Israelis ‘undergo Jewish DNA test before being allowed to marry’
MEMO | March 12, 2019
Israel’s rabbinate “has been performing genetic testing on Israelis from the former Soviet Union, to check if they are ‘genetically Jewish’ as a condition for marriage registration”, according to Ynet.
The new site reported that “at least 20 couples have come forward after having been asked to undergo the procedure in the past year.”
“Although the existence of such tests was initially denied by Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau admitted to having requested that some couples prove their Jewish status,” Ynet added, noting that “Lau claimed those were isolated incidents and there was no coercion.”
Ynet’s investigation revealed that “the complicated procedure was undertaken not only by the couples themselves but also by their relatives.”
“In one instance, a young woman who went to the rabbinate before her wedding was asked to conduct a DNA test along with her mother and her aunt, in order to eliminate the possibility that her mother was adopted,” the article stated.
“The young woman was told that if she refused the request, her marriage application would be denied,” Ynet added. “The rabbinate has control over Jewish religious rites in Israel.”
“According to the evidence accumulated by Ynet, these instances are examples of what appears to be a growing phenomenon where those applying to register for marriage, are being asked to undergo genetic testing if they want to have their requests granted,” the paper stated.
“Unfortunately, there are immigrants who, despite their eligibility under the Law of Return, are not defined as Jews according to Halacha,” said Lau in response. “In a few cases, there are those who claim to be Jews, but don’t possess the necessary documents to confirm it…or we find contradictions between their statements and what we would uncover about them”.
“In these cases we suggest undergoing DNA tests that would strengthen their claims,” he said. “It’s never forced upon anyone and only used to assist applicants in the research process.”
The Final Version of the EU’s Copyright Directive Is the Worst One Yet
By Cory Doctorow | EFF | February 13, 2019
Despite ringing denunciations from small EU tech businesses, giant EU entertainment companies, artists’ groups, technical experts, and human rights experts, and the largest body of concerned citizens in EU history, the EU has concluded its “trilogues” on the new Copyright Directive, striking a deal that—amazingly—is worse than any in the Directive’s sordid history.
Goodbye, protections for artists and scientists
The Copyright Directive was always a grab bag of updates to EU copyright rules—which are long overdue for an overhaul, given that it’s been 18 years since the last set of rules were ratified. Some of its clauses gave artists and scientists much-needed protections: artists were to be protected from the worst ripoffs by entertainment companies, and scientists could use copyrighted works as raw material for various kinds of data analysis and scholarship.
Both of these clauses have now been gutted to the point of uselessness, leaving the giant entertainment companies with unchecked power to exploit creators and arbitrarily hold back scientific research.
Having dispensed with some of the most positive versions of the Directive, the trilogues have also managed to make the (unbelievably dreadful) bad components of the Directive even worse.
A dim future for every made-in-the-EU platform, service and online community
Under the final text, any online community, platform or service that has existed for three or more years, or is making €10,000,001/year or more, is responsible for ensuring that no user ever posts anything that infringes copyright, even momentarily. This is impossible, and the closest any service can come to it is spending hundreds of millions of euros to develop automated copyright filters. Those filters will subject all communications of every European to interception and arbitrary censorship if a black-box algorithm decides their text, pictures, sounds or videos are a match for a known copyrighted work. They are a gift to fraudsters and criminals, to say nothing of censors, both government and private.
These filters are unaffordable by all but the largest tech companies, all based in the USA, and the only way Europe’s homegrown tech sector can avoid the obligation to deploy them is to stay under ten million euros per year in revenue, and also shut down after three years.
America’s Big Tech companies would certainly prefer not to have to install these filters, but the possibility of being able to grow unchecked, without having to contend with European competitors, is a pretty good second prize (which is why some of the biggest US tech companies have secretly lobbied for filters).
Amazingly, the tiny, useless exceptions in Article 13 are too generous for the entertainment industry lobby, and so politicians have given them a gift to ease the pain: under the final text, every online community, service or platform is required to make “best efforts” to license anything their users might conceivably upload, meaning that they have to buy virtually anything any copyright holder offers to sell them, at any price, on pain of being liable for infringement if a user later uploads that work.
News that you’re not allowed to discuss
Article 11, which allows news sites to decide who can link to their stories and charge for permission to do so, has also been worsened. The final text clarifies that any link that contains more than “single words or very short extracts” from a news story must be licensed, with no exceptions for noncommercial users, nonprofit projects, or even personal websites with ads or other income sources, no matter how small.
Will Members of the European Parliament dare to vote for this?
Now that the Directive has emerged from the Trilogue, it will head to the European Parliament for a vote for the whole body, either during the March 25-28 session or the April 15-18 session—with elections scheduled in May.
These elections are critical: the Members of the European Parliament are going to be fighting an election right after voting on this Directive, which is already the most unpopular legislative effort in European history, and that’s before the public gets wind of these latest changes.
Let’s get real: no EU political party will be able to campaign for votes on the strength of passing the Copyright Directive—but plenty of parties will be able to drum up support to throw out the parties that defied the will of voters and risked the destruction of the Internet as we know it to pour a few million Euros into the coffers of media companies and newspaper proprietors—after those companies told them not to.
There’s never been a moment where your voice mattered more
Watch this space. We will be working with allies across the EU to make this upcoming Parliamentary vote into an issue that every Member of the European Parliament is well-informed on, and we’re going to make sure that every MEP knows that the voters of Europe are watching them and taking note of how they vote.
All that it takes is for you to speak up. Over four million Internet users have signed the petition against the Directive. If you can do that, you can pick up the phone and call your MEP. Tell them why you’re against the Directive, what it means for you, and what you expect your representatives to do in the forthcoming plenary vote. It really is the last chance to make your voice heard.
French ophthalmologists demand Macron ban rubber bullets as eye injuries spread like ‘EPIDEMIC’
RT | March 10, 2019
France is experiencing an “epidemic” of eye injuries as police repeatedly deploy golf-ball-sized rubber bullets, France’s top ophthalmologists say, urging President Macron to halt use of the projectiles.
As the Yellow Vest protests enter their 17th consecutive week, the debate around the government’s alleged use of excessive force continues to gain momentum. On Saturday, the French newspaper Journal du Dimanche published a letter to President Macron written by the country’s 35 leading ophthalmologists, in which they asserted that the police’s use of rubber bullets has led to an “epidemic of serious eye injuries.”
Many people risk losing their vision, doctors say, hinting that the current dismal developments are no coincidence as rubber balls fly with great force and are often directed inaccurately. The letter, which demands “a moratorium” on using rubber bullets, was actually written in early February but only made public a month later to make sure the recipient gets the message, according the newspaper.
French riot police have become notorious for using hand-held guns, locally known as defence-ball launchers or Flash-Balls, during the protests that been ongoing since November.
The currently deployed model – named LBD 40 – fires 40mm foam projectiles, roughly the size of a golf ball. Rubber bullets have apparently become the police’s primary means of combating unruly crowds, and have been deployed more than 13,000 times, according to local officials.
The controversial weapon has landed the French government in hot water as reports of people losing their eyes in skirmishes with police began to surface. More than 20 protesters have lost eyes, five hands have been partially or entirely torn off, and one person lost their hearing as a result of a TNT-stuffed GLI F4 stun grenade.
The legal status of rubber-ball guns has been repeatedly questioned by human rights associations and politicians in France and abroad. In early February, France’s top administrative court, however, refused to ban the police from using the hand-held launchers.
Meanwhile, the country’s interior security code allows police to use force to dispel violent crowds but only when no other means suffice.
On Wednesday, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet called for a “full investigation” of France’s excessive use of force towards the Yellow Vests who, according to her words, demand a “respectful dialogue.”
Government figures show that over 2,000 protesters and over 1,000 police officers have been injured since protests broke out in November.
Brussels Shows Its Fear of Euroskeptics
By Tom LUONGO | Strategic Culture Foundation | 10.03.2019
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been under fire from the European Union for years for his opposition to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open immigration policy.
A policy which she herself has had to pull back on. And no matter how far Merkel has changed her stance and acceded to the reality of the damage her policy has created, Orban is still guilty of the sin of non-compliance.
Actually, he’s guilty of a whole lot more than that. Because Orban has not only stepped on the third-rail of European politics he’s stomped up and down while taking a massive dump on it.
That third-rail, of course, is naming names. Naming the very person who controls so much of EU policy through his co-opting large swaths of the European parliament.
That person, of course, is George Soros.
Now there is a push, ahead of May’s European Parliamentary elections, to kick Orban’s dominant Fidesz party out of the European People’s Party (EPP), a nominal center-right coalition and the largest single party within the EU parliament.
And with each victory over Soros Orban grows even bolder. After a successful re-election campaign predicated on the slogan, “Don’t Let Soros Win,” Orban has banned Soros’ major NGO, Open Society Foundation, as well as forced out his Central European University.
But his biggest sin was equating outgoing European Commission President Jean-Claude “When things get tough you have to lie” Juncker with Soros’ attempts to weaken Hungary’s border.
His reward for this, and building a border fence which thwarts Soros and Merkel’s tactic of tying immigrants in the host country in legal limbo for years by being inset from Hungary’s actual border, has been an Article 7 procedure opened up against Hungary for not abiding by the EU’s position on human rights.
Poland is in similar hot water with Merkel but thanks to one of the few reasonable things within the EU’s framework, each country can use the other to veto the actual censuring and concomitant removal of voting rights within the Union that comes with the full application of Article 7.
But this article isn’t really about Orban’s latest troubles with the faux democrats within the EU parliament. It’s about how scared those people are of the rise in Euroskeptics like Orban across the continent ahead of May’s elections.
Orban’s potential expulsion from the EPP is just another symptom of this fear. Recently, France’s Marine Le Pen, found out that the trial against her for tweeting out images of ISIS beheadings back in 2015, will go forward with the potential of landing her in jail for three years.
This is not much different than the kidnapping charge Sicilian prosecutors tried to bring against Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of Lega and all-around bad boy Matteo Salvini in Italy. This was a lame attempt to split Italy’s Euroskeptic coalition and keep it focused on internal trivialities versus mounting a real challenge in May’s elections.
The same is true now for Le Pen. Her National Rally party is polling within the margin of error of President Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche with a real chance to send a plurality of French Euroskeptic MEPs to Brussels in a couple of months.
Merkel is struggling with the same thing. And even though support for Alternative for Germany (AfD) has waned in recent polling, down to just 13%, don’t underestimate the voters’ desire to send a strong message to Brussels by voting in stronger numbers for the new or alternative parties rather than how they would vote for them at home.
We’ve seen this in the past with UKIP who shocked everyone in the last European elections in 2014 with the size of the vote for them. It never translated into domestic momentum as typical prisoner’s dilemma concerns are more prevalent in Britain’s majoritarian voting system.
But for the EU parliament where the two-party system doesn’t hold sway and the direct benefits are harder to make a case to voters for, it’s much more likely voters will loosen up a little and throw their support for a smaller, less established party.
And that, along with some serious miscalculations about Brexit which I’ll get to in a minute, has the power elite in European political circles very scared. So scared that they are willing to devote serious resources in Quixotic endeavors of dubious value.
Expelling Orban from the EPP will only give him more strength. It will only give Euroskeptics more ammunition. Orban, like Salvini, revels in being the outsider. He’ll use it to rally others across Eastern Europe and pull a few more seats into that orbit.
According to the latest polling, which you can find an up-to-date tally of here, Euroskeptic parties will take between 215 and 225 seats out of the 705 up for grabs, assuming Britain actually leaves and doesn’t stand for MEP elections, which at this point doesn’t look likely.
If reports are true that Prime Minister Theresa May cut a deal with Merkel in July of last year on the withdrawal agreement. And if that agreement was structured so as to ease the way for the U.K. to rejoin the EU later are true, then there is no way Mrs. May will be able to forestall Brexit on WTO terms at this point, even if it takes another 90 days to do so.
A report from the Bruges Group, since taken down, had the details (see link above). And we’ll know if this is the case if suddenly Theresa May agrees to step aside as Prime Minister just after March 29th whether or not Britain leaves.
Because she will have either failed to scuttle Brexit and be sacrificed to save the Tories. Or she steps aside for a true Brexiteer in the event of Parliament voting for an extension.
We’ll know this was the case if she does so.
Lots of ifs, I know, but right now everyone is doing the Juncker-Two-Step, lying and cajoling to maintain the status quo and continue forward towards further European integration.
Mario Draghi at the European Central Bank did his part, going full dove for the rest of 2019 to keep markets from imploding.
And if Brexit is settled on WTO terms that opens up their worst nightmare going forward.
Watch Viktor Orban smile the smile of the just at that point.
YouTube terminates Middle East Observer after almost 10 years online
Middle East Observer | March 9, 2019
After almost 10 years online, over 250 videos, almost 13,000 subscribers, and about 8 million total video views, YouTube has terminated the Middle East Observer (MEO) channel on its platform.
Although perhaps MEO became best known for its video translations of regional political actors such as Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, its work was certainly not limited to that. Middle East Observer sought to provide its viewers with reliable English translations on politics, religion, and culture from the Middle East more broadly, with a particular focus on media from key states such as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The termination of MEO’s channel came after several months of seemingly routine ‘violation’ emails sent to us by YouTube, the taking down of various videos of ours (most of which were uploaded several years ago) and the imposition of ‘channel strikes’ accompanied by emails about how we could better uphold its rather vague and in many ways hegemonic ‘Community Guidelines’. We gradually realised that no matter what measures we took, it would not satisfy YouTube’s ‘Guidelines’, as the platform’s architecture and policies increasingly moved towards the censorship of alternative news and views.
This censorship process against MEO began several years earlier, when YouTube deactivated our ability to monetise the absolute majority of our videos, classifying them as “Non-advertiser friendly”. Needless to say, this demonetisation regime has increasingly been criticised by many observers and major ‘YouTubers’ in recent years. They argued that the “Non-advertiser friendly” label was deeply ideological, as it worked to effectively censor (no funds = less ability to produce content) alternative and non-mainstream narratives while continuing to portray YouTube as a democratic and transparent media platform.
To bypass reliance on YouTube advertising revenue, we tried various options over the years, the last of which being an up-until-now successful experience on Patreon (here’s our page), where after only a few months 17 of our global viewers/readers joined the highly flexible crowd sourcing platform to fund our work and keep it going. Truly without their support we would not have been able to continue producing translations consistently (by all means support us to help us expand our work too).
Nevertheless, we believe that the termination of our channel today is a great blow to the coverage on YouTube of voices, news, and perspectives found on Arab and Islamic media that are rarely covered – or even purposefully silenced – by Western mainstream media.
YouTube’s message today is clear: the production, uploading, and viewing of genuinely critical and alternative ideas and viewpoints is not welcome.
Thankfully we at MiddleEastObserver.net have been anticipating this scenario for many years, and especially in the last 6 months. For now, these are the best ways to continue to follow and support our work:
– Support us financially (even with $1/month) on Patreon
– You won’t miss out on any content if you subscribe to our Website Mailing List
– We will now be uploading our video content on our Daily Motion channel
– Like our Facebook page
– Follow us on Twitter
Best wishes,
Middle East Observer
Over 30 New York scholars and activists spied on by former Mossad agents
Palestine Legal | February 28, 2019
NEW YORK — Palestine Legal confirmed today that a 2017 attempt to scare New Yorkers believed to support boycotts for Palestinian rights with bogus ‘cease and desist’ letters was the work of ex-Mossad agents. The Mossad is Israel’s foreign spy agency.
The New Yorker’s Adam Entous reported on how a private Israeli intelligence firm called Psy-Group spied on supporters of Palestinian rights. “The company said that its operatives drew up lists of individuals and organizations to target,” wrote Entous.
The article profiles UC Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian, who was targeted by Psy-Group along with eight other Palestinian rights activists.
Before expanding to California, the campaign initially targeted boycott supporters on college campuses in New York, according to the article.
One such attempt was the now-defunct blacklist website outlawbds.com, whose operatives sent dozens of fake letters threatening students, professors and grassroots activists with “legal proceedings” if they did not “cease and desist” from supporting boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) for Palestinian rights. The New Yorker article identifies Psy-Group as the operators of the site.
Screenshot of Psy-Group email
“It’s scary to think that ex-Mossad agents were behind this spying,” said senior staff attorney Radhika Sainath, who advised over 30 individuals targeted by the letters. “The Mossad itself has a history of surveilling, sabotaging and assassinating Palestinian activists around the world.”
The people targeted by former Israeli intelligence agents with Psy-Group include faculty at Columbia University, New York University, multiple City University of New York (CUNY) campuses as well Black, Jewish, and Palestinian volunteers from groups such as Adalah-NY and Jewish Voice for Peace.
“It is disgraceful that professors and students in American public universities are being spied on and intimidated by the former agents of a foreign nation,” said CUNY professor Sarah Schulman, who was targeted by Psy-Group. “Fortunately, the commitment of grassroots Americans to Palestinian rights is increasing everyday, and no level of threatening covert operations can stop it.”
Though outlawbds.com and Psy-Group no longer exist, the tactics and methods they employed —anonymous blacklisting websites, fake profiles used to target or influence people, and smear campaigns—are all still in use by other anti-Palestinian groups, some of which potentially share information with the Israeli government. The largest example is the blacklist site Canary Mission, which has targeted hundreds of students and faculty who advocate for Palestinian rights.
While it is unclear what relationship Psy-Group had with active Israeli intelligence or government agencies, coordinating with a foreign government to secretly spy on people in the US may violate federal laws. The Israeli government has itself encouraged and funded such activities to covertly undermine the movement for Palestinian rights.
Ex-Candidate Renois: Movement Demanding President Resignation to Repeat in Haiti
Sputnik – 07.03.2019
The US Embassy continues to support Haiti’s President Jovenel Moise despite an unprecedentedly large-scale protest movement and corruption charges against him. According to one of the opposition leaders, former presidential candidate Clarence Renois, US support is not enough to reassure the protesters.
Renois told Sputnik that if protests continue, the only option the US has to help President Moise retain power may be direct intervention. While Frantz Voltaire, director of the International Centre for Information and Documentation on Haiti, the Caribbean and the Afro-Canadian community noted that the incumbent president was elected with American support, while observers suspected the United States of manipulating the election.
Since the political crisis that broke out in Haiti on 7 February as a result of clashes between law enforcement and demonstrators, 26 people have died and 77 have been wounded in the country, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
Opponents of President Jovenel Moise have demanded his resignation and accused the president primarily of embezzlement of funds from Petrocaribe, a loan provided to Haiti by Venezuela.
“The Petrocaribe Foundation has launched an investigation. Venezuela has allocated several billion dollars in accordance with its assistance program to Haiti. These funds, unfortunately, were used for other purposes. The companies signed large contracts, but the projects were not implemented,” Frantz Voltaire told Sputnik.
“According to Haiti’s Superior Court of Auditors’ report, Jovenel Moise, who owns several companies, took advantage of these contracts. […] The president’s name appears on the list of suspects in this loud corruption scandal.”
Nevertheless, despite the unpopularity of President Moise, the American ambassador to Haiti, Michele Sison, expressed official support for the president, stressing that the United States recognises the legitimacy of Jovenel Moise’s government:
“We have always underscored, in our statements as well as our diplomatic conversations… our belief in the legitimacy of Haiti’s institutions and its elected officials,” Sison said in February.
According to opposition party leader Clarence Renois, it’s “opportunistic support”, since the non-recognition of the incumbent president could aggravate the crisis.
“If a major popular movement demanding the resignation of the president, like last week, will repeat, the US support will not change anything. The United States can’t decide on the current government.”
A similar situation occurred in 2004. “The US government supported the incumbent president [Jean-Bertrand Aristide — Sputnik] and the protest movement prevailed, overthrowing him. One-time support does not guarantee durable power,” Renois stressed.
“Youth groups and associations are dissatisfied with US policy in Haiti and often openly show their anger […] At such demonstrations, young people say that the US has too much influence.”
The Director of the International Centre for Information and Documentation on Haiti, the Caribbean and the Afro-Canadian Community, Frantz Voltaire, also noted an increase in anti-American sentiment.
“Fair or not, but the election of Jovenel Moise as the President of the Republic is attributed to the Americans. As in the case of his predecessor, Michel Martelly, it is believed that this president was imposed by the United States. And this is not only the opinion of society. Brazilian analyst Ricardo Seintenfus in his book, published two years ago, accused the United States of manipulating elections.”
According to Frantz Voltaire, in recent years, scandals associated with Western NGOs have badly damaged the reputation of the United States. The press spoke particularly negatively about the Clinton Foundation.
“There is a feeling of resentment towards American politicians. After the [2010] earthquake, it is not known where the international aid was directed. Bill Clinton has been accused of having promised a lot, but nothing has been done.”
“International aid was distributed by the US and NGOs, and, in both cases, it is not known where these funds went. There was no audit, no additional verification.”
According to data provided by the Associated Press, 33% of the $379 million collected for rebuilding Haiti was kept by the US government. According to CounterPunch magazine, of every dollar collected by the United States, only 42 cents was sent to NGOs to assist Haiti after the earthquake.
Militarised Conservation: Paramilitary Rangers and the WWF
By Binoy Kampmark | Dissident Voice | March 6, 2019
Think charity, think vulnerability and its endless well of opportunistic exploitation. Over the years, international charity organisations have been found with employees keen to take advantage of their station. That advantage has been sexual, financial and, in the case of allegations being made about the World Wild Life Fund for Nature, in the nature of inflicting torture on those accused of poaching.
BuzzFeed, via reporters Tom Warren and Katie J.M. Baker, began the fuss with an investigative report claiming instances of torture and gross violence on the part of rangers assisted by the charity to combat poaching. It starts with a description of a dying man’s last days, one Shikharam Chaudhary, a farmer who was brutally beaten and tortured by forest rangers patrolling Chitwan National Park in Nepal. Shikharam, it seems, had been singled out for burying a rhinoceros horn in his backyard. The horn proved elusive, but not the unfortunate farmer, who was detained in prison. After nine days, he was dead.
Three park officials including the chief warden were subsequently charged with murder. WWF found itself in a spot, given its long standing role in sponsoring operations by the Chitwan forest rangers. As the BuzzFeed report goes on to note, “WWF’s staff on the ground in Nepal leaped into action – not to demand justice, but to lobby for the charges to disappear. When the Nepalese government dropped the case months later, the charity declared its victory in the fight against poaching. Then WWF Nepal continued to work closely with the rangers and fund the park as if nothing had happened.”
The report does not hold back, insisting that the alleged murder of the unfortunate Shikharam in 2006 was no aberration. “It was part of a pattern that persists to this day. In national parks across Asia and Africa, the beloved non-profit with the cuddly panda logo funds, equips, and works directly with paramilitary forces that have been accused of beating, torturing, sexually assaulting, and murdering scores of people.”
The poach wars are a savage business, throwing up confected images of heroes and villains. They do not merely involve the actions of protecting animals, but military-styled engagements where fatalities are not uncommon. Anti-poaching has become a mission heralded by the romantically inclined as indispensable, its agents to be celebrated. Desperate local conditions are conveniently scrubbed out in any descriptions: there are only the noble rangers battling animal murderers.
The Akashinga, for instance, are an anti-poaching enterprise of 39 women operating in Zimbabwe who featured with high praise in a report from the ABC in October last year. Who are the victims, apart from the animals they protect? There is little doubt in the minds of the reporters: the women themselves, victims of assault, many single mothers from Nyamakate. Laud them, respect their mission.
It is clear that these women are feted warriors, armed and given appropriate training. They “undergo military-style training in unarmed combat, camouflage and concealment, search and arrest, as well as leadership and conservation ethics.” Their source of encouragement and support is Damien Mander, formerly a military sniper and founder of the International Anti-Poaching Foundation.
Mander’s own laundry list for being a “good anti-poaching ranger”, as featured in an interview to the Hoedspruit Endangered Species Centre in 2015, is unvarnished: “A passion for nature, strong paramilitary base, and ability and willingness to work in hostile environments for extended periods of time as part of a team.”
The line between the mission of charity and its mutation into one of abuse is tooth fine. In February 2018, The Times, assisted by information supplied by whistleblowers, sprung the lid off Oxfam GB workers in Haiti, suggesting that charity workers had received sexual favours for payment in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. (Nothing like a crisis that breeds opportunity.) It was duly revealed that the organisation had done its level best to conceal the fact. The UK International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt’s statement to Parliament in February took most issue with the latter. “In such circumstances we must be able to trust organisations not only to do all they can to prevent harm, but to report and follow up incidents of wrongdoing when they do occur.”
In the course of its conduct, Oxfam did not, according to Mordaunt, furnish the Charity Commission with a report on the incidents. Nor did the donors receive one. The protecting authorities were also left in the dark on the subject.
Defences have been mounted by those working in the aid sector. Mike Aaronson, writing in August last year, pleaded the case that aid organisations were being unduly singled out, the scape goats of moral outrage and privileged ethics. “Aid organisations carry a lot of risk, operating in chaotic and stressful environments where in trying to do good they can end up doing harm.” In condemning them, it was easy to ignore the fact that they had “done most to address the issue”.
The WWF situation, which has moved the matter into the dimension of animal protection and conservation, has hallmarks that are similarly problematic with the humanitarian sector in general. And the reaction of the organisation has also been fairly typical, laden with weasel-worded aspirations. “At the heart of WWF’s work are places and people who live with them,” an organisation spokesman for WWF UK asserted in response to the allegations. “Respect for human rights is at the core of our mission.” There were “stringent policies” in place to safeguard “the rights and wellbeing of indigenous people and local communities in the places we work.”
Students of the broad field of humanitarian ventures suggest four instances where militarisation takes place. Charities and relief organisations have become proxy extensions in armed conflict (consider Nicaragua and Afghanistan during the 1980s); creatures of embedment (the Red Cross in the World Wars); agents of “self-defence” – consider the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem in the twelfth century; and engaged in direct conflict (the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War).
The WWF case suggests a direct connection between the mission of a charitable organisation and its captivation by a dangerous militancy. It has become a sponsor, and concealer, of vigilante action, obviously unabashed in cracking a few skulls in the name of shielding protected species. Along came the networks of informants, surveillance and exploiting local issues. No longer can this be regarded a matter of altruistic engagement in the name of animal conservation; it is a full-fledged sponsorship of a paramilitary operation with all the incidental nastiness such an effort entails.
Marine Le Pen To Be Prosecuted For 2015 Anti-ISIS Tweets
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | March 6, 2019
Prosecutors have called for French right-wing leader Marine Le Pen to be tried for tweeting pictures of atrocities committed by the Islamic State group, judicial sources said.
As VoE reports, Le Pen shared the gruesome images in December 2015, a few weeks after ISIS jihadists killed 130 people in attacks in Paris – and after a French journalist drew a comparison between the jihadist group and her party. Her move sparked widespread condemnation in France.
One of the pictures showed the body of James Foley, an American journalist beheaded by the Sunni extremists. Another showed a man in an orange jumpsuit being run over by a tank and the third showed a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage.
‘Daesh is this!’ Le Pen wrote in a caption, using an Arabic acronym for ISIS.
She is facing a possible three year jail term and a fine of EUR75,000 if an investigating magistrate decides a trial should take place for ‘circulating violent pictures liable to bee seen by children’.
Prosecutors demanded that another member of her National Rally party, Gilbert Collard, also be tried on similar charges.
Le Pen, who lost to Emmanuel Macron in the 2017 presidential elections, was stripped of her parliamentary immunity over the pictures and thereafter charged with circulating violent messages.
Last year, she expressed outrage after the investigative magistrate called for her to undergo psychiatric tests in connection with her tweeting.
She has denounced the case against her as a violation of her freedom of expression.
This is likely to put further pressure on Le Pen, 50, who already faces legal problems over alleged misuse of EU parliamentary funds.
Notably, this newfound pressure to prosecute Le Pen comes as her (renamed) party, The National Rally, is running a close second to Macron’s Republic on the Move (LREM) party in the European parliamentary elections to be held May 23 to 26. An Ifop Fiducial opinion poll in January found that 23 per cent of voters said they would back LREM in the elections, with 21 per cent saying they would support the National Rally.
UK’s Political Freak-Show Set to Run and Run
MPs on all sides are intent on derailing Brexit while the Zionist wrecking-crew continue gunning for Corbyn
By Stuart Littlewood | American Herald Tribune | March 2, 2019
The EU referendum question did not ask political parties, big business, the banks, Parliament or the media for their opinion. It asked ordinary citizens across the UK. Parliament got its instructions: leave.
To say that Saint Theresa and her Government have gone about it the wrong way is putting it mildly. The EU bureaucrats never wanted to hand us a deal – why would they, it’s not in their nature. It might have been better to just walk away after first agreeing on terms with European industry and commerce for continuing trade, and letting the Europeans argue the toss with their ‘crats in Brussels? Similarly our collaboration on the environment, security, and science.
Twenty-five years of EU membership have left us half-crippled and malfunctioning. We’ll have to re-learn many things including the lost art of export selling. We should have been doing that these last 2 years. The Institute of Export has been there to help.
Tangled with the shambles of Brexit is the continuing witchhunt by the Zionist Inquisition which stalks our marbled corridors and menaces politicians in their smoke-filled rooms, especially Labour. Indeed, a 62-minute documentary film with the title WitchHunt was due to be screened at the House of Commons next week but has been ‘pulled’ after an outcry from the very people it exposes. They, of course, haven’t yet seen it.
Within hours of invitations being sent to Labour MPs and journalists, there were calls for the expulsion from the Labour Party of Chris Williamson MP whose office had booked a room for the film show. Williamson was later suspended from the party for saying Labour had “given too much ground” in the face of criticism over anti-Semitism. Unbelievable, eh?
Incidentally, the film has been praised by directors Peter Kosminsky, Mike Leigh and Ken Loach (Kosminsky and Leigh are both Jewish).
Kosminsky: “[WitchHunt] packs a powerful punch, telling a story we just aren’t hearing at the moment.”
Leigh: “This impeccably-executed film exposes with chilling accuracy the terrifying threat that now confronts democracy, and the depressing intractability of the Israel-Palestine situation.”
Loach: “The case of Jackie Walker is important. This film asks whether her lengthy suspension from the Labour Party and attempts to expel her are fair, or an injustice which should be challenged. She is not the only one in this position. See the film and make up your own mind.”
The film is due for online release on 17 March after touring a number of UK cities with its director Jon Pullman. The press briefing describes it thus:
“In 2015, while the far right was gaining ground around the world, socialist MP Jeremy Corbyn was elected as leader of the UK Labour Party in a landslide victory. Accusations of antisemitism within the party immediately began to circulate. Well-known anti-racists and left-wing Jews, such as Jackie Walker, were amongst the chief targets. WitchHunt sets out to investigate the stories and the people behind the headlines, examining the nature of the accusations. Is this a witchhunt, as some claim? If so, who is behind it, and what is the political purpose of such a campaign?
“Has the media failed in its duty to fairness and accuracy in reporting on such serious allegations? Through a series of interviews, analysis and witness testimony, WitchHunt explores the connections between the attacks on Labour, the ongoing tragedy of Palestine and the wider struggle against race-based oppression.”
And this week the BBC continued to stoke the anti-Semitism ruckus by wheeling in TWO Friends of Israel MPs (the unbearably bombastic Zahawi and the tediously pedantic Gardiner) as panelists on their flagship political debate programme Question Time. Both spoke on anti-Semitism without declaring their interest. Chairperson Fiona Bruce should have tipped off the audience but didn’t.
It’s true that the Labour Party is swamped by complaints of anti-Semitism, many of them absurd or vexatious, and is struggling to deal with them in a reasonable time. But that’s no excuse for Tom Watson, the party’s deputy leader and no particular friend of Corbyn, to barge in and email all Labour parliamentarians asking them to send him complaints about anti-Semitism for monitoring. This would, of course, undermine and compromise the official process now managed by the party’s new General Secretary Jennie Formby.
Watson describes himself as “a proud and long-standing supporter of Labour Friends of Israel” and is a recipient of considerable funds from Jewish sources. He calls the BDS movement “morally wrong” and says those who campaign for it “seek to demonize and delegitimize the world’s only Jewish state”.
With his leanings, he represents an ever-present knife in Corbyn’s back. All things considered, perhaps Watson himself should be suspended.
Meanwhile, our Israel-adoring Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, was busy arranging for the political wing of Hezbollah to join its military wing on the list of proscribed terror organizations. This is not a very good idea since, in Lebanon, Hezbollah is seen as a political movement and a provider of social services as well as a militia. As such it forms an important part of the Lebanese government and Javid’s move could cause obstacles for the UK in the rehabilitation of the region and when providing humanitarian help to refugees pouring into Lebanon to escape the horrors of Syria. But Javid insists: “Hezbollah has identified as one of its biggest targets the state of Israel and its people….. This Government have continued to call on Hezbollah to end its armed status; it has not listened …. it is evident that Hezbollah has got more involved in and drawn into the Syrian conflict, and is responsible for the death and injury of countless innocent civilians. …..”
Javid, a merchant banker in the literal and rhyming sense, might just as well call on Israel to disarm. He conveniently overlooks the fact that Hezbollah was formed to counter Israel’s invasion and occupation of South Lebanon in 1982. Hezbollah is funded by Iran, a bitter foe of Israel, and is, therefore, by crazy logic, an enemy of Israel’s chums like the stupid wing of the UK’s Conservative Party. But let’s not leave out Labour. A big noise in Labour Friends of Israel, Louise Ellman MP, congratulated Javid on “bringing this much-needed measure before the House….. Hezbollah is not our friend, and today was a good opportunity to say so….. Hezbollah specifically targets Jewish people and Jewish organizations.”
Hezbollah, it seems, hasn’t been forgiven in some quarters for doing rather well against Israel’s mighty military in the 2006 war.
As voice after voice gets purged from social media, still think there’s no censorship?
By Nebojsa Malic | RT | February 28, 2019
For a civilization that considers freedom of speech one of its fundamental principles and universal human rights, the West sure does a lot of censorship – and no, farming it out to ‘private companies’ does not change what it is.
It happened again on Tuesday: British activist Tommy Robinson was erased from Facebook and Instagram. The social media behemoth said it has to act “when ideas and opinions cross the line and amount to hate speech that may create an environment of intimidation and exclusion for certain groups in society.”
As online polemicists are fond of saying, “citation needed!” Yet Facebook offers none: no evidence of specific violations, not even a definition of “hate speech,” just an arbitrary standard – and a threat of further bans for people who “support… hate figures.” Whatever that means.
How did journalists – those paladins of free speech, the fabled Fourth Estate, the valiant protectors of values that would die in darkness without their intrepid efforts – greet this news? Did they object to a British citizen being muzzled and wax about the dangers to digital democracy? Oh no, they rejoiced: Finally, what took so long?!
The same process repeated itself later in the day, when Twitter banned Jacob Wohl. The self-described supporter of US President Donald Trump had reportedly boasted about setting up fake accounts to influence the 2020 election. That is regarded as the sin-above-all-sins by social media executives, terrified of Congress blaming them for Hillary Clinton losing the White House to Trump in 2016, even though 99 percent of US media considered it rightfully hers.
Here’s the thing, though: Twitter still hasn’t banned Jonathon Morgan, CEO of New Knowledge, a company that was proven to have set up thousands of fake accounts to swing the Senate race in Alabama to the Democrats, and later paid by the Senate to blame Russia for its tactics.
Let’s also remember the suspension of several Facebook pages belonging to Maffick Media, an outfit that partners with Ruptly, a RT subsidiary. After the “Twitter police” at the German Marshall Fund and CNN raised a fuss about these pages having “Kremlin ties,” Facebook blocked them until they agreed to put up a notice about being “funded by Russia.”So they did, even though there is no such rule that would be universally applied.
Surely it is entirely a coincidence that a CNN reporter went around actively badgering social media outlets to ban Alex Jones, way back in August 2018, and would not stop until they all did?
But wait, there is more! It was confirmed on Tuesday that retired Navy SEAL Don Shipley, known as a crusader against “stolen valor,” got his YouTube channel deleted earlier this month. There were no details as to why, but this was right after Shipley had exposed Nathan Phillips – the Native American activist who claimed he was victimized by Kentucky high school students, in what turned out to be fake news – as falsely claiming he served in Vietnam.
Columbia University researcher Richard Hanania offered an interesting analysis a couple of weeks ago, showing that of the 22 prominent figures suspended by Twitter in recent years, 21 were supporters of President Donald Trump, and only one – Rose McGowan – was a Democrat. McGowan had clearly violated the platform’s rule against doxxing, and was reinstated after she deleted the post. Many of those 21 Trump supporters were not so lucky, getting permanent bans from the platform. So he asked:
Are we to believe that while prominent figures on the left encourage uncivil and even violent tactics… their online behaviour is, with the solitary exception of Rose McGowan, universally exemplary?
What are the odds? Astronomical, actually – Hanania showed that conservatives would have to be four times as likely to violate Twitter rules for even a 5 percent chance of producing the 21-1 ratio. Yet those who routinely cite statistical “disparate impact” to cry racism are perfectly fine claiming there is no bias here? Really?
But [insert social media giant here] is a private company! They can do what they want! So cry the sudden champions of capitalism and deregulation, who in their previous breath claimed Trump abolishing Net Neutrality rules would break the internet. Make up your mind, folks!
In the McCarthyite atmosphere whipped up after the 2016 US presidential election, the social media that once promised unprecedented freedom of expression have turned into the tools of censorship – and not on behalf of a governing party, either, but the bipartisan political establishment united in opposition to an outsider president and anyone who dares support him, or criticize their conduct.
By the way, the “terrible dictator” Trump hasn’t lifted a finger to stop this persecution, let alone sic the IRS or the FBI on his critics.
The idea behind free speech is not that all opinions are valid, but that they ought to be debated rather than imposed by force. Another fundamental principle of western civilization is that the law ought to apply equally to everyone.
One does not have to agree with Robinson, Wohl, Shipley, Maffick, Jones – or Trump, for that matter – to realize that a world in which there is one set of rules for “us” and another for “them,” in which it doesn’t matter what is done but Who is doing it to Whom, is not a land of liberty but something quite different.
Featured Video
Iran War Expands, Houthis Declare War on Israel /Lt Col Daninel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Bulldozer Revolution: A Blueprint For American Meddling in Eastern Europe
By Patrick Pillow | The Libertarian Institute | June 8, 2026
By the summer of 2000, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević appeared firmly entrenched in power.
A decade earlier, he had risen to prominence by harnessing Serbian nationalism as Yugoslavia began to fracture. Over time, he consolidated control over political institutions and much of the media while leading Serbia through wars, sanctions, and NATO’s 1999 bombing campaign. Yet beneath the surface, public frustration was growing. The economy was struggling, unemployment remained high, and many Serbians had grown weary of international isolation and authoritarian rule.
When Milošević changed election rules in July 2000 to allow the presidency to be decided by popular vote, he likely expected another victory. Instead, the move created an opportunity for a united opposition.
On September 24, voters went to the polls. Milošević faced Vojislav Koštunica, the candidate of the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS). Election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe later described the vote as fundamentally flawed, citing irregularities, restricted monitoring, and unequal media access. State television overwhelmingly favored Milošević while opposition voices received little coverage.
When results were announced, the opposition claimed Koštunica had won outright. The government election commission insisted that no candidate had received a majority and ordered a runoff election. The opposition rejected the decision and called for nationwide resistance. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Congress Moves to Institutionalize US-Israeli Relationship
- Israeli forces kidnap Red Crescent paramedics in Gaza
- Hamas: Iran seeking end to war on all fronts, including Gaza
- Gaza and its people may not survive this phase of ceasefire
- Israel used Jordanian airspace to bomb Iran: Report
- Israel’s Ben-Gvir calls for abduction of Lebanese women to pressure Hezbollah
- Lebanese Parliament speaker demands full Israeli withdrawal as Hezbollah exposes Trump’s false claims
- The Bulldozer Revolution: A Blueprint For American Meddling in Eastern Europe
- Seyed M. Marandi: Iran-Israel Strikes, Trump Humiliated & Yemen Restricts Red Sea Access
- How Successful Were Iran’s Retaliatory Strikes on Israel? Israeli Military Censors Don’t Want You To Know.
- If Americans Knew
- Those who championed free speech in the UK and US now wage war on it. And here’s why: Palestine
- ‘Instead of trying to control the whole world’, pro-Israel advocates can control AI, AJC told
- Massie honors survivors of USS Liberty on House floor, calls for investigation into attack: 4 Articles
- Israel has hundreds of millions to spend on settler outposts (illegal even in Israeli law) – Daily Update
- Gaza and its people may not survive this phase of ceasefire
- Smart borders, military gates and land seizures: How Israel is encroaching in southern Syria
- The Real “Divide” Among Democrats Over Israel Is Between Party Leadership and Voters
- What Visual Evidence Tells Us About Israel’s Use of White Phosphorus in Lebanon
- Israeli soldier kills seven-month-old Palestinian baby, then walks away
- UN verifies rapes of Palestinians, but still cites no Israeli victims
- No Tricks Zone
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
- Researchers Find Rapid Global Warming Phase At End Of Last Ice Age (Ca.18,000 Years Ago)
Aletho News 
