"unwitting rascism"
Quote:
Police 'neglect' in custody death
Mr Alder, a Falklands veteran, died on 1 April 1998
Four police officers were guilty of the most serious neglect of duty over the death of ex-paratrooper Christopher Alder in 1998, a watchdog has ruled.
The Humberside officers were influenced by "unwitting racism", the Independent Police Complaints Commission said.
Mr Alder, 37, who was black, choked to death at a police station in Hull. CCTV footage showed officers chatting as he gasped for air. Humberside chief constable Tim Hollis apologised for Mr Alder's treatment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/4848238.stm
seems ridiculous to me to coin this phrase "unwitting racism" it makes no sense to me. you either think people from specific races are inferior, or you dont.
i also find it highly suspicious that the only reason the four pigs didnt get done for manslaughter was because of "inconclusive medical evidence" that to me said the police nicked the evidence, lets face it, its not the first time and it wont be the last. if some one is found "choked to death on his own blood and vomit as he lay on the floor of the police station, without moving, for 11 minutes with his trousers round his ankles." then i would call that murder.
also i really feel for his sister, if you see the before and after photos of her, she went for looking quite conservative and happy, to looking quite militant and stressed, just because she tried to get justice from the police for 8 years. how is that right?
not only that, but the cowards that did it cant even face up to what they've done. "The five police officers involved in the case were "deeply disappointed" by today's IPCC report and "strongly dispute" the findings".
how anyone can trust or respect a police force that acts in this way is beyond my comprehension.
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill .......In an almost deserted chamber, the Government proposed an extraordinary Bill that will drastically reduce parliamentary discussion of future laws, a Bill some constitutional experts are already calling “the Abolition of Parliament Bill”.
Carrying ID cards could be made compulsory, smoking in one’s own home could be outlawed and the definition of terrorism altered to make ordinary political protest punishable by life imprisonment. Nor will the Human Rights Act save us since the Bill makes no exception for it.
The Bill gives ministers the power to 'amend repeal or replace' any law passed by Parliament without consulting Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important.
The Bill, bizarrely, even applies to itself, so that ministers could propose orders to remove the limitations about two-year sentences and taxation. It also includes a few desultory questions (along the lines of “am I satisfied that I am doing the right thing?”) that ministers have to ask themselves before proceeding, all drafted subjectively so that court challenges will fail, no matter how preposterous the minister’s answer.
The potential consequences if this bill gets through parliament are disastrous and an affront to the values of democracy, yet most people know absolutely nothing about it.
The bill can be found in full here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html#j001
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/02/334161.html?c=on#comments
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2049791,00.html
If our local MPs resist it, we have a chance of fighting it.
I have written to my M.P about this.
I suggest that everyone reading this do the same. Please follow the link below, it will take you 2 mins.
http://www.Parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm
Imminent crises, paths to solutions featuring Noam Chomsky Very worthy listening on the subject of Imperialism...
Lecture: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wskg/news.mediaplayer?STATION_NAME=wskg&MEDIA_ID=502740&MEDIA_EXTENSION=mp3&MODULE=news
Q&A: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wskg/news.mediaplayer?STATION_NAME=wskg&MEDIA_ID=502758&MEDIA_EXTENSION=mp3&MODULE=news
Noam Chomsky's B.U. address to air on WSKG Public Radio
Wednesday, 3/8, 1pm and 7pm (also 1pm Thursday, 3/9 on WSQX 91.5)
World-renowned linguist, political philosopher, and writer Noam Chomsky spoke to a standing room only crowd Saturday 3/4 at Anderson Center's Osterhout Concert Theater on the Binghamton University campus. Some estimates place the crowd over 2,000 in the hall and watching a closed circuit feed in the adjoining Chamber Hall.
"Arguably the most important intellectual alive," according to the New York Times, the famous MIT professor and long term activist for peace and social justice delivered a two-hour talk entitled "Imminent Crises: Paths Toward Solutions". The event featured nearly an hour of questions and answers.
WSKG Public Radio recorded the lecture for broadcast this Wednesday, March 8, at 1pm, repeating at 7pm. WSKG will take the unusual step of broadcasting a two-hour speech in the .Newsmaker Luncheon. slot, usually occupied by one-hour lectures. The first hour of .Performance Today. will be pre-empted in the 2-3pm hour; .From the Top. will begin one hour later than usual at 9pm; and .SymphonyCast. will be heard at 10pm this week only.
Al-Jazeera debate http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
I don't agree with her desire to blame recent conflicts 100% on muslim society and religion but she has got some guts and does voice some opinions that I'm completely behind.
MY : Sewage-contaminated drinking water in suburban area This is a suburban/semi-rural area of Malaysia (my mum's side of the family are from this region) which is a bit like the Thames Valley, fairly affluent and has grown quickly. A clear example of how privatised utilities, a lack of regulation and unchecked growth can cause environmental and health hazards.....
MAIL HIGHLIGHTS: The stinking truth!
Dennis Chua, Naradzimmah Daim, Sharmila Billot & Malcolm Mejin
KUALA LUMPUR, Mar 3:
THE public was told by Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (Syabas) that excessive ammonia was the reason for their smelly tap water. And that it was nothing to worry about.
The whole story is now out, and you may be horrified. Discharges from pig and dairy farms, oxidation ponds and palm oil mills caused the ammonia, it was revealed by the Selangor State Government yesterday. This has led to consumer associations, trade unions, residents’ associations and individuals slamming the State Government and Syabas.
The Selangor State Government owned up yesterday that the stink in the water that flowed from taps in the Klang Valley was caused by discharges from pig and dairy farms, oxidation ponds and palm oil mills.
The statement horrified thousands of affected consumers who had been told that the stink, which many said smelled like faeces, was from excessive ammonia content in the water. However, they were not told the source of the ammonia contamination.
Now that it is out of the bag, consumer associations, trade unions, residents’ associations and individuals have slammed the State Government and Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (Syabas) for “sheer incompetence” in safeguarding their health and well-being.
The Malay Mail continued to receive calls from irate Klang Valley residents yesterday, demanding an apology from the State Government and Syabas.
Many of them demanded that Syabas also compensate them for the smelly water supply, and “not come up with lame excuses” that the incident was unforeseeable.
State Executive Councillor for Infrastructure and Public Works Datuk Abdul Fatah Iskandar’s statement yesterday that effluents from pig farms entered Sungai Selangor and the water supply system horrified consumers (see accompanying story).
They urged the State Government to prosecute farms that discharged animal wastes into rivers.
The irate callers were unanimous in holding the State Government and Syabas directly responsible if anyone falls sick after consuming the smelly water.
A lawyer urged consumers to sue Syabas and the State Department of Environment (DOE) if they fall ill after consuming the smelly water.
A parasitologist urged the authorities to ascertain what exactly was in the smelly water, for if it contained mercury, consumers would be in danger.
The Muslim Consumers’ Association of Malaysia (PPIM) flayed Syabas for its earlier statement that the smell in the water was merely the result of the chemical reaction of ammonia and chlorine.
PPIM said it was gravely concerned that the water had been contaminated with wastes, including pig waste.
The Health Ministry was slammed by the Federation of Malaysian Consumer Associations (Fomca) for its “slow response” in assuring that the smelly water was safe for consumption.
Fomca urged the Health Ministry to have a sense of urgency when the issue at stake was the health and safety of millions of Klang Valley consumers.
Ken Livingstone: Was his suspension right or wrong? Londoners voted for a mayor they knew to be outspoken. They don't need a faceless quango to protect them
Jackie Ashley
Monday February 27, 2006
The Guardian
No one could say that Ken Livingstone is naturally discreet or prone to grey understatement. I have a vivid memory of interviewing him on a London bus for this paper. As we were careering round a corner, he announced loudly to the crowded interior: "I just long for the day I wake up and find that the Saudi royal family are swinging from lamp posts and they've got a proper government that represents the people of Saudi Arabia."
His loyal press officer blanched and made vague "Please don't say this, boss" gestures but the London mayor was completely unabashed. His cheery enthusiasm for publicly hanging a key British ally in the Middle East produced predictable demands for his expulsion yet again from the Labour party, and his Tory opponent in the mayoral race, Steve Norris, accused him of incitement. Ken did not much care. After all, when it came to Tony Blair's allies, he had already accused George Bush of being "the greatest threat to life on this planet". So, go on, Ken, tell us what you really think.
It is very easy to attack Livingstone for going over the top, for expressing himself pugnaciously or indeed for a lifelong aversion to diplomatic language. Many people find his words odious. When, back in the 80s, he said that Britain's treatment of the Irish over the past 800 years had been worse than Hitler's treatment of the Jews, he did cause offence.
So his now notorious late-night exchange with a reporter from the London Evening Standard, who happened to be Jewish, was pretty unexceptional by Livingstone standards. His relations with the paper are dire and he accused its man of being "a German war criminal" and "behaving just like a concentration camp guard ... doing it because you are paid to". Then he described the reporter's employer as "a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots".
Robust, certainly: but does this really warrant his suspension as mayor of London for four weeks, from Wednesday? Who, you may want to know, has the power to suspend someone with a huge democratic mandate anyway?
The answer is that London was robbed of its elected leader by the adjudication panel for England which, according to its helpful website, was established under "part III, chapter IV of the Local Government Act 2000 to hear and adjudicate on matters concerning the conduct of local authority members" and "pursuant to section 59 (4) (d) ... considers reference made to it by an ethical standards officer ..." from the Standards Board for England. This is, in other words, another example of the spread of the unelected quango state, which grew under the Tories and has spread under New Labour.
The three people who sat in judgment on Livingstone may, for all I know, be thoroughly decent men. One has a background in Yorkshire local government, another has been a pensions ombudsman and the third is a former civil servant. They decided that Livingstone's remarks to the journalist were "unnecessarily insensitive and offensive" and would damage the reputation of his office. It was, obviously, not Ken's reputation that concerned them but that of the job he was doing.
All of which is a mixture of the blindingly obvious and the thoroughly irrelevant. Many people will be offended by what he said. Many people are offended by what lots of politicians say. He may have been "unnecessarily offensive" to a journalist; but what would the right and necessary amount of offensiveness have been? Some will feel the dignity of mayoral office has been compromised. Others will laugh. The point is: what do we feel about an anonymous, unknown little clique of unelected bureaucrats removing from power for a month (and their powers are far wider) a man who has twice been elected by Londoners?
It is worth rehearsing the numbers. He has won the job, fair and square, twice in succession, first as an independent candidate and then as Labour's candidate. On the latter occasion, despite all the controversies of his first term (or perhaps because of them) he received 685,541 first-preference votes and, taking into account the secondpreference votes, 828,300 in total. He is hardly an unknown figure. His highs and lows have been widely publicised. Yet three people can set aside the votes of more than 800,000 because they feel he has caused "unnecessary offence".
This is surreal. It is undemocratic. Perhaps we should report the adjudication panel to the ethical standards officer, and get him to make them adjudicate on their own behaviour in compromising the dignity of British democracy. Could they suspend themselves? Could it be for longer than a month?
The affair is not, however, just darkly funny. It raises tougher questions still. You may or may not agree with Ken's views on the Middle East, but to move from his hostility to the actions of the state of Israel to suggest that he behaved in an anti-semitic way is gross. He has made clear, on these pages and elsewhere, the distinction between his loathing of the Holocaust and his admiration for the Jewish people, on the one hand, and his anger about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, on the other. He has worked with the Board of Deputies of British Jews against the National Front. His hatred of the Mail group is connected to its pre-war admiration for the Nazis. He has to be allowed his strong views.
The final point is wider. All around we hear complaints about a lack of interest in politics, a disillusion with politicians who all sound the same. Where are the interesting, strong voices, people ask. The new Power report opens with a heartfelt cry from Helena Kennedy who speaks of "thousands of people around the country who feel quietly angry or depressed. When it comes to politics they feel they are eating stones ... The politicos have no idea of the extent of the alienation that is out there."
This alienation has many causes. But the intervention of unelected officials and bureaucratic quangos at so many levels of life certainly has something to do with it. There is a great grey web of boards, offices, committees and commissions weighing down on public life; Livingstone has fallen foul of one.
If we are to have a revival of interest in democratic politics, it does need outspoken, strong and occasionally reckless views - the things said in the street and the pub - argued about openly and honestly. Ken is popular partly because he has taken bold decisions, notably over congestion charging, but also because he speaks out. Ken is Ken. That's why London chose him. And honestly, dear section 59 (4) (d), we are big enough to live with the consequences.
Israel’s policies are feeding the cancer of anti-semitism Israel's policies are feeding the cancer of anti-semitism
It is a lie that to reject Zionism as it is practised today is to be the inheritor of Hitler's racism
Paul Oestreicher
Monday February 20, 2006
The Guardian
The chief rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, is right. His reaction to the Anglican synod's call for sanctions against Israel is understandable. Hatred of Judaism - now commonly called anti-semitism - is a virus that has infected Christendom for two millennia. It continues to stalk the world despite its most virulent outbreak in Nazi Germany. It should not be left untreated. For too many it remains the unlearned lesson of the Holocaust. It should haunt decent Christians for generations to come.
The German pope knows that particularly well and is on the battle lines against it. On this issue, nothing divides him from the Archbishop of Canterbury and most other church leaders. If, as some now think, today's Jews are the Muslims - hatred transferred - that simply means there is a battle to maintain our common humanity on more than one front. All collective hatreds poison the body politic.
I say this as the child of a German Jewish-born father who escaped in time. His mother did not. I say it as a half-Jewish German child chased around a British playground in the second world war and taunted with "he's not just a German, he's a Jew". A double insult. But I say this too as a Christian priest who shares the historic guilt of all the churches. All Christians share a bloody inheritance.
If I feel all that in my guts and know it in my head, I cannot stand by and watch the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - one of the world's most dangerous outbreaks of collective hatred - as a dispassionate onlooker. I cannot listen calmly when an Iranian president talks of wiping out Israel. Jewish fears go deep. They are not irrational. But I cannot listen calmly either when a great many citizens of Israel think and speak of Palestinians in the way a great many Germans thought and spoke about Jews when I was one of them and had to flee.
If the Christian in me has good reason to be ashamed, so now does the Jew in me. I passionately believe that Israel has the right, and its people have the right, to live in peace and in secure borders. But I know too that modern Israel was born in terror and made possible in its present Zionist form by killing and a measure of ethnic cleansing. That is history. Tell me of a nation with an innocent history. But the Zionism at the heart of Israeli politics is about the present and the future. It makes me fear for the soul of Israel today and the survival of its children tomorrow.
The Israel characterised by the words of Golda Meir that "there was no such thing as Palestinians ... they did not exist" is an Israel that is inevitably surrounded by enemies and that can only survive militarily and economically as a client state of the world's only superpower, for now. Nor can its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East last for ever. Peace cannot be made by building a wall on Palestinian land that makes the life of the miserably conquered more miserable still. A Palestinian bantustan will be a source of unrest and violence for ever.
I say all this despairing of the Israel I love. Its people are my people. The Palestinians are my neighbours. I wish they had stronger and better leaders. I wish their despairing young people had not been driven to violence. Just as I understand Jewish fears, I understand their despair. Only an Israel that understands that too can change it. And there are Jews in Israel and in the diaspora who know it. Most of them, out of a fear of being thought disloyal, are afraid to say what they know to be true. The state of Israel has become a cruel occupying power. Occupations, when they are resisted, are never benevolent. They morally corrupt the occupier. The brave body of Israeli conscientious objectors are the true inheritors of the prophets of Israel. They are the true patriots. What nation has ever loved its prophets?
But the main objective of my writing today, is to nail the lie that to reject Zionism as it practised today is in effect to be anti-semitic, to be an inheritor of Hitler's racism. That argument, with the Holocaust in the background, is nothing other than moral blackmail. It is highly effective. It condemns many to silence who fear to be thought anti-semitic. They are often the very opposite. They are often people whose heart bleeds at Israel's betrayal of its true heritage.
I began with the recognition that the cancer of anti-semitism has not been cured. Tragically, Israel's policies feed it - and when world Jewry defends Israeli policies right or wrong, then anger turns not only against Israel, but against all Jews. I wish it were mere rhetoric to say that Israeli politics today make a holocaust the day after tomorrow credible. If the whole Muslim world hates Israel, that is no idle speculation. To count on Arab disunity and Muslim sectarian conflict and a permanent American shield is no recipe for long-term security.
There are Israelis who know all that, and there are Jews around the world who know it. In Britain, Jews for Justice for Palestinians organises to give Jewishness a human face. Tell them they are anti-semites and they will laugh bitterly, for the charge hurts deeply and is a lie. Prophets such as Uri Avnery give all this eloquent expression, but are heard by only a few. The media are afraid of a lobby that is quite prepared to do them serious damage.
Yes, of course, there are many who express their solidarity with the Palestinian people. Some are Christians. They deserve respect. If, whether wisely or not, they call for sanctions, that does not make them Jew-haters - not in theory and not in practice. My concern, however, is to express solidarity with the Israel that is not represented by its leaders or popular opinion. Once, in the days of Hitler, there was another Germany represented by those in concentration camps alongside Jews and Gypsies, the martyrs who are celebrated today. There is such an Israel too. Its voices are still free to speak, though often reviled and misunderstood. That Israel has my solidarity, as all Jews have my love and prayers.
· Paul Oestreicher was a member of the Church of England's general synod and director of the Centre for International Reconciliation, Coventry Cathedral; he is now a chaplain at the University of Sussex
paul_oestreicher@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1713545,00.html
Immigrants asked to speak Dutch in Netherlands http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_02_09/europe/immigrants_speak_dutch.htm
09 February 2006
The Netherlands, home to multinational companies such as Unilever and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, may ask residents not to use foreign languages in public.
Rotterdam, the country's second-biggest city, last month passed a code that encourages residents to speak only Dutch in schools, at work and on the street as the city struggles to assimilate Turkish and Moroccan immigrants. Now Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk is calling for a similar national measure. Neither move includes penalties for violators.
"I'm for such a code for all Dutch people,'' Verdonk said in a Jan. 31 column in the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw. ``In such a code, you tell people what's expected of them and hope that they will live by it.''
The proposal is the latest reaction to rising tensions between immigrants, who make up 10 percent of the population, and native Dutch.
A language code may harm the Netherlands' reputation for tolerance and multiculturalism, according to Rotterdam's Labor Party. Dutch people speak an average of 1.59 languages other than their mother tongue, the second-highest figure in the 25 European Union nations, behind Luxembourg, according to a 2002 survey by the EU. About 75 percent of the Dutch speak English, 67 percent German and 12 percent French.
Since 1602, when the Dutch East India Co. was created to import spices from Southeast Asia, the Dutch economy has been built on international trade. Royal Dutch Shell, Europe's second-biggest oil company, is based in The Hague. Unilever, the world's third-largest foodmaker, is based in Rotterdam.
City officials in Amsterdam, the Netherlands' largest city, and The Hague, the third-biggest, say they have no plans to introduce such language codes in their communities.
Out of sight Can a film right the wrongs committed in Guantánamo? Clive Stafford Smith, who has represented many of its prisoners in court, reports
Tuesday February 14, 2006
The Guardian
'The film puts paid to the myth that everyone in Guantánamo is a terrorist' ... a scene from The Road to Guantánamo
Only a fool wants never to learn from his mistakes. Government should always have a process for this. When a train crashes, or a ferry capsizes, Britain traditionally holds a public inquiry to learn what went wrong. In America, a congressional committee sometimes plays this role, although most cases fall into the cauldron of civil litigation. While I often feel that the courtroom is pointlessly adversarial, it has been said that cross-examination "is the greatest engine for exposing truth known to human kind". Often, though, there will be no inquiry, and no lawsuit; there are some mistakes that our leaders would rather not expose to public criticism or debate. The iconic catastrophe of Guantánamo Bay falls into this category.
Consider the undisputed facts: 38 Guantánamo prisoners were found innocent, even by biased military tribunals, after being held for three years. At least eight of these conceded innocents are still there. More than 250 prisoners have been released, apparently because they were not a danger to the US after all. For the most part, each has vanished back into the faraway country whence he came. Nobody has asked why President Bush branded them the "worst of the worst" among the world's terrorists, although we now know that no senior al-Qaida officer in US custody was in Guantánamo - they have been held in secret prisons around the world (some in Europe). Five hundred prisoners remain in chains in Guantánamo, many with compelling claims of innocence, yet on December 20 2005, the US Congress passed a law barring their access to any US court.
When we ignore the fact that the Titanic is steaming towards the iceberg, the ship is destined to sink. Thankfully, the media - and in this case the medium of film - occasionally stand in for the public conscience. Instead of an inquiry or a lawsuit, Guantánamo will now go before the jury at the Berlin film festival in Michael Winterbottom's latest work, The Road to Guantánamo (co-directed by Mat Whitecross).
Three young men from Tipton - Rhuhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul - were among the victims of Guantánamo. I have been privy to the best evidence that the Americans can throw at them, and their story goes essentially uncontradicted, as it is presented in the film. They went to Pakistan for Iqbal's marriage, just prior to the attack on Afghanistan. When the friends gathered shortly before the wedding, they got caught up in the moment and embarked on a well-intentioned but unwise escapade into Afghanistan to help the victims of the war. They felt this would fulfil their Muslim duty of zakah, or charity.
A couple of days in they recognised the folly of the venture, but getting back out proved more difficult. Recklessness then dissolved into tragedy, as what had originally been the Tipton Four lost a member. Munir Ali disappeared in the crowds. Nobody knows what happened to him, and his family may never know.
The remaining trio were probably betrayed by locals looking to collect on the $5,000 bounty being offered by the Americans for foreigners. They were swept up by Coalition allies, and shuffled into a container that was then machine-gunned by General Dostrum's forces, killing many inside. In American custody they were beaten and abused, before ultimately being dispatched to Guantánamo Bay for two years. In 2004 they were released without charge.
The Road to Guantánamo weaves commentary from the Tipton lads between credible re-enactments of their nightmare. This may be the only inquiry that Guantánamo ever gets. If so, what are the lessons we might learn?
First, that the Tipton lads were, paradoxically, the lucky ones: Munir is presumed dead, and nobody seems to care. Second, the Tipton Three are now free; 500 prisoners in Guantánamo are not. They are free because they are British nationals. Eight British residents remain in Guantánamo, four years into their ordeal, locked up without legal rights. The British government refuses to do anything for these people, although Jamil el Banna has five English children and another, Shaker Aamer, has four; some of these residents had lived here for more than of 20 years. Human rights are for human beings, rather than simply people from Britain, yet Tony Blair negotiated one set of legal rules for British citizens - most favoured nation status - and left the British residents at the mercy of the original Bush plan.
Third, the Tipton Three were extraordinarily lucky that the Americans tried to exaggerate the evidence against them. Virtually everyone in Guantánamo has been accused of visiting the al-Farouq training camp in Afghanistan. Disproving this is difficult. Fortunately the Americans insisted that Ahmed, Iqbal and Rasul not only visited the camp, but appeared on a videotape with Osama bin Laden there. The tape was made in 2000. MI5, setting out to help corroborate the prosecution for a US military tribunal, learned that Rasul was working at a Birmingham Currys at the time.
Finally, Winterbottom's film puts paid to the myth that everyone in Guantánamo is a terrorist, itching to blow up Americans. Given the appalling treatment that many prisoners receive, it is a tribute to their Islamic faith that they do not feel this way. Instead of assaulting the US embassy, Ahmed, Iqbal and Rasul have spent months helping Winterbottom tell the truth.
The film should not be a substitute for a full inquiry, but merely the impetus to get one off the ground. Setting aside what the Americans have done, the British government has been complicit in the seizure and mistreatment of many of the victims of Guantánamo, and the still more secret prisons beyond. Abusing the Tipton Three did not make the world safer for democracy, but it did hold hostage the values our society should hold dear. Until we expose these crimes, and learn what led people to commit them, our world will continue to repeat them.
Clive Stafford Smith is legal director of Reprieve (reprieve.org.uk). The Road to Guantánamo is at the Berlin film festival today, and will be shown on Channel 4 on March 9.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1709506,00.html
Should Charless Kennedy have been forced to resign? In my opinion no! At least the guy was honest about his problems and didnt tip toe around the subject with bs like most politicians would of. And also Winston Churchill was one of the greatest leaders our country has ever had, and the guy not only liked to drink but was going senile towards the end of his leadership. What do you think?
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.YesNoPrivacy policy
You can revoke your consent any time using the Revoke consent button.Revoke cookies
