Peter Carey, one of the six writers not wanting to honor freedom of speech by honoring those who survived the Charlie Hebdo massacre, has now relieved me of wanting to read -- even that velleity has evanesced -- anything he's written -- deplores "the cultural arrogance of the French nation."
These six, with Peter Carey's name leading all the rest, have now failed a test. That test that required several things: a highly-developed moral sense, an understanding of what the Muslim presence in France and the rest of the West has been doing to free speech and a general sense of security, and -- above all -- the ability to make distinctions which, Jacques Barzun wrote somewhere, was the supreme task of intelligence. Tant pis pour eux.
Here is a message I received just before the weekend:
We launched the petition on Friday, but the signatures have been very slow and this is very disappointing.We are already outnumbered by pro Palestinian activists at every turn, so we need all our supporters to go the extra mile.
Please make sure to sign this petition. We are seeking that the Irish Government puts pressure on Hamas to put weapons beyond use. If European Governments start demanding Hamas is disarmed it will be cause huge pressure for the Palestinians diplomatically.
We need EVERYONE to sign it. You AND your family and friends.
Can you please share it on Facebook, Twitter and email it to your pro Israel friends,members of your church/synagogue etc.
Unreading Shakespeare by David P. Gontar Published by New English Review Press
New English Review Press is pleased to announce the publication of our eighteenth book, Unreading Shakespeare by David P. Gontar.
An outstanding Classic in the great tradition of A.C. Bradley, H.C. Goddard, G. Wilson Knight, and Harold Bloom. Together with the groundbreaking Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays, UNREADING SHAKESPEARE shakes the foundations of Renaissance studies, breathing new life into Othello, Hamlet, Falstaff, Rosalind, and many other characters. Here is the definitive exposition of Shakespeare in the 21st century.
Teaches us how to find the real wisdom of Shakespeare
Shows the major philosophical influence on Shakespeare is not Montaigne but Plato
Introduces Katherine of Aragon as Feminist Hero
Uncovers the comic dimension of Shakespeare s Tragedies
Presents the Socratic Apology of Falstaff
Rescues King Lear from modern oblivion
Writing an essay recently about an important character in Shakespeare, I turned to Mr. Gontar for guidance. He is illuminating, erudite and wise. I couldn't have done better.
—Theodore Dalrymple, author of numerous books, including Anything Goes, Farewell Fear and Threats of Pain and Ruin.
David Gontar's books on Shakespeare contain some of the most impressive writings on the works of the Bard that I have ever read. Gontar's Shakespearean essays fill us with triumphant illumination.
—Ricardo Mena, author of Ver, begin
Surely the best book of writing on Shakespeare in a very long time, UNREADING SHAKESPEARE and its companion, HAMLET MADE SIMPLE, are a revelation at once delightful and amazing.
—Richard Cameron, Co-founder, Institute of Classical Architecture and Art, Atelier and Co.
Bob Dylan in 1964 told us the times they are a-changin. He also urged senators, congressmen, to please to heed the call. That call has been proclaimed by the New York Timesand the Washington Post that have become part of the vast right-wing conspiracy as a result of their strong stories about the improprieties, scandals, and the greediness of former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, whose tax-exempt Clinton Foundation received money from seven foreign governments, as well as from others, while Hillary was serving as secretary of state.
Apart from the serious political and moral problems involved, there is also the appearance of a conflict of interests between public interests and private behavior. At the heart of this is the possible violation of the United States Constitution (Article 1, section 9) which states that “No person holding any office of profit or trust… shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”
The various governmental bodies, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the State Department, all ban cash payments from foreign governments to U.S. officials. Among those foreign governments giving donations to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary are Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, and Algeria. It is also worth noting two things in the same period. The first is that 22 of the 37 corporations nominated for a State Department award, and 6 of the eventual 8 winners, gave donations to the Foundation. The second is that Bill Clinton obtained $48 million in speaker fees during those years.
Linked to the conduct of the Clintons is the issue of United States national security. It is now revealed that four contributions, not publicly disclosed, to the Foundation came from the chairman of a Toronto-based uranium mining company named Uranium One that owned uranium mines in the United States, in Wyoming, as well as Kazakhstan. As a result of transactions beginning in 2009, the Russian state-owned atomic agency Rosatom bought a 17 per cent share in Uranium One. To obtain the majority share in Uranium One that it wanted, Rosatom needed approval from a special U.S. committee. A deal that required the approval of a number of U.S. agencies including the State Department, made in 2010 allowed Russia, specifically ARMZ an arm of Rosatom, to begin the process of gaining total control of Uranium One in 2013.
Investors in Uranium One had been giving money to the Clinton Foundation between 2005 and 2011. On June 29, 2010 Bill Clinton for a speech in Moscow was paid $500,000 from the Renaissance Capital investment bank that has links to the Kremlin.
In addition, the Clinton Foundation received donations, more than $8 million and pledges of $20 million, from Interpipe, a Cyprus company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch named Victor Pinchuk, that violated the sanctions against Iran by selling oil pipeline to it in 2011 and 2012.
Uranium One is one of the world’s largest uranium producers. Russia now controls about one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Together with the former Soviet nations, Russia controls almost half of the world’s uranium supply, and half of the world’s capacity for uranium enrichment. By comparison, the United States controls only 3 per cent of global uranium supply, and imports more than 90 per cent of the uranium required for its nuclear reactors.
Rosatom is Russia’s national nuclear corporation, and has Uranium One as its international mining unit. It is a major part of Russia’s industrial economy, now supplying about 17 per cent of Russia’s power.
Even more important for U.S. foreign policy is that Rosatom is an agent of Russian foreign policy. It already has agreements to build or supply parts for reactors in a number of countries including Turkey, India, France (Cadarache), and Vietnam. It is planning various deals with a number of countries, Finland, Ukraine, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Its ambition is to become the world’s largest supplier of uranium.
Rosatom is planning to build more than 20 new power units in India for the peaceful use of nuclear power. It will build eight new nuclear power reactors in Saudi Arabia, allowing the country to increase its nuclear capacity more than sixfold over the next 15 years. On April 23, 2015 it signed a number of agreements with Argentina on hydroelectric, nuclear, and fossil-based energy. It will build part of the country’s power plant as well as construct a hydroelectric dam, and provide access to Russian nuclear power technology.
The implications of all this are important. The activities of Rosatom are part of the policy of President Vladimir Putin to create so-called “national champions” that represent the interests of the state in international commerce. Putin did not invent this concept but he wrote about in his doctoral dissertation in 1997, and in the lead article in the Journal of the St. Petersburg Mining Institute in 1999.
The essence of his article is that Russia’s economic development would be based on its natural resources, especially energy sources, that would compete domestically and globally. These resources would be controlled by the state through companies linked to the power structure. They would become “national champions” active on behalf of national interests. Rosatom and Gazprom, the Russian national gas company, are two of those champions.
Gazprom was set up in 1989, Russia’s first state-corporate enterprise. The company is a joint stock company, partly privatized but it is controlled by the Russian state that controls 50.23 % of the shares in through its holdings in three other companies.
Gazprom is a very large operation producing over 15 per cent of the world production of natural gas and controlling about one-fifth of gas reserves of the world.
The important factor is that Gazprom supplies more than a quarter of Europe’s gas. Its series of pipelines connect the flow of gas through Ukraine and under the Baltic Sea to the European countries. It supplies Germany, with nearly 40% of its natural gas need.
The anti-trust commission of the EU, after a long delay, is filing charges against Gazprom, the largest supplier of gas to Europe, on the ground it has been abusing its dominant position in the European gas market in a number of ways. However, the anti-trust charges are against a company that has been for Putin an important force in Russian foreign policy.
Putin’s idea was that the large corporations in strategic centers should be concerned not only to seek maximum profits but should advance the national interests of the country, a policy familiar from that of Charles de Gaulle when president of France. Gazprom, by selling gas abroad under the market price, and being a part of economic nationalism, not only undercuts the free market, but also boosts the image of Russia.
That image is being boosted by the “national champions” not only in the oil, gas, and uranium sectors, but also in those of aviation, transport, pipelines, and metallurgy. These national champions may not always be complete instruments of the Kremlin but they are agents of Putin’s policies. Whatever else Bill and Hillary Clinton have done in their political and business activities, whatever the corruption or conflict of interest with which they have been involved, they did little to check Russia’s increasing control of important resources and increasing political influence, as well as disregard for international order. As Bob Dylan suggested, the senators and members of Congress should do so.
Ninety five years ago, prime ministers, ambassadors and other dignitaries from Europe and America gathered in the Italian Riviera. Journalists from around the world reported on the upcoming San Remo Peace Conference and the great expectations the international community placed on this event, just a year after the Paris Peace Conference had settled the political map of Europe at the end of World War One.
On Sunday, April 25, 1920, after hectic deliberation, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers (Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the U.S. acting as an observer) adopted the San Remo Resolution -- a 500 word document which defined the future political landscape of the Middle East out of the defunct Ottoman Empire.
This Resolution led to the granting of three Mandates, as defined in Article 22 of the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations. The future states of Syria-Lebanon and Iraq emerged from two of these Mandates and became exclusively Arab countries. But in the third Mandate, the Supreme Council recognized the “historical connectionof the Jewish people to Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” while safeguarding the “civil and religious rights” of the non-Jewish population.
Subsequently, the British limited the Jewish Homeland in Palestine to the area west of the Jordan River and allowed eastern Palestine to be gradually administered by the Hashemites. The territorial expansion to the east eventually gave birth to the Kingdom of Transjordan, later renamed Jordan in 1950.
The importance of the San Remo Conference with regard to Palestine cannot be overstated:
For the first time in history, Palestine became a legal and political entity;
The Jewish people were recognized as the national beneficiary of the trust granted to Britain in Palestine for the duration of the Mandate -- a “sacred trust of civilization” as per the League Covenant;
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 -- which “viewed with favour” the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine -- was now to be “put into effect”and thus became a binding act of international law;
The de jure sovereignty of Palestine was vested in the Jewish people, though it was kept in abeyance until the Mandate expired in 1948;
The terms of the San Remo Resolution were included in the Treaty of Sèvres and remained unchanged in the finally ratified Treaty of Lausanne of 1923.
The Arabs received equivalent national rights in all the remaining parts of the Middle East -- over 96% of the total area formerly governed by the Ottoman Turks).
The San Remo Conference was hailed as a major historical milestone. Celebrations were held throughout the world with tens of thousands of people marching in London, New York and Toronto. But the Arabs of Palestine, led by the Mufti of Jerusalem, were strongly opposed to any form of national Jewish homeland: the first anti-Jewish riots erupted in Jaffa just before the San Remo Conference convened -- a harbinger of the violent Arab rejectionist stance that continues to threaten the existence of Israel to this day.
While the Middle East peace process has been going on for over two decades, it is astonishing that San Remo and the ensuing Mandate for Palestine have hardly been mentioned. Is it deliberate? Is it a mere omission? How could there be peace and reconciliation without acknowledging fundamental historical and legal facts?
Middle-East diplomacy has often relied on “constructive ambiguity”, a concept earlier introduced by Henry Kissinger to keep the dialogue open and avoid discussing core issues deemed problematic. In the ongoing peace process, the ambiguity of language did not produce constructive results. On the contrary, layer upon layer of distortions and gross falsehoods piled up over the initial ambiguity of “land for peace.”
When the notion of “occupation” took root, it soon turned into “illegal occupation”, then “brutal oppression” and, finally, “apartheid” which is a crime against humanity in international law. Once corrupted language describes a distorted reality and the distortion spreads, thought becomes corrupt and any resulting action is bound to fail.
Commemorating the San Remo Conference should be more than a mere remembrance. It enjoins us to consider the legal reach of the binding decisions made in 1920 and to ensure that we do not entertain incompatible positions when political expediency clashes with unassailable rights enshrined in international law, namely the acquired rights of the Jewish people in their ancestral land. No wonder the Palestinian Authority -- intent on eliminating the “Zionist entity,” as spelled out in the PLO Charter -- abhors the provisions of the San Remo Resolution, which they view as the root of a catastrophe engineered by “Zionist gangs.”
In reality, the San Remo Resolution and the ensuing clauses of the Mandate for Palestine are akin to a treaty entered into and executed by each and every one of the 52 member states of the League of Nations, in addition to the United States which is bound by a separate treaty with Great Britain, ratified in 1925.
So next time you hear about the “occupation of the West Bank” and its supposedly “illegal settlements” -- an almost daily occurrence in the discourse of the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters -- you should remember that this territory, as the rest of Israel, was lawfully restored to the Jewish people in 1920 and its legal title has been internationally guaranteed and never revoked ever since. Any negotiation toward achieving a lasting peace should be based on this premise.
Last but not least, San Remo marks the end of the longest colonization period in history. After 1,850 years of foreign occupation, oppression and banishment by a succession of foreign powers (Romans, Byzantines, Sassanid Persians, Arabs, Crusaders, Mameluks and Ottoman Turks), the Nation of Israel was reborn in April 1920, thus paving the way for the proclamation of the State of Israel 28 years later. This liberation from foreign rule should normally be celebrated by all the progressive elites who have traditionally supported every national freedom movement. But it isn’t so, for reasons that defy reason.
Dr. Raphael Lemkin-The Polish Jew who Criminalized Genocide
The following is an excerpt from a May 2015 New English Review article: "Commemoration of Armenian Genocide and the Polish Jew who Criminalized it"
Dr. Raphael Lemkin-a picture taken by Arthir Leipzig
The paradox is that the term “genocide’ was defined by a courageous Holocaust survivor and Polish Jew, Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide in 1943 while in exile in the US. Raphael Lemkin’s, legacy for humanity is the UN Genocide Convention passed in November 1948 by the General Assembly later ratified in 1957. Lemkin was born in the Vilnius governorate of Imperial Russia in 1900, the son of a farmer and intellectual mother, a poet. As a child he became a linguistic prodigy ultimately learning over 14 languages, proficient in eight of them.
Lemkin lost 49 family members and relatives in the Shoah. He had foreseen the impending Nazi Holocaust and urged his family to leave pre-WWII Poland. Lemkin was one of the three international legal experts selected by UN Secretary General Norwegian Trygve Lie, to draft the international genocide law. He considered the Armenian atrocities during WWI as the first genocide in the 20th Century. He published a dossier on those Young Turk leaders who gave secret orders for the annihilation of 1.5 Armenians in 1915-1916.
Lemkin was motivated as a young law student at the University of Lvov, then in Poland now part of the Ukraine, when he asked his professor why there was no international law to prosecute the perpetrators of the Armenian atrocities. Lemkin was prompted by the 1921 assassination of former Ottoman Interior Minister, Pasha Talaat by a young Armenian student in Berlin. Soghomon Tehlirian was an operative of Operation Nemesis composed of members of their diaspora. The assassin was later exonerated for his action in a trial in Germany. It was in revenge for the Armenian Genocide. Talaat was instrumental in issuing the secret orders for the forced marches and other atrocities carried out by Turkish military and Kurdish auxiliaries that ethnically cleansed Armenian populations throughout the empire. Talaat was the Turkish signatory in 1920 of the Treaty at Sevres with the wartime allies that ended the Ottoman Empire. See this New York Timesreview of Eric Bogosian’s chronicle of this episode, Operation Nemesis.
Lemkin following law school was appointed a public prosecutor in Poland. In 1932, he collaborated with Professor Malcolm McDermott of Duke University Law School on the English translation of Polish criminal law published by the Duke University Press. McDermott and Lemkin would see each other again in 1936 and 1937 when McDermott had a visiting professorship at universities in Poland. His interest in a possible international law deepened when he submitted the proposal to a 1933 international criminal law conference in Madrid. In his proposal he identified the Armenian “great catastrophe” and the 1933 Assyrian Jihad at Simele in Iraq as examples of state-sponsored mass killings. He was barred by the Polish government from attending the international criminal law conference as the Polish Foreign Ministry did not want to alienate the new Nazi government in Germany and was prevented from traveling to Madrid to attend the conference. Lemkin’s proposal had identified Hitler’s rise in Germany, arguing that if it could happen in Turkey during WWI, then it could happen again. As noted in a 2013 Duke Magazine profile of Lemkin:
His draft law would outlaw “barbarity,” meaning ”the premeditated destruction of national, racial, religious, and social collectivities,” along with “vandalism,” referring to the “destruction of works of art and culture, being the expression of the particular genius of these collectivities.”
This was prescient in light of the jihads of the Taliban and the Islamic State in the 21st Centuries.
Given the rising anti-Semitism in pre-World War Two Poland Lemkin was ousted from his prosecutor appointment and took up private law practice in Warsaw. He had warned his family prior to the German invasion of Poland in 1939 to leave. He joined the Polish Army and was wounded in the defense of Warsaw. He escaped to Lithuania, despite his train being machine gunned by the Luftwaffe, and eventually made his way to Sweden, where he worked for his former Swedish clients and lectured at the University of Stockholm. There he compiled Nazi edicts about destruction of captive populations, especially fellow Jews. That material formed the basis of his book published in the US during World War II in 1944, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. In his book he defined Genocide from the Greek root of “Genos” for race or tribe and the Latin “cide” for killing. Book reviews in both the New York Times and Washington Post cited Lemkin’s arguments calling it evidence of the Nazi systematic and purposeful destruction of Jews and others and a monster that “gorges itself on blood.”
Through his friendship with Professor Malcolm McDermott, Lemkin obtained sponsorship of a visa that enabled him to come to the US. That entailed a 10,000 mile journey. He flew from Sweden to Moscow and across Soviet Russia by train to Vladivostok. From there he took ship to Japan where he stayed briefly learning about the massacres of Catholics over nearly two centuries. He left Yokohama by ship for Vancouver from which he eventually arrived in Seattle. Upon arrival at Duke in April 1941, he received a lecturer post at the Law School through the auspices of his friend Professor McDermott. In 1942 he left Duke to go to Washington where he became a consultant with Board of Economic Warfare and the Foreign Economic Administration eventually joining the War Department. He documented Nazi evidence of state-sponsored genocide developing the prototype of what ultimate would become the UN Genocide Convention. He pleaded with President Roosevelt for a treaty to make it a war aim criminalizing state- sponsored destruction of a race or ethnic group. In response to Roosevelt’s counsel of “patience”, Lemkin remarked in his biography:
“[W]hen the rope is already around the neck of the victim and strangulation is imminent, isn’t the word ‘patience’ an insult to reason and nature?” He saw a “double murder,” one by the Nazis against the Jews and the other by the Allies, who refused to publicize or denounce Hitler’s extermination campaign.
Immediately following the Nazi surrender, he left for Europe to find his family only to learn of her parents and relatives destruction at the hands of the Nazis. Only one brother and his family survived as captives in Soviet Russia during the War who ultimately came to Montreal. He then became consultant to Supreme Court Justice Jackson at the Nuremburg Tribunal where he endeavored to create a brief for conviction of Nazi leaders on grounds that they violated international law as perpetrators of state-sponsored mass killings. He returned to the US and received an appointment as a lecturer at Yale Law School. That enabled him to lobbying the UN and of NGOs in the America to adopt his proposal for a Genocide Convention. He ultimately was enlisted by UN Secretary General Trygve Lie along with two international legal experts to draft the Convention that passed in November 1948. The Convention was ultimately ratified in 1957. Lemkin was nominated four times for a Nobel Peace Prize. He later held a lecturer post at Rutgers Law School. Lemkin died of a heart attack in 1959. While he has received post-mortem recognition for his efforts, he never was accorded a suitable international honor. Samantha Powers, US UN Ambassador under President Obama accorded recognition of his international law on Genocide in her Pulitzer-Prize winning book, A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.
Lemkin Family members with Ambassador Garen Nazarian, Permanent Representative of Armenia at UN, December 2013
At a gathering of Lemkin relatives at the UN in December 2013 with the Armenian Permanent Representative, Garen Nazarian , an American- Israeli cousin, Benyamin Lemkin, a lawyer like his noted relative, said:
There is great dissonance between the UN’s official proclamations and professed identification with the principles that Raphael Lemkin promoted and the actual course of action the UN takes day-to-day.
I view the UN as a hotbed of anti-Israel activity. The enemies of Israel, these days most notably Iran, pose a genocidal threat to the Jewish state and the Jewish people. We must remember that the Arab countries in previous years, when they thought they were capable of doing so, sought to liquidate the State of Israel and its Jewish residents. Raphael Lemkin himself considered the Arab riots in the 1920s and 1930s against the Jews in the Land of Israel to be genocidal in nature.
If the UN really wished to live up to Raphael Lemkin’s legacy, it would be acting forcefully and unambiguously against the regime in Iran, which is in flagrant violation of the Genocide Convention.
There is a CBS interview with the late Dr. Lemkin by commentator Quincy Howe during which Lemkin recognized the Armenian Genocide precedent that influenced Hitler’s Holocaust against European Jews saying:
I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times. First to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action.
Watch the 1949 CBS Interview with Dr. Lemkin:
For a chronology of Lemkin’s life and bibliography of his publications and biographies see the Raphael Lemkin Project of the Rutgers Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights.
Threats, bullying and cowardice: The inside story of the Tower Hamlets mayor election fraud
Parallells with Channel Four's Dispatches - Undercover Mosque here. Don't move against the perpetrators (hate speech in the West Mindlands - Electoral Fraud in the East End) move against the complainants. From the Sunday Telegraph
But it wasn’t the former mayor or any of his associates. The suspect the Met wants to talk to is Andy Erlam, the lead petitioner in the court case against Mr Rahman.
“I was sitting in court, listening to the judge read out the ruling, when I got an email from a CID officer asking me to attend an interview this coming Tuesday,” said Mr Erlam. “It is Kafkaesque.”
As Mr Erlam read this on his phone, the judge, Richard Mawrey QC, was giving his verdict on the “ruthless”, “manipulative” and “lying” Mr Rahman, praising the “exemplary courage” of Mr Erlam and his three fellow petitioners, calling them “vindicated” in their claim that last May’s election was stolen.
But the road to victory was strewn with potholes. Now the case is over,the Telegraph – involved from the start– can tell the full story of the threats, bullying and official cowardice which protected Mr Rahman and discouraged his opponents. Disturbingly, some of that bullying has come from the Metropolitan Police.
At 7am on Jan 27, six days before the election trial was due to start, three Met officers arrived on Mr Erlam’s doorstep to arrest him for “perverting the course of justice”. Mr Erlam spent the last week before the case living away from home to avoid the Met. “To my mind, the clear intention of the police was to discredit me just as the case started,” he said.
His alleged offence, with another petitioner in the case, Azmal Hussain, was to have intimidated a witness, Abdul Latif Khan, into signing a false statement. But the supposed victim had already told police that the “crime” never happened. “I was put under absolutely no pressure by Mr Erlam or Mr Hussain,” he said. “I have made no complaint against either of them.”
According to emails seen by The Telegraph, the judge was “angry” at police behaviour and wrote to them saying the election trial should take precedence. Now it is over, the Met has swung back into action. “I’m not going to the interview,” said Mr Erlam. “They’ll have to arrest me. I will insist on handcuffs and I want a picture.”
Mr Khan, meanwhile, has written to the police, demanding they investigate those who were really intimidating him – Mr Rahman’s supporters.
“Our witnesses have been subjected to massive and genuine intimidation, but the police have pretty clearly chosen a side in this case,” said Mr Erlam. “I think there’s actual corruption here– there’s a pattern of behaviour that doesn’t make sense any other way.”
Some of the intimidation has been more like Chicago in the 1930s than London in 2015. For many years, it can now be revealed, Mr Rahman has benefited from a group of “enforcers”, individuals attached to youth organisations heavily funded by his council. Any Bangladeshi speaking against the mayor could expect a doorstep visit.
During the election trial, it stepped up. According to Mr Erlam and Mr Hussain, at least 12 of their 80 witnesses suffered serious pressure. The wife of a witness against Mr Rahman was told by four men that they would burn down her house, killing her and her children, if he testified.
Another witness was assaulted by two of Mr Rahman’s supporters inside the Royal Courts of Justice itself. . . The police took no action in the second case. In my day the RCJ Tipstaff would have taken action independently; his job was the security and peaceful running of the Law Courts.
As the judge put it, “witnesses whose command of English turned out in the witness box to be rudimentary nonetheless produced polished English prose in their witness statements containing words that appeared to baffle them in cross-examination. The occasional witness claimed to have typed out his witness statement himself, oblivious to the fact that its appearance was absolutely identical to that of other (allegedly unconnected) witnesses. The nadir came when one witness gave a graphic account of how he had attended a polling station to cast his vote and found it a haven of tranquillity, only to be confronted with absolutely incontrovertible evidence that [he] had, in fact, voted by post.”
Evidence from the Telegraph – whose reporter testified – was crucial in substantiating a key plank of the case. As the judge explained, it was not necessary for the petitioners to prove enough votes were faked to change the election’s outcome. “One bogus vote, if arranged by the candidate or someone who is in law his agent, will unseat the candidate, however large his majority.”
We revealed that at least three of Mr Rahman’s council candidates – all of them “agents in law” for Mr Rahman – had themselves cast bogus votes, from fake addresses where they did not live. . . At least one of the fake addresses has been known to police for years.
Mr Mawrey’s judgment makes clear his incredulity at the “blatant” and “bare-faced” lies told by Mr Rahman and his “hatchet-man”, Alibor Choudhury, in the witness box. Mr Choudhury, Mr Rahman’s election agent, was described by the judge as “arrogant, indeed cocky”. It is easy to see why. The reason misconduct in Tower Hamlets became so blatant and institutionalised is that over many years no one in authority held its perpetrators to account.
At election after election, journalists would reveal irregularities. The police and Electoral Commission refused to investigate seriously, doing enough to say they had looked into it but failing to follow leads or interview key witnesses.
The Met sometimes went further for Mr Rahman, at least twice issuing misleading statements which helped him. During the election Scotland Yard said there was “no credible evidence” of vote-buying in the council’s grants programme, and it would not investigate.
Not only has this now been disproved by the election court, it was known to be false even then.
The mayor and his team thought they could get away with anything. In Judge Mawrey, they met their match. Mr Rahman’s supporters were last night calling him the victim of a racist “coup”, and may well play the race card with a new candidate in June’s mayoral by-election.
The police investigation into Mr Erlam rumbles on, but no new investigation has yet been launched into Lutfur Rahman or the other guilty men of Tower Hamlets.
How? Let me count the ways. Why? There are all kinds of reasons, but I hadn't heard this one from Mary Wakefield in The Spectator, at least not in so many words:
My worry about Islam, as a religion but also as a growing influence on our culture, isn’t that it’s violent but that it doesn’t believe in original sin.
Now I can see that this isn’t going to be a popular camp. Most sensible types revolt at the thought of original sin. It’s medieval. It conjures in the public mind a picture of some spittle-flecked pervert in a dog collar making children cry. The idea that Adam and Eve screwed up so badly that their descendants are all fatally flawed seems both unpleasant and unfair. In Islam’s creation story, Adam makes a blunder, but is forgiven and restored to God’s right hand. Islamic man is therefore born not weak and fallen but perfect, a suitable companion for Allah. This, to a 21st-century mind, might seem the better way.
I disagree. I’m not evangelising, or lobby-ing for a literal interpretation of Genesis. But it seems to me that a nation, a civilisation, which has at its heart the idea that we’re all fallen is gentler than one that doesn’t. Moreover, as creation stories go, I think it’s a far better explanation for humanity; for the way we all behave.
Original sin puts us all in the same boat. It means that no one gets too big for their boots, because we all know we’re riddled with besetting sins. It means that we should care for the weak not just because we’re told to, but because there but for the grace of God goes everyone.
The Muslim idea of man as perfect or perfectible is, by contrast, a real bore. Instead of tending towards peace, or the great ‘oneness’ that Islam aims for, it ends up being divisive. If man can be perfect, there’s no excuses for those who have hit the buffers. Worse, it means, inevitably, that some will cast themselves as sinless and set up as judges of the rest. In Islam, because man is perfect, there are those without sin who can cast the first stone, and no one will dare tell them otherwise. You’d need original sin for that.
"Some"? Like Mohammed. And what is perfect may not be questioned. Because Mohammed said so, and his followers will kill you if you do. No conscience will prevent them -- a concscience is only for the consciously flawed. And you need original sin for that.
In January, President Al Sisi of Egypt called for a ‘religious revolution’ in Islam. He said: ‘Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live? Impossible… I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.’ This was seen as a very progressive speech.
But Sisi’s difficulty is that there really isn’t much in the Quran to suggest that Allah gives a hoot for non-believers. Muslims are encouraged to forgive one another, but it is not required to forgive infidels, the apostate or people who blaspheme. We’re not all in it together.
I’ve been reading some imams online who use the idea of original sin as a proof of Christianity’s idiocy. Look, say the imams, these Christian fools believe that babies are sinful. How stupid is that? But it’s far from stupid, the idea that we’re all flawed. In fact I’d say it’s both a spiritual and a scientific fact.
Allah requires slaves, not children, and Islam, like all totalitarian ideologies, requires blind obedience. There is no argument, no development, no love and absolutely no jokes. And no tunes. Talking of which, is your Sin Oringinal? A teaching moment from Tom Lehrer - see what I did there?
He has insisted in court his interest in extremism was for "research purposes".
Islam said he was experimenting on the teenager to see if he could radicalise and "brainwash" him in the same way Stonehouse man Reilly was.
Reilly, who has Asperger's Syndrome, became a Muslim at a mosque in Plymouth at the age of 16.
But he is said to have been radicalised in 2008 in a matter of weeks by two men in Pakistan via the internet who gave him step-by-step instructions on how to make bombs.
Islam told the Old Bailey he tried to brainwash Mr Thomas, who also has Asperger's, as an "experiment" to see if the same could be done.
He said: "When I saw what he [Reilly] had done I wanted to conduct an experiment to see how this individual had become radicalised.
"Previously he had no belief, no religious convictions, and I wanted to know how he became brainwashed and radicalised and this made me choose Harry to be a placebo to conduct the experiment. That's a nasty and cynical act that could have destroyed a life no less than the proposed murder.
"I just wanted to see if he would succumb to it. I was waiting for him to say if he had made purchase of the materials that were discussed and had he done so, I would have told him 'no', I would have told him what I was doing."
Islam, 18, from East London, denies preparing to commit acts of terrorism.
Giving evidence in his defence, he said his interest in extremism was "purely for research purposes and to understand the political side of my religion".
He added: "I was studying the reasons behind it. It was mainly the illegal occupation, as extremists would put it, of Muslim lands in Iraq, Afghanistan."
He said he wanted to find out why Fusilier Rigby had been murdered outside Woolwich Barracks in May 2013.
Asked why he downloaded a document called "How to make Semtex", Islam said: "I was doing research. I was looking at terrorist atrocities, foiled plots in the UK. I was studying about how easily accessible these materials are - I did not have the intention of making it."
Earlier in the trial, prosecutors told the jury how Islam befriended and then "ruthlessly exploited" Mr Thomas in a bid to persuade him to buy ingredients for a pipe bomb and kill two British soldiers. The trial continues
It is hard to avoid the sinking feeling that former NDP federal secretary and national campaign chairman Gerald Caplan was speaking for his party and its current leader, Thomas Mulcair, in the Globe and Mail on April 17. Caplan wrote that our only problem with Muslim terrorists is their objection to America’s dispute with Saddam Hussein, after he seized Kuwait in 1990, was expelled from it, and defied 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions in support of the ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War. Caplan cited Osama bin Laden, entirely neutrally, when he denounced the “hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died from lack of food and medicine due to American sanctions;” the founder of al Qaeda, he explained, “resented the deployment of American forces throughout the Gulf states, particularly in his homeland, Saudi Arabia.”
Caplan further claimed that “Canadians were given the same reasons by Michel Zihaf-Bibeau, who murdered Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the War Memorial in Ottawa [that] his actions were spurred by Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Of course, that isn’t the same thing at all. Bin Laden was speaking in 2001, in the wake of the attacks he directed against the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon, at which time there was no Canadian (or American) military involvement in Afghanistan; Canada’s only involvement in Iraq had been ten years before in an operation approved by the United Nations, NATO, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and the Palestinian Authority (led by Yasser Arafat, who purported to donate blood to assist victims of bin Laden’s terrorist assault on the U.S.).
Apart from the fantastic exaggeration of the effect of international sanctions on Saddam Hussein, imposed by an almost unanimous United Nations for his violations of international law (hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children did not die, and food and medicine were largely exempted from the sanctions, which were porous anyway); and apart also from the Swiss cheese of inconsistencies created by Caplan’s explication of the motives for these massacres of innocent people (as bin Laden acknowledged them to be), are we to understand the former NDP campaign chairman attaches some credence and approval to these motives? Practically the only country that dissented from the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait was Jordan, whose opposition was based on King Hussein’s desire not to antagonize his Iraqi neighbour, not any approval of Saddam’s seizure of Kuwait.
Caplan is on safer ground alleging the hostility of Islamist militants to various longstanding U.S. policies, including recognition (along with the rest of the United Nations Security Council and most of its members) of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, as well as a modest American military presence in the Middle East, invariably at the request of the governments of the host countries, including several of the Gulf states, most conspicuously Saudi Arabia. The countries that requested Americanf military collaboration did so because they felt threatened by the ideological and sectarian soul mates of bin Laden, which was understandable given the attempted assassination of the Saudi royal family at the principal mosque in Mecca in 1979, and many other infiltrations. If Caplan believes that the United States has no right to defend what it considers to be its strategic interests when asked to do so by sovereign governments in the Arab world, and has no right to avenge itself against groups that have murdered thousands of its civilians in vile acts of terrorism, he is enunciating a version of pacifism that is entirely original.
Even Gandhi accepted the legitimacy of military action in certain circumstances (he had little objection to the great Japanese offensive in the Pacific starting in 1941), as did Nelson Mandela, former commander of “The Spear of the Nation.” Caplan has a point to the extent that he regards as simplistic the George W. Bush-Stephen Harper imputation of objections to democracy as the Muslim terrorists’ sole motive in their terrorist attacks on the West. But I believe it is widely understood that bin Laden and other terrorists have vehemently objected to any Western cultural influence in the Muslim world and have disputed the right of the Arab powers to develop military relations with the West, the U.S. in particular.
The readership of the Globe and Mail, and the democratic world generally, are not truth-starved and were not gasping in ignorance of this point awaiting enlightenment from the former NDP campaign chairman. Neither Bush nor Harper have denied this, and while I am not an apologist for them, they are entitled to mention other factors, and their record in countering terrorism has been very defensible. Caplan might wish to recall the bloodthirsty and blood-curdling videos that bin Laden released in the year following the 9/11 assault, promising much more of the same. Instead, despite his professed desire to die righteously and go to his reward in paradise, terrorist attacks in the West have been comparatively few, and bin Laden hid like an animal until he was found and executed by American forces in Pakistan. Doubtless, bin Laden objected to that American action too.
Caplan goes on to quote, again with matter-of-fact neutrality, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber who tried to blow up a commercial airliner bound from Paris to Miami in 2001 “to help (expel) the oppressive American forces from the Muslim lands,” and one of the terrorists who blew up 202 tourists in Bali in 2001 in “revenge” for “what Americans have done to Muslims.” (The Bali bombs killed 88 Australians, 38 Indonesians, 27 British citizens, and seven Americans, so it was a rather poorly targeted act of vengeance on Americans.)
Caplan even dredges up Mir Aimal Kasi, who attacked several people in front of the CIA headquarters in 1993 as “retaliation” for “American support of Israel.” He quotes the Guardian, a more anti-American news outlet even than Al Jazeera, to ascribe the evolution of the Houthi movement — bankrolled and supplied by Iran in the Yemeni civil war — from peaceful coexistence to its present militancy, because of the “2002 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.” Finally, the punch-line: ISIS (a “brutal movement”), is responding to “the humiliation that Muslims have suffered at the hands of foreign powers and local dictators ever since the First World War.” And: “Are there hard lessons here for Canada and its allies?”
I don’t think so. I think we knew all that, but the humiliations did not begin in 1918; they started with the expulsion of the Moors from France after the Battle of Tours in 732, continued through the expulsion from Spain, the repulse of the Turks from the gates of Vienna in 1529 and 1683 (all defeats of naked Muslim aggression), the French and British seizure of Egypt in the Napoleonic Wars, the colonization of North Africa in the Nineteenth Century, and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and Anglo-French carve up of Arabia after 1918. The same sense of humiliation assimilated the British, American, and French discovery of oil in the Middle East cheerfully enough, but has never really accepted the Maronite Christians of Lebanon, nor other Christians in the Muslim world, much less a Jewish state.
We know all that too, and Stephen Harper and even George W. Bush know that. The solution for these antagonisms and the violence that results from them is better government in most of the Muslim world. But does Caplan, a learned authority on the Rwanda genocide, recommend Western appeasement of terrorists, the abandonment of the Muslim world to its most extreme inhabitants and the renunciation of any legitimate Western interest in it, including its Christian and Jewish minorities? Has he similarly no concern for the fate of nuclear non-proliferation, the region’s pro-Western governments, Europe and Japan’s oil supply, or the existence of a Jewish state in any borders? Where, if at all, do humanitarian considerations fit into this world view?
What is Caplan’s plan of action for all these problems, and will the real Thomas Mulcair please stand up with him and stop waffling about helping refugees and avoiding mission creep? These criminally diseased Islamist lunatics are attacking all civilization, including Muslim and Western civilization. We can’t just dump it on the Americans and respond with blankets, spam, pamphlets, rosewater, and sanctimonious obfuscation.
Former Iranian Negotiator Saeed Jalili: Beware Those In Iran Who Want a Relationship with America
He's willing, and urges others, to stand up for Iranian values -- which are not "democracy and peace and nuclear disarmament." Stand up for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
And watch out for the Americans, who apparently have "values" permanently inimical to the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the Islamic Republic of Iran has its values, too, which have nothing to do with "democracy and peace and nuclear disarmament."
Yesterday (Australian time) was Anzac Day: and this year it was the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli, the landing and subsequent fierce but ultimately unsuccessful months of struggle that are particularly remembered on that day, though it has also become a day to remember and honour all Australians who serve and have served and died in our armed forces.
Despite the very recent discovery and foiling of a plot by Australia-resident Muslims to carry out a jihad murder rampage at an Anzac Day ceremony, and the real possibility - borne in mind particularly by those of us Aussies who have spent the last ten years and more informing ourselves about Islam and becoming the more intelligently alarmed the more we learn - that there might be other Muslims around the ridges harbouring similar intentions, people turned up at Anzac day ceremonies and marches all over the country in record numbers.
In Australia's capital city, Canberra, 120 000 people - not a few of them travelling from interstate to be there - got up very early to attend the dawn ceremony at the National War Memorial. (By the way: the total population of Canberra was, at last count, 381 000, so the number of people at the ceremony was equivalent to just under a third of the city's population).
"A record crowd of 120,000 have gathered for the Anzac Day dawn service at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra marking the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landing. Seating was full at the parade ground by 5 am, with tens of thousands of people packing in to view the solemn service.
"An indigenous sailor (and it should be noted that Aboriginal Australians, "Black Diggers", have served in the Australian Armed Forces ever since the Sudan and the Boer War, with many enlisting to fight in World War One and World War Two - at a time when they were not even officially counted as citizens - and others serving in later conflicts such as Korea and Vietnam; they have a long and proud tradition of distinguished service, and a high rate of enlistment per head of population. - CM) broke the silence and began the service playing the didgeridoo in commemoration of the Anzac sacrifice. The sound of Able Seaman Boatswains Mate Alan Paaterson's didgeridoo split the dawn and echoed across the parade ground on a mild Canberra morning....
"Chief of the Army Lieutenant General David Morrison gave an emotive address on the value of the Anzac soldiers in Australia's national history.
"He paid tribute to the generation that served in World War I...".
In Sydney, 30 000 people gathered in Martin Place.
'Anzac Day 2015: Dawn Service Draws Thousands to Martin Place in Sydney."
'Up to 30,000 people have gathered in Sydney's Martin Place (the same place where a murder-minded Muslim, Man Monis, took people hostage in the Lindt Cafe late last year, bringing about the deaths of two people - one by his own hand and one killed by shrapnel as police broke the siege - and wounding of others - CM) for the dawn service commemorating the centenary of Anzac Day...
'Some regular Anzac Day attendees told the ABC today was the biggest turnout that they had ever seen...".
'A number of the people at the service said they felt that it was especially important to attend this year.
'One man said he had commemorated every Anzac Day since he joined the Air Force in 1957. "I remember a lot of our friends who are not with us any more. It's one of the greatest things in a serviceman's life...remembering our mates, because we're all like family," he said...
"Dawn services are also taking place in various cities around the state.
'In Wollongong, thousands gathered at McCabe Park where 75 school children held glow sticks to represent the 75 local soldiers who were killed at Gallipoli....".
In Melbourne - the very city where the recently-foiled Muslim plot to attack an Anzac Ceremony was hatched - an enormous crowd turned up, despite chilly rain; one wonders how many of the attendees were doing so as an act of defiance.
'Anzac Day 2015: Rain Fails to Deter Massive Crowd at Melbourne's Dawn Service'
"Tens of thousands of people have turned out for the Anzac Day dawn service at Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance to mark 100 years since the landings at Gallipoli.
'Shots rang out as the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and Royal Australian Air Force band played 'Abide with Me' to the crowd of thousands.
'The rain did not deter the huge crowd which filled the service...
'Charlie, who was named after his great-grandfather who served in World War I at Gallipoli, is at the service for the first time. "We brought down some pictures of him, and I just want to come down here to remember him", he said.
"Police are out in force after two teenagers (sic: Dear ABC, that should be "two young Muslim men" - CM) were charged earlier this week over an alleged (sic: why "alleged"? - CM) plot to attack officers and the public at an Anzac commemoration.
'Authorities said there was now no specific threat to the event....".
Melbourne, I should add, hosted one of the most vivid and beautiful memorial installations, possibly inspired by the waterfall of poppies that was created in London for last year's Remembrance Day.
Federation Square in Melbourne - was blanketed with some 250 000 red poppies, each crocheted by hand and each "accompanied by a story of love, loss or gratitude for servicemen and women". Click on the link to see pictures.
'Brisbane's Anzac Square packed as young and old attend dawn service to mark Anzac centenary.
'Thousands of people have packed Brisbane's Anzac Square and nearby vantage points for the dawn service...
'Crowds spilled out of Anzac Square and onto the city's streets...
'Screens were set up in the square and in nearby Post Office Square, King George Square and the Queen Street Mall, to offer a view to the large crowds assembled.
'The scene was repeated at ceremonies across suburban Brisbane and in cities around the state as unprecedented crowds gathered to remember the launch of a military failure 100 years ago that has so marked the Australian psyche. In central Brisbane, after a long roll of drums, the lights of Anzac Square were extinguished and the crowd was led in a prayer of remembrance.
'Queensland Governor Paul de Jersey then delivered a moving speech outlining the extent of Queensland's sacrifices in World War I...
'Governor De Jersey told those assembled that 58,000 men, nearly 40 percent of Queensland's male population aged 18 to 45, signed up and fought in WWI...
"The cream of the nation was lost a century ago...".
'Suzanne Walpole said she attended the service every year in memory of her father. "My father was in the 2/9th Battalion, and we also had an uncle who died in Gallipoli, so I really come to honour past servicemen", she said.'
It was a similar story of huge turnouts in the other states.
In Tasmania, where thousands gathered in Hobart and Launceston
'Anzac Day 2015: Tens of Thousands Gather in WA to Remember Lives Lost in WWI'.
(And not only in WWI; many who attend Anzac Day ceremonies are also thinking of Aussie soldiers who were killed in action in later wars such as WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan... - CM).
'Tens of thousands of West Australians have gathered in Perth's King's Park (where, by the way, one may also find the memorial commemorating those Australians of West Australian extraction who were murdered by the Muslim jihad attack on the Sari nightclub in Bali in 2002 - CM) in the cool air of a clear morning to commemorate 100 years since Anzac troops landed on the shores of Gallipoli.
'Familes, veterans, young people and the elderly began streaming into the park from the early hours of the morning.
'Some had arrived on Friday night to stake their claim on a good vantage point, including Matthew Charlton, who arrived at 3.30 pm on Friday with his sleeping-bag and chair. "I have grandparents who participated in World War II, so I wanted to show my respects to the family and all those who fought in wars and conflicts", he said. "I figured this was the absolute least I could do, to spend a night out in the cold, when they'd been in the trenches."
'As the sky began to lighten over the city, the Last Post rang out, followed by a minute's silence.
'Crowd numbers have not been confirmed, but the RSL (Returned Servicemen's League - CM) had said it expected crowds of betwen 65000 and 75000 people, a significant increase on the 45 000 to 50 000 people it usually attracts...
'RSL WA president Graham Edwards said before the event that public safety had been prioritised. "The concern is that with increased crowds, more traffic and that sort of thing, and with people walking down roads where there's no light and it's dark, that it just creates risk issues to the public", he said. "There's no information or intelligence that would suggest in any way that Anzac Day in WA will be targeted, but yes, we will have sufficient security there".
'Mr Edwards said Anzac Day had a special resonance in WA because of the number of young West Australian men who enlisted. He said at least a quarter of the Anzac forces fighting at Gallipoli came from WA..". END.
I could finish this Anzac Day roundup with the words of the traditional "Ode", source of the words, often heard on Anzac Day, "lest we forget".
But instead I'm going to finish with a rather wobbly and very, very Australian clip of a country singer performing Brendan Walmsley's ballad "Bottle Tree Lane", about a young woman in a country town and her young man who went off to War. The "bottle tree lane" of the title is to be seen in the outback Queensland town of Roma.
Here are the words:
"Bottle trees lining the lane where she met him
"The place where her dreams had finally come true
"Flickering sunlight the dance of the branches
"They walked beneath each afternoon
"In a world going crazy, skies couldn’t be clearer ‘
"Til war was declared and her eyes filled with tears
"The boy enlisted, she cried when he kissed her
"And he whispered these words in her ear
" Remember the good things the good Lord has given
"Remember that love will remain
"Here’s to the wonderful life that we’re living
"We owe it to Bottle Tree Lane
"Don’t forget Bottle Tree Lane ."
"Once more they walked through the trees in the evening
"The only one smiling, the man in the moon
"They promised each other forever
"The sun came up too soon
"The whole town turned out for their boys at the station
"Waving their flags as they boarded the train
"He heard her voice as she ran down the platform
“Come back to Bottle Tree Lane.”
"Time marches on she became an old lady
" The ANZAC parade made its way down the lane .
"The diggers passed by recalling the fallen
'Cause each bottle tree bears a name .
"Everyone knew why she stood where she did
" Beside the same tree on that day every year
"And her grandchildren don’t take for granted the reason
"They’re able to play without fear."
REPEAT CHORUS x 2: Lest we forget Bottle Tree Lane."
The Jewish Brigade, La Brigata Ebraica -- consisted of 5,000 volunteers who came from Mandatory Palestine --- and fought with the Allies to lilberate Italy. That's why in Milan today the Brigata Ebraica participated in the march.
Meanwhile, Muslim Arabs screamed at, and tried to attack, those marching as representatives of the Brigata Ebraica, because, after all, Jews are Jews, and deserve nothing. It is Muslims to whom the world -- all of it -- rightfully belongs. The Qur'an and Sunnah have taught them that. Who are you to take issue?
Free to stroll through Britain’s cities, this is the al-Qaeda cleric suspected of radicalising “Jihadi John”.
Security services are understood to be investigating links between Hani al-Sibai and his influence on the west London terror network in which Jihadi John - unmasked as Mohammed Emwazi - operated.
It is claimed that al-Sibai, a charismatic preacher, had “captivated” a number of young Muslim men who subsequently went abroad to fight jihad.
In a court case last year, he was accused of having “provided material support to al-Qaeda and conspired to commit terrorist acts”, an allegation he denies.
Despite being officially identified as an affiliate of the notorious terror network, al-Sibai, citing his human rights, has thwarted government attempts to deport him for more than 15 years.
Instead, the Egyptian-born cleric lives in a leafy street in fashionable west London in the same neighbourhood where Emwazi and his fellow jihadists in the London Boys terror cell hung out.
The London Boys was the name given to a “sleeper cell”, set up by Osama bin Laden, whose members were sent to traini ng camps in Somalia and ordered back to the UK to carry out attacks.
From his home, al-Sibai, also known as Hani Youssef, runs an effective al-Qaeda propaganda machine, that includes the al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies. In recent months he has used various internet sites to praise bin Laden and glorify al-Qaeda for waging war against “the Crusader-Zionists”.
He has been described as a “long-time ally” of Ayman al-Zawahiri, who took over control of al-Qaeda following bin Laden’s death.
His alleged links to al-Qaeda have led to his bank accounts and assets being subjected to freezing orders by the United Nations, the UK Treasury and US Treasury.
Last year, in a publicly funded court case, al-Sibai went to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to try to get his status as an al-Qaeda affiliate overturned and allow him access to bank accounts and other financial assets.
In court documents unearthed by The Telegraph, the European Commission’s sanctions committee alleged that al-Sibai “has provided material support to al-Qaeda and has conspired to commit terrorist acts”.
Robin Simcox, research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society think tank and co-author of Islamist Terrorism: The British Connections, said: “The US Treasury has listed al-Sibai as an al-Qaeda associate and outlined his connections to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, yet the UK has been powerless to deport this dangerous individual.
“Al-Sibai’s case shows the very clear national security threat that exists when the UK cannot deport preachers such as al-Sibai. He is able to radicalise others who go on to commit acts of violence, as seems to be the case with Mohammed Emwazi. The consequences can be devastating.”
Greg Hands, a Conservative minister who raised concern over al-Sibai around nine years ago, said: “It is amazing that someone with these views is still being of influence today. This highlights again the need to repeal the Human Rights Act.”
What Happened In Milan At The Festa Della Liberazione
"La festa è stata interrotta dalla contestazione alla Brigata Ebraica ad opera di un gruppo di manifestanti palestinesi. Pronto l’intervento delle forze dell’ordine in cordone e tra i cittadini per far procedere i rappresentanti dello Stato d’Israele oltre il presidio dei dimostranti che in coro urlava «assassini» e «vergogna». Nel mirino dei centri sociali è finito anche il Pd, che quest’anno ha deciso di «proteggere» la Brigata che ha sfilato subito prima dei rappresentanti del partito del governo.Il presidente del Consiglio, Matteo Renzi, ha esprime la sua solidarietà a chi ha sfilato a Milano con le insegne e nel ricordo dei partigiani della Brigata Ebraica di fronte agli insulti ricevuti. «Il 25 aprile è festa di tutti», sottolinea Renzi, «festa di liberazione nel ricordo di chi ha combattuto per la nostra libertà e la democrazia, festa di unità e non di divisione e di polemica».
A Ceremony To Mark The Liberation Of Italy From Nazi-Fascists Disrupted By Nazi-Fascists
They objected, you see, to any supporters of Israel appearing -- apparently unaware of, or more likely eager to overlook, both the role of Jewish members of the anti-Fascist movement (such as the Rosselli brothers, murdered by Mussolini) and in the Resistance, and also wishing to efface any Italian memories of the racial laws, of why Enrico Fermi and Franco Modigliani and Cesare Segre and so many others ended up in America (always the beneficiary of such things), and of course not wishing to discuss how the leader, for decades, of the "Palestinian" Arabs -- really then just the local Arabs --- Amin El Husseini, met with Hitler, urged him on in his noble task, and contributed to the fulfilling of that task by raising, among Bosnian Muslims, the Hajjar Brigade for the S.S.