

Al-Hallaq’s mental disability might have spared him, in the eyes of some, from being that archetypical ‘terrorist’, although the Israeli army immediately raided his house, looking for ‘evidence’ that would implicate him and be useful in their sinister propaganda.

In the case of Qaad, a Palestinian worker, on his way to join his wife in a nearby town to celebrate the Muslim Eid holiday, the Israeli army statement suffices, no questions asked.

This is the same stifling logic that has prevailed in Palestine for so many years, and counting. Children are killed for throwing stones at men with guns, who have invaded their homes and villages; pregnant women are gunned down at Israeli army checkpoints; men with amputated legs on wheelchairs shot by snipers while protesting and demanding their freedom.

All of this is taking place in the complete absence of any promising political horizon. Even the protracted and ultimately useless ‘peace process’ has been halted in favor of greater American backing of Israel and of the Israeli government’s mad rush to expand illegal Jewish settlements.

To secure his colonial accomplishments – read: land theft – Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is about to reveal the crown jewel of his legacy, as he prepares for the expansion of Israel’s borders through the annexation of yet more Palestinian land.

Inspired by the common struggle that ties them with their African-American brethren, Palestinians are now left only with their cries for justice: Palestinian lives matter, hoping, for once, the world may hear and echo their screams and, perhaps, do something.

More articles by:
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

02 June 2020

OLD 2 OF US


This video is available by logging in to google drive and clicking on "us", and you should then be able to access the short video made at the request of St Vincents Hospital Foundation who are putting together a collection of short videos of people who have been helped during the lock down by the kindness of people around them.

Google drive: log in:

old2ofus.mp4

25 May 2020

WHY ISRAEL FEARS THE NAKBA: HOW MEMORY BECAME PALESTINE'S GREATEST WEAPON


Why Israel Fears the Nakba: How Memory Became Palestine’s Greatest Weapon



On May 15, thousands of Palestinians in Occupied Palestine and throughout the ‘shatat’, or diaspora, participated in the commemoration of Nakba Day, the one event that unites all Palestinians, regardless of their political differences or backgrounds.

For years, social media has added a whole new stratum to this process of commemoration. #Nakba72, along with #NakbaDay and #Nakba, have all trended on Twitter for days. Facebook was inundated with countless stories, videos, images, and statements, written by Palestinians, or in global support of the Palestinian people.

The dominant Nakba narrative remains – 72 years following the destruction of historic Palestine at the hands of Zionist militias – an opportunity to reassert the centrality of the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees. Over 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes in Palestine in 1947-48. The surviving refugees and their descendants are now estimated at over five million.

As thousands of Palestinians rallied on the streets and as the Nakba hashtag was generating massive interest on social media, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, paid an eight-hour visit to Israel to discuss the seemingly imminent Israeli government annexation, or theft, of nearly 30% of the occupied Palestinian West Bank.

“The Israeli government will decide on the matter, on exactly when and how to do it,” Pompeo said in an interview with Israeli radio, Kan Bet, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Clearly, the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu has American blessing to further its colonization of occupied Palestine, to entrench its existing Apartheid regime, and to act as if the Palestinians simply do not exist.

The Nakba commemoration and Pompeo’s visit to Israel are a stark representation of Palestine’s political reality today.

Considering the massive US political sway, why do Palestinians then insist on making demands which, according to the pervading realpolitik of the so-called Palestinian-Israeli conflict, seem unattainable?

Since the start of the peace process in Oslo in the early 1990s, the Palestinian leadership has engaged with Israel and its western benefactors in a useless political exercise that has, ultimately, worsened an already terrible situation. After over 25 years of haggling over bits and pieces of what remained of historic Palestine, Israel and the US are now plotting the endgame, while demonizing the very Palestinian leaders that participated in their joint and futile political charade.

Strangely, the rise and demise of the so-called ‘peace process’ did not seem to affect the collective narrative of the Palestinian people, who still see the Nakba, not the Israeli occupation of 1967, and certainly not the Oslo accords, as the core point in their struggle against Israeli colonialism.

This is because the collective Palestinian memory remains completely independent from Oslo and its many misgivings. For Palestinians, memory is an active process. It is not a docile, passive mechanism of grief and self-pity that can easily be manipulated, but a generator of new meanings.

In their seminal book “Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory”, Ahmad Sa’di and Lila Abu-Lughod wrote that “Palestinian memory is, at its heart, political.”

This means that the powerful and emotive commemoration of the 72nd anniversary of the Nakba is essentially a collective political act, and, even if partly unconscious, a people’s retort and rejection of Donald Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’, of Pompeo’s politicking, and of Netanyahu’s annexation drive.

Despite the numerous unilateral measures taken by Israel to determine the fate of the Palestinian people, the blind and unconditional US support of Israel, and the unmitigated failure of the Palestinian Authority to mount any meaningful resistance, Palestinians continue to remember their history and understand their reality based on their own priorities.

For many years, Palestinians have been accused of being unrealistic, of “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” and even of extremism, for simply insisting on their historical rights in Palestine, as enshrined in international law.

These critical voices are either supporters of Israel, or simply unable to understand how Palestinian memory factors in shaping the politics of ordinary people, independent of the quisling Palestinian leadership or the seemingly impossible-to-overturn status quo. True, both trajectories, that of the stifling political reality and people’s priorities seem to be in constant divergence, with little or no overlapping.

However, a closer look is revealing: the more belligerent Israel becomes, the more stubbornly Palestinians hold on to their past. There is a reason for this.

Occupied, oppressed and refugee camps-confined Palestinians have little control over many of the realities that directly impact their lives. There is little that a refugee from Gaza can do to dissuade Pompeo from assigning the West Bank to Israel, or a Palestinian refugee from Ein El-Helweh in Lebanon to compel the international community to enforce the long-delayed Right of Return.

But there is a single element that Palestinians, regardless of where they are, can indeed control: their collective memory, which remains the main motivator of their legendary steadfastness.

Hannah Arendt wrote in 1951 that totalitarianism is a system that, among other things, forbids grief and remembrance, in an attempt to sever the individual’s or group’s relation to the continuous past.
For decades, Israel has done just that, in a desperate attempt to stifle the memory of the Palestinians, so that they are only left with a single option, the self-defeating peace process.

In March 2011, the Israeli parliament introduced the ‘Nakba Law’, which authorized the Israeli Finance Ministry to carry out financial measures against any institution that commemorates Nakba Day.

Israel is afraid of Palestinian memory, since it is the only facet of its war against the Palestinian people that it cannot fully control; the more Israel labors to erase the collective memory of the Palestinian people, the more Palestinians hold tighter to the keys of their homes and to the title deed of their land back in their lost homeland.

There can never be a just peace in Palestine until the priorities of the Palestinian people – their memories, and their aspirations – become the foundation of any political process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Everything that operates outside this paradigm is null and void, for it will never herald peace or instill true justice. This is why Palestinians remember; for, over the years, their memory has proven to be their greatest weapon.

More articles by:
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London, 2018). He earned a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, UCSB.

18 May 2020

MY ISRAELI NEMESIS IS MOVING TO AMERICA


My Israeli Nemesis is Moving to America





Erdan with IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz. Photograph Source: Israel Defense Forces – CC BY 2.0

My first run-in with Israeli politician Gilad Erdan took place on July 1, 2018, when I arrived at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, passport and visa in hand. After seven hours of interrogation, I was told that Erdan had had my visa revoked and was sending me directly back to the U.S. “We prevented Ariel Gold, an extreme boycott activist, from entering the country,” he pompously tweeted.

Now my nemesis is moving to America. On Monday, May 11, Erdan was appointed by Netanyahu to become the next ambassador to both the United States and United Nations.

To be fair, I am far from the first or most important person to be denied entry to Israel by Gilad Erdan. Erdan led the charge to deport Human Rights Watch’s Omar Shakir was the same politician denied entry to Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in August 2019. Still, back in 2018, he found the time to publicize his gripe against me. “Gold distributed videos on social networks, in which she harasses IDF soldiers and Border Police officers in Hebron, accusing the soldiers of apartheid and oppression, and that their actions do not conform to Jewish values,” he told the media.

It seems ridiculous that a country that heralds itself as the “only democracy in the Middle East” would feel threatened by a grassroots peace activist like me. But creating a more repressive Israeli state is exactly what Erdan has built his career on. As Erdan is about to become Netanyahu’s right-hand man in the U.S, it is important to understand where he comes from and what is on his agenda.
Erdan entered politics in the 1990’s as an advisor first to a younger Netanyahu and then to then Knesset member Ariel Sharon, who is notorious for the role he played in the 1982 massacre of thousands of civilians in Lebanon’s Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps.

Erdan joined Israel’s Knesset in 2003, placing third in the Likud primaries of 2008. As a member of Israel’s parliament, Erdan was a huge proponent of strengthening Israel’s alliance with the Christian Evangelical movement. This was despite the mission of evangelicals to return all Jews to Israel so that Armageddon can take place once Jews either convert to Christianity or burn up in a ball of fire. Erdan, it seems, has no problems with the antisemitic statements made by such evangelical leaders as John Hagee of Christians United for Israel—the largest pro-Israel lobby organization in the U.S. In the 1990s, Hagee referred to Hitler as a “hunter,” sent by God, to expedite God’s will of establishing a modern day Jewish state in Palestine. In his 2006 book “Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude To war,” Hagee accused the Jews of causing the Holocaust through Jewish disobedience to God.

In 2015, Netanyahu appointed Erdan to the position of Minister of Public Security, Strategic Affairs, and Information, which he has held until now.
In 2016, Erdan and Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked came up with the “Facebook Law” enabling Israel to have Facebook and Google remove content deemed to be against the interests of Israel’s national security. In November 2017, he ordered cameras to be installed at the entry and exit of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (thankfully the Palestinian prayer protests forced him to have the cameras removed) and in January 2018, he called for Israel to utilize Trump’s time in power to annex the West Bank settlements. Speaking to a Likud’s Central Committee gathering, he declared, “the time has come to express our Biblical right to the land.” The soon-to-be ambassador to the U.N. also made clear his lack of regard for international law and global opinion, stating that: “we are telling the world that it doesn’t matter what the nations of the world say.”

I began paying closer attention to Erdan in 2017 the Israeli Knesset passed a law, initiated by Erdan, enabling the country bar entry on the grounds of support for the non-violent Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement. Erdan announced at this time his intentions to create a database of people like me who peacefully protest.

In December 2018, Knesset approved $72 million for Erdan’s anti-BDS, anti-free speech project. In January 2018, Erdan released a blacklist of 20 organizations, including CODEPINK, now officially banned from entering Israel. Expanding his mission to suppress dissent and freedom of speech, in June 2019, he took credit for the unconstitutional anti-BDS laws being enacted in states across the U.S.

 “Our efforts are producing results. 27 US states now have counter-BDS legislation,” he gloated. “We must encourage investigations of terror-linked BDS groups and promote legislation that counters all forms of anti-Semitism including of course the anti-Semitic delegitimization of Israel,” he continued, calling for even further Israeli interference into U.S. policy.

Erdan won’t be the first Ambassador that I have taken issue with. In July 2016, I interrupted the current Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Ron Demer, as he spoke at a Democratic National Convention event in Philadelphia. In April 2018, I disrupted the current Israeli ambassador to the U.N. Dany Danon as he gave a talk at Syracuse University. You have “blood on your hands,” I told Danon before reminding his audience of the illegality of Israeli settlements.

Erdan will replace Danon as ambassador to the U.N. once he is confirmed by the new Israeli government, sworn in on May 14. He will then reside in New York City until he moves to Washington after Ron Dermer vacates his post, likely after the U.S. November elections.

Unfortunately, right now because of the COVID-19 crisis, my CODEPINK colleges and I won’t be able to tell Erdan in person just how unwanted and unwelcome he is in the United States. But mark my words, Erdan: In time, as you settle into NYC and then D.C., you will experience first hand, and in bright pink, the commitment that American activists have to free speech, democracy, freedom, justice, and equality for Palestinians.

More articles by:
Ariel Gold is the national co-director for CODEPINK. Follow her on Twitter at @arielelysegold

14 May 2020

CARDINAL GEORGE PELL AND THE VICTIMS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN VICTORIA


Cardinal George Pell and the Victims of Child Sexual Abuse in Victoria.



In the long and still unfinished search for justice, two agencies have been outstanding. The Victorian Police performed dogged investigatory work, and the Royal Commission over five years compiled damning evidence. On 12 November 2012, Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox called for the establishment of a Royal Commission. He was a 30-year veteran in Newcastle, and wrote an open letter to the NSW Premier: “I can testify from my own experience that the church covers-up, silencing victims, hinders police investigations, alerts offenders, destroys evidence and moves priests.” None of that stops at the Victorian border.

 “The whole system needs to be exposed; the clergy covering up these crimes must be brought to justice and the network protecting paedophile priests dismantled” (quoted in David Marr, The Prince). Backed by many Labour party backbenchers, and federal centrist politicians, PM Julia Gillard, the country’s first woman leader, moved to establish a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Gillard faced constant misogynist attack from conservative figures, but did not flinch (Tony Abbott was ready to be photographed beside a huge poster, ‘Ditch the Bitch’). It was perhaps her ‘most lasting legacy’ (Louise Milligan, Cardinal). “It will change the nation”, Gillard claimed, as she left office.

The Commission revealed over 4,000 cases of alleged child abuse between 1950 and 2010, involving 1,880 perpetrators. The average age of the victims was 10.5 years for girls and 11.6 for boys. It took on average 33 years for them to come forward. And when they did they faced ‘obfuscation and cover-up’ and cold aloofness (Milligan). The Commission presented its final report to parliament on February 2017. But when Pell went on trial, 100 pages concerning what he knew about abuse within the Church were redacted, and not released publicly till May 2020.

Ireland is ‘the mother country of Australian Catholicism’. When a nine-year inquiry revealed ‘the rot in Ireland’, Pell was quick to claim that “Ireland is not Australia”. But by then, a new accountability had been opened in the approach to the Church in Australia, with the arrival of a well-trained, determined and secular police. The Melbourne Age published a police report accusing the Catholic church of protecting paedophiles, and showing no sympathy for victims. The Police linked 40 suicides in Victoria to ‘abuse by half a dozen priests and brothers’. Detective Sergeant Kevin Carson noted that investigations would uncover “many more deaths as a consequence of clergy sexual abuse” (Marr). In 2015 a former choirboy informed Victoria Police that he and another boy, now deceased, were sexually abused by Pell in the 1990s. In February 2016, it was publicly revealed that a Police taskforce was investigating Cardinal Pell for historical child abuse. In October detectives questioned him in Rome about a number of allegations, and on 29 June 2017 Pell was charged with historical sexual abuse offences.

On 15 August 2018, a trial into whether the Cardinal abused two choirboys when he was archbishop of Melbourne in the 1990s, began in the state’s County Court. The offending allegedly occurred in the sacristy of the cathedral after a Sunday mass. After the jury was unable to agree, a second trial began on 7 November 2018. On 11 December that year a jury found him guilty of one count of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and four counts of indecent acts with or in the presence of a child. The court then placed a suppression order on the case, banning all reporting on the trial until a verdict was reached in another case (which the Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently dropped). On 26 February 2019 the suppression order was lifted and the guilty verdict made public. On 13 March, the County Court sentenced the Cardinal to six years’ jail.

 In August that year, the Victorian Court of Appeal unanimously rejected two of his grounds for appeal, and rejected another on a 2-1 decision. His convictions were upheld. But on 7 April 2020, the High Court of Australia quashed Pell’s convictions, and he was freed (Timeline, ABC News, 14 May 2020).

Pell’s rule was to ‘always hire the best’, so he employed ‘the nation’s most celebrated attack dog’, Robert Richter, who labelled the worst of the Cardinal’s alleged crimes in the sacristy as “no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration”. When he begged the court to distinguish between the actions of the Church and Pell, Judge Kidd affirmed: “I am imposing a sentence on Cardinal Pell for what he did”. His conduct in ‘forcing his penis into the mouth’ of one choir boy, in the busy Sunday sacristy, “was permeated by staggering arrogance” and, significantly, by a “sense of impunity” (quoted in Marr). A new man, Bret Walker SC, ‘the most respected intellectual advocate at the Australian bar’, represented Pell for his Appeal. Much time was given to the word must in analysing the jury’s duty to entertain inherent doubts about the prosecution’s case: Walker sought to ‘tease out those doubts’ (Marr).

Victims and Perpetrators

The long quest for justice began with the testimony of the one surviving choirboy, and there is near unanimity on his representation. He was a “very compelling witness”, he was “clearly not a liar, not a fantasist, [but] a witness of truth”, in the words of the Chief Justice of Victoria, Anna Ferguson, and the President of the Court of Appeal, Chris Maxwell (Marr). The testimonies of victims were usually clear on the essentials. Julie Stewart was a small schoolgirl at Holy Family Doveton, where ‘the mad priest Peter Searson’, both a sadist and a ‘dangerous paedophile’, operated, under Pell, the Auxiliary Bishop. Awareness of what was happening grew when the girl ‘ran crying from the confessional and straight to her principal to complain of the abuse.’ Eight years later, and three years after a Doveton delegation tried to warn Pell about Father Searson, Julie received compensation, under the ‘Melbourne Response’ scheme (devised by Pell), a derisory $25,000, and ‘forced to sign a deed of release’. Her school principal, Graeme Sleeman, ‘lost his career trying to bring Searson to justice (Milligan, ‘History Will Not be Kind’, ABC News, 8 May 2020, and Marr, Guardian, same day). Under Pell injustice prevailed.

Father Kevin O’Donnell, a serial paedophile, pleaded guilty to abusing eight children, then to a further 12, over decades, in ‘every parish’ to which he was moved. Two of his sorriest victims were the sisters, Emma and Katie Foster, aged about five at the time. After their abuse at Sacred Heart Primary in Oakleigh, Emma died of a drug overdose, and Katie, drinking to numb her pain, walked in front of a speeding car. Their parents (Chrissie and Anthony) became ardent campaigners for justice, and told a Victorian parliamentary inquiry that Pell showed a ‘sociopathic lack of empathy’ in his dealings with them (Cardinal). His cold and aggressive manner was on clear public display when he joined the Doveton faithful in a forum: Anthony Foster began with some known facts about O’Donnell’s assault on Emma, and Pell interjected: “I hope you can substantiate that in court”. When Chrissie Foster soon after named Searson as an abuser, he reportedly thundered: “It’s all gossip until its proven in court and I don’t listen to gossip” (quoted in The Prince).

The seemingly most awful perpetrator was Gerard Risdale, with more than 130 offences against children as young as four years, 1960s-1980s. Pell lived with him in 1973, he was uninterested in Risdale’s offending and why he was moved not less than six times. The Commission heard evidence that Pell was involved in some or all of these transfer decisions. When he did learn of Risdale’s behaviour, he dismissed it as “a sad story [which] wasn’t of much interest to me”, he informed the Commission in 2016 (quoted by Melissa Davey, ‘George Pell Failed the Children’, Guardian, 9 May 2020).

Nazareno Fasciale, a serial paedophile, was permitted to retire on grounds of ill-health. Charged by Victoria Police, he died six weeks later. Pell joined others in a requiem mass for Fasciale in March 1996.

Pell’s arrogance was again vented when he told the Commission in 2014 that he had originally taken comments from victims’ rights groups about abuse in the Church “with a grain of salt” (Davey, Guardian, 7 May 2020).

The Report of the Royal Commission

The release of the redacted pages, some 100, places Pell in a new, clear light. The Commission is seen to have ‘dissected forensically and rejected one by one’ Pell’s excuses, as ‘implausible, inconceivable, untenable and unacceptable’. Most were not historic crimes, but abuses that were happening around Pell ‘as he began his long climb to the top’ in the Catholic church. The Commissioners found that he knew enough even on his own evidence about Searson ‘to know he had to be removed from his parish, and that Bishop Pell ‘had the capacity and opportunity’ to act. Above all, ‘in direct contradiction to Pell’s evidence’, ‘he must have known why Risdale was being moved from parish to parish in Ballarat: sex with children’. Risdale’s crimes ‘were common knowledge’ and were known to the bishop and most of his ‘consultors’ or advisers. “It is inconceivable that the consultors did not know”, the Commission found. Risdale went on for another 15 years (Marr, ‘The Hidden Findings’, Guardian, 7 May 2020). Regarding Searson, the Commission affirmed: “We do not accept any qualification that [their conclusions are] only appreciable in retrospect” (quoted by Davey, same date).

In reaction to the revelations, Peter O’Brien, a solicitor who had represented victims, said that police must investigate the findings that Pell knew of the abuse and failed to act: “At the very least there must be a criminal investigation. The findings are extremely damning and suggest criminal, not only immoral, misconduct.” Dr Cathy Kezelman, president of the Blue Knot Foundatin, said that Pell was “allegedly complicit in covering-up and potentially concealing crimes…” Lisa Flynn, Shine Lawyers’ national practice leader, felt that Pell ‘did not deserve his Cardinal title (Davey, Guardian 7 May 2020).

Victoria Police told the ABC that they ‘would undertake an assessment’ of the Commission’s findings: they are ‘not completely ruling out the possibility of investigating the cardinal’. But Keiran Tapsell, author of a book on canon law, noted that laws on mandatory reporting on child sex abuse by clergy weren’t brought in in Victoria until 2014, and they don’t apply retrospectively. Previous attempts to prosecute senior Catholics for knowing about clergy abuse have failed (Jessica Longbottom, ABC News, 10 May 2020).

But Pell is arguably different and is seen to be different. Not least by his victims and their supporters. Paul Levey was 13 when he was sent to live with Risdale in Mortlake, where he was ‘abused daily for six months’. He visited the Vatican in 2016, with other survivors, seeking justice. Inspired by the release of the redacted documents, he is organising a petition for the defrocking of Cardinal Pell. In the first 48 hours, his petition was signed by 32,000 people. He intends to send it to Pope Francis, the Melbourne archbishop and the Ballarat bishop (Matt Neal, ABC South West Vic, 11 May 2020).

Pell’s offending against the surviving boy (Witness J) goes back to the 1990s. At his trial at the end of 2018, the judge advised the jury that, if they believed the victim, they must convict. After they did, a suppression order restricted reporting on Pell. But his intimidatory, bullying manners are recorded. While his defence before the High Court stressed the unreasonableness of his alleged behaviour in the busy Sunday sacristy, it is possible that such normalities could have been outweighed by his “staggering arrogance” and ‘sense of impunity’. The times are different, in Australia as in Ireland. The quest for justice is strengthened by the Commission’s findings.

More articles by:

12 May 2020

REFUGEE ACTIVISTS OCCUPY PRESTON HOTEL HOUSING MEDEVAC DETAINEES

The following article is from The Age online, and is more than about time that the non-Murdoch media acted like they say on the top of their paper - Independent - always.

It now remains to be seen whether they will try and build up a campaign to force this pathetic government and its loyal opposition to get the asylum seekers out of the concentration camps on Manus, Nauru and places like the Mantra hotel in Preston, Melbourne.

Australians who have not supported those trying to get these human rights abuses ended need to reconsider how they have felt being in "lock down" because of COVID-19, and now need to have some understanding of the cruelty to which asylum seekers have been exposed for all these years and DO SOMETHING!!


Refugee activists occupy Preston hotel housing medevac detainees


Healthcare workers have previously described the makeshift detention centre housing more than 60 men as a "very high-risk environment" for transmitting the coronavirus.
Refugee activists protest on the rooftop of the Preston hotel
Refugee activists protest on the rooftop of the Preston hotel
Steve Johnson responds to news detectives have arrested a man over his brother's alleged murder
Refugee activists protest on the rooftop of the Preston hotel

Refugee activists protest on the rooftop of the Preston hotel

Medevac detainees are being housed at the hotel where activists are protesting on the rooftop.
Eight activists checked into three rooms at the Bell Street hotel on Monday, and barricaded themselves into at least one of the rooms from 7.30am Tuesday.
The protesters have also occupied the roof of the hotel and locked themselves on as part of the demonstration. Banners have been draped from the roof saying: "let them out" and "seven years lock-down freedom now".
Footage from the scene shows police escorting all eight activists off the property mid-afternoon.


A statement from the Whistleblowers, Activists and Communities Alliance (WACA) said the demonstration aimed to draw attention to the need for detainees to be provided with the medical care they were brought to Australia for under the now-repealed "medevac laws".
Banners are on the roof of the hotel, saying, "let them out".
Banners are on the roof of the hotel, saying, "let them out".Credit:WACA
"Over the last two months of this pandemic the federal and state government message has been 'we are all in this together'. Clearly some of us of are more in this together than others. We are not truly together until all, including detained asylum seekers and refugees, have their freedom," spokesperson Gaye Demanuele said.

Last month, more than 1180 healthcare professionals signed a joint letter to the government calling for the men to be released.
"Failure to take action to release people seeking asylum and refugees from detention will not only put them at greater risk of infection (and possibly death), it also risks placing a greater burden on wider Australian society and the health care system," said the letter, drafted by infectious diseases expert Professor David Isaacs.

More than 60 men are confined to a secure floor of the motel, which is off limits to other guests and staffed by armed guards. While Australian Border Force, which operates the motel's secure wing, has cancelled all outside visits, guards come and go throughout the day.

No detainee in immigration has tested positive to COVID-19, and a spokesperson said the Australian Border Force was focussed on health and safety during the pandemic.
The protesters began the demonstration about 7.30am on Tuesday.
The protesters began the demonstration about 7.30am on Tuesday.Credit:WACA
"A range of measures have been introduced to actively manage health, hygiene and cleaning requirements in all detention facilities. These measures are continually reviewed in line with the current health advice," the spokesperson said.

"All detainees continue to have ongoing access to the medical professionals located within facilities, including after hours."

Refugee activists on the roof of the Mantra hotel in Preston on Tuesday.
Refugee activists on the roof of the Mantra hotel in Preston on Tuesday.Credit:WACA
Any detainee with flu-like symptoms are tested and quarantined, according to Border Force.

Kurdish man Farhad Bandesh was medically evacuated from Manus Island and then moved from the Mantra to the Melbourne Immigration and Transit Accommodation centre (MITA).
A refugee activist barricaded in a Mantra hotel room on Tuesday.
A refugee activist barricaded in a Mantra hotel room on Tuesday.Credit:WACA
"My friends [at Mantra] are really sick, mentally and physically, and the situation there is really stressful," Mr Bandesh said.

"At the moment I think they've got good energy because of the people that are supporting them, and we are still asking for our rights after so many years."
He thanked the protesters, "they show we are not alone".

"All the detention centres are all the same, everyone is panicking and they are scared. They don't want to catch the COVID-19."
The roof of the Mantra in Preston.
The roof of the Mantra in Preston.Credit:WACA
Activists have bypassed lockdown restrictions during the pandemic by walking past Mantra and the MITA centre in protest of detention.

Walking is considered exercise and is allowable under Victoria's lockdown rules though protests themselves are a breach of the restrictions.

Last month, 30 people were also fined for protesting in support of refugees and asylum seekers outside the Preston hotel.

Mantra declined to comment.

11 May 2020

UK SUPREME COURT REVERSES BDS BAN

From The Real News Network, 7 May 2020

UK Supreme Court Reverses BDS Ban

May 7, 2020
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the largest British Palestinian solidarity group, successfully petitioned to reverse a 2016 ban preventing local governments divesting from companies involved in the Israeli occupation.


Story Transcript

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Kim Brown: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Kim Brown. A major decision by the UK Supreme Court protects the rights of organizations, including government organizations, to boycott, divest and sanction the State of Israel, even companies that support the exploitation of Palestine. In 2016, the British government issued severe guidelines banning government organizations and even local governments from participating in the BDS movement in any way.

Now this has impacted the Local Government Pension Scheme, the LGPS, which were obligated to invest the pension money of public service workers in companies that violate international law. Now, that decision was met in Britain with some resistance. Channel four of the BBC spoke with Rafeef Ziadah from the Palestine Society at SOAS University.

Rafeef Ziadah: I think it’s disgraceful that the British government has decided to intervene in this way, attacking local democracy and stopping councils from making ethical decisions around investments. I think the public has every right to be able to intervene in these issues, to talk to our elected officials and to have an impact on corporations that we disagree with, involved in arms trade, against sweatshop labor and for Palestinian rights as well.

Kim Brown: In response to the government decision at the time, world famous journalist Glenn Greenwald said that the attempt to ban BDS is the worst attack on freedom of speech in the West in contemporary times. So joining us to discuss this today is Ben Jamal. Ben is the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which is the largest UK civil society organization dedicated to securing Palestinian human rights. He joins us today from London. Ben, thank you so much for being here.

Ben Jamal: Nice to be here Kim.

Kim Brown: So, Ben, let’s go back to 2016 for a moment because I wanted to get your opinion about the British government’s decision to ban a boycott. We’ll get into, did they have the right to do so, in just a moment. But I wanted to get your take as to why they took this extraordinary step to put this down on paper.

Ben Jamal: Yeah. Well, I think, and we said this at the time, we had to really understand the government’s move as part of the global campaign that’s been going on for many years and which is right with the support of friendly allies amongst Western government, has sought to use what’s defined as law [inaudible 00:02:31] seeking to introduce laws that effectively criminalize BDS.

So we’ve seen laws introduced in the United States, I think more than 20 States have such laws. We’ve seen them introduced in France, we’ve seen them introduced in Germany, is part of the wider campaign to de-legitimize the Palestine Solidarity Movement and de-legitimized activism for Palestine. And these regulations that the government introduced in the UK in 2016 with the first serious attempt we’d seen in the UK to do something similar and to attempt to prohibit action that was effectively… People making decisions not to invest money in companies that were complicit in Israel’s violations of international law to attempt to prohibit that sort of activity.

Kim Brown: So talk to us a little bit about the appeal. What exactly did PCS argue in front of the UK Supreme court and how did the government defend its decision to impose a ban on BDS, on local governments?

Ben Jamal: Well, our argument was framed around… First of all, the obligation as we saw it of public bodies not to be complicit in having their money invested, having the money of their pension scheme holders invested in companies that we’re complicit in international law violations complicit in the violation of human rights, it was about the rights of pension holders on how their money was going to be spent. That if they said, “I don’t want my pension invested in a company that’s helping build illegal settlements”, they should have that right.

The grounds on which we had to fight the case were narrower. So the grounds on which we fought it and on which we won, were an argument about the fact that the government actually did not have the legal right to do what it was doing because pension law did not allow it to do that.

And also your question about how did the government justify what it was doing, I mean the regulations actually didn’t mention Israel or Palestine at all. They were framed in a way that said local government pension schemes cannot choose to divest in support of boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns in any situation where the UK government itself has not imposed sanction. So didn’t specifically mention Israel, but in the whole of the rhetoric around the regulations, the government may clear this was about stopping BDS that was targeted, a company’s complicit in Israel’s violation of Palestinian human rights. When the regulations were announced, they were actually announced, if I recall correctly in a press conference in Tel Aviv, so the minister responsible nine districts in Tel Aviv and make clear that these were part of their view about the illegitimacy of boycott and the way they framed that, why did they say that boycott was illegitimate? Because they use the line that, without stating it boldly, that boycott is inherently antisemitic, they used the line, “The boycott campaigns damage community cohesion.”

In other words, that boycott campaigns are in some way targeted at the Jewish community, which is inherently untrue. The BDS movement is run on anti-racist principles. It targets complicity and not identity. It targets companies and institutions and organizations that are directly supporting Israel’s violation of human rights.

Kim Brown: There’s a lot of conflation between criticism of the state of Israel and antisemitism, but the court ruled in favor of PCS. What reasons did they give behind their decision?

Ben Jamal: So as I said, we made the argument and the thrust of our campaign obviously was the ethical position, but we had to fight it. And the reason we took the cases, we were advised that we had good legal grounds and that the most likely chance of success was the government didn’t have the power. There’s a principle in UK law relies on a Latin phrase called ultra vires. It means you’re acting outside the boundaries of the powers you have. So the argument that was used in that one was the pension regulations, the pension law to which the government attached these regulations puts obligations upon pension companies to make decisions that are always in the benefit of their members to enhance proper investment decisions, et cetera. And the argument in that one was the government did not have the right to attach conditions to how they invest money.

That had nothing to do with any of those considerations. I thought they were to do with foreign policy positions. So that’s the basis on which we won. So it’s a very important victory. Obviously the legal principle was narrow, but as a line in the sand against the government attempts to introduce anti-bias law is very important. But we do have another battle on our hands because the government in the recent Queen’s Speech, so that’s the statement that a new government makes when it’s elected, about what laws it intends to bring in over the next parliament over the next five years. The government has announced that intends to introduce another law that would ban all public bodies from supporting BDS campaign. So we know I have to take the fuel from this victory and build the coalition, which we’re in the process of doing to oppose the next law that the government is trying to bring in.

Kim Brown: The court’s decision is important and interesting, not just for people in the UK, but really all over the world and here in the US various politicians such as New York governor Andrew Cuomo has said that they can’t control what people buy or choose not to buy, but state institutions can nevertheless ban BDS activities and choose to boycott any company or organization that practices BDS. So in a way, if it’s a public institutions don’t belong to the people, but are the private tools of politicians to promote a pro-Israel agenda, do you think that the decision of the UK Supreme Court will have an impact beyond the Britain’s borders?

Ben Jamal: I mean, I hope it does in two ways. One, I think it encourages campaigners across with huge numbers of messages coming into us from fellow solidarity activists around the world. We’ve had messages, numerous messages from Palestine. One that stuck with me is someone who described it as a historic day and I spoke to them and said, “Look, you might be able to play in this, anti-semitism is a narrow vitreous and important victory.” They said, “No”, they don’t understand. I’m a Palestinian myself, so I did understand we Palestinians don’t win many victories against the UK government. And of course there’s a whole history going back to the boat for a declaration that informs that statement. And they also said to us, we’re all walking foot taller today. So it’s important as an act of solidarity, is important as encouraging others, we can fight back against these laws where we have legal tools available to us.

They are something we should use as part of our campaigning as well as making the political case. They’re also though important in other ways. We hope the more victories we win like this is an international solidarity movement, the more we send a message to those trying to introduce these punishers laws that they will be opposed and that we can build political campaigns and public support and use the law ourselves where it’s available to us to oppose these attempts.

 They’re really about suppressing the Palestinian peoples rights to call for action by the international community to oppose their oppression. But individual’s rights to say, “Well, I wish to show solidarity for the Palestinian people and I want to take action to ensure that my country, my institutions, my local authority, my university is not complicit in supporting this injustice in how it spends its money, particularly where that money might belong to me. It might be my money. So they’re choosing to invest in illegal and immoral activities.”

Kim Brown: A major decision announced by the UK Supreme Court and a big victory for the BDS movement. Today we’ve been speaking with Ben Jamal. Ben is the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. He’s been joining us today from London. Ben, we appreciate your time in speaking with us. Thank you so much.

Ben Jamal: Nice to be here Kim.

Kim Brown: And thank you for watching The Real News Network.

RED JOS - ACTIVIST KICKS BACKS



Welcome to my blog and let me know what you think about my postings.


My web pages also have a wide range of topics which are added to when possible. Look for them in any search engine under

"RED JOS"




I hope you find items of interest!

Search This Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews

About Me

My photo
Preston, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
90 years old, political gay activist, hosting two web sites, one personal: http://www.red-jos.net one shared with my partner, 94-year-old Ken Lovett: http://www.josken.net and also this blog. The blog now has an alphabetical index: http://www.red-jos.net/alpha3.htm

Labels