JULIAN ASSANGE British Internment : Video | Interview

No justice for Martin Corey

Barry Kearney

Martin Corey is a 63 year-old-man imprisoned in the north of Ireland.

Martin Corey.

On April 16, 2010, Martin’s house in Lurgan was visited by members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and Martin was arrested.

When he queried what the charges were, Martin was told that the police officers “did not know”. And that all they were told was to arrest Martin.

Martin Corey is a Republican who, in his youth fought against the foreign occupation of his native land. It was during this struggle for freedom that Martin Corey was charged with the murder of two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), the forerunner of the PSNI. Martin was found guilty of the charge and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 1973.

Martin served just short of the next 19 years behind bars; he was released in June 1992.

Martin Corey did not sign any documents imposing conditions on his release.

Martin returned to Lurgan, where he set up a successful business as the local grave digger, formed a long-term relationship and settled down to a peaceful life. That was until his arrest in 2010. Martin Corey is still in prison and he still does not know what the charges against him are. Martin’s legal team also do not know what the charges are and neither does any judge hearing the case against Martin, because according to the Northern Ireland Office (NIO), he is being held on “Undisclosed or Secret Charges”. A special advocate, appointed by the NIO, can view the evidence and tell the judge what they can do. This makes a mockery of the judicial system when a politician, unelected in the North of Ireland, can make the rules regarding a person’s freedom. Martin Corey is selectively interned by an unjust British system.

Martin Corey is entitled as a life sentence prisoner to a parole hearing every 12 months; this is continually adjourned or not even scheduled. And the conditions that Martin is being kept under are a disgrace. Mail being kept from him for weeks at a time, prison craft that he has made, smashed by vindictive prison officers, as well as being denied proper medical or dental treatment in a reasonable time.

In May 2012, Martin appealed his imprisonment based on the fact he had not been charged with any crime nor had he been brought before a judge. Justice Treacey heard the appeal and in his verdict stated that Martin’s human rights had been breached and ordered Martin Corey be released immediately and placed no conditions on the release.

Martin returned to Maghaberry Prison to pack his belongings, his family travelled from Lurgan to pick him up and to take him home. It was whilst Martin was waiting in the prison reception that prison officers informed him that the Secretary of State had ordered him returned to the cells. The NIO had appealed Justice Treacey’s decision, but only after the Justice had boarded a plane and was about to leave the country, otherwise Justice Treacey would have had to hear any appeals. With Treacey out of the way a patsy of the British NIO upheld their appeal and hence Martin was returned to the cells.

When Martin’s legal team found out they immediately launched legal action against the appeal by the NIO, but to no avail. Martin finally got to appeal the decision in the High Court on July 11, more than six weeks after the decision by Justice Treacey, and that appeal the NIO overturned in hours.

The Lord Chief Justice upheld the ruling and stated that Martin’s case should be reheard on November 26, 2012. At the rehearing a panel of three appeals judges upheld the decision of the NIO to keep Martin incarcerated.

Martin’s legal team then applied to the High Court for permission to take their case before the Supreme Court in London. Martin’s legal team were very confident of winning in the Supreme Court, but in early May 2013, their euphoria was short lived as the appeal was denied without any valid reason being given. If you look beyond this denial, you will see British intransigence at its best.

By denying Martin the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, they have effectively blocked his application to the European Court of Human Rights, as he has not exhausted all domestic avenues. British politicians are very quick to point the finger in regards to human rights abuses around the world, but even quicker to put the blinkers on when it is occurring in their own backyard and perpetrated by their own people.

The Good Friday Agreement promised Equality, Justice and Human Rights for all. This obviously does not include Republicans who do not agree with the way the peace is being portrayed or do not agree with the ruling parties. Martin Corey is but one of these people who are suffering from a great injustice at the hands of a vindictive British government.

Martin Corey is an innocent man; he is innocent of any wrong doing. If the authorities believe that Martin is guilty of a crime, then the law of the land must prevail, charge him and bring him before a court of law, where he has the right to defend himself, not having to fight an invisible foe in the guise of undisclosed charges.

No Charges! No Evidence! Not Guilty!

Release Martin Corey.

James Connolly Association Australia, Melbourne. 

                                                                     http://www.releasemartincorey.com

WIKI REBELS Julian Assange

Julian Assange 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/julian-assange

Martin Corey  
www.releasemartincorey.comhttp://www.releasemartincorey.com/

Julian Assange BRITISH INTERNMENT POLITICAL Martin Corey

Assange Talks About Possible Holder Prosecution

By DSWright 

As Attorney General Holder faces possible perjury charges Julian Assange, the publisher of Wikileaks, discussed his case with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. Amy Goodman asked Assange to comment on the AP spying scandal as well as a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, being listed on a warrant signed by AG Holder that lists the reporter as a possible co-conspirator in violations of the Espionage Act.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, let’s look at this phenomena from two aspects. Don’t be deceived by what appears to be small maneuvers by the Department of Justice to go after AP, to go after Rosen, to go after us, etc. We have over here the bulk surveillance industry run by the National Security Agency that already has all these records. It has them all already. The National Security Agency—and this has come out in one court case after another—was involved in a project called Stellar Wind to collect all the calling records of the United States, every record of everyone calling everyone over years. And the result of that lay out the entire community and political structure, based upon who people are friends with. You can infer that by who calls who, and what the status is by the relative flow of calls around the country, to suck out the entire community structure of the United States. That has already been done. Those calling records already enter into the national security complex.

What we’re talking about here are mechanisms to use that information in a court case, and therefore it has to be clean. This is the dirty team; this is the clean team. And so, these are maneuvers to pull people into court cases that will become public to set a deterrent against national security journalism. And the most pernicious aspect of that is the abuse of the Espionage Act and other mechanisms to try and conflate the activities of a source with the activities of a journalist or a publisher, and to try and say that whenever a journalist deals with a source, they’re in fact engaged in a conspiracy. And if there’s an allegation—of course, allegations can be very easily made, placed on the table, just invented from thin air—that a source’s behavior affects national security and is therefore espionage, and therefore, extend that allegation over to the journalist and to the source—and to the publisher. In the case of Rosen, they have done that in order to get at Rosen’s emails and other records, to then back reflect onto the source or onto other sources. You know, it is simply a disgrace. It is unethical conduct. It is politically worrying conduct. It is chilling conduct. And it is—why is it being done? Because they believe they can get away with it. It is part of advancing the frontier of the national security state to roll on over the First Amendment and every other traditionally accepted U.S. value.

If Holder has an ongoing prosecution against Assange and Wikileaks it may not only have a chilling effect on journalism but invalidate his statement to the House Oversight Committee on having “never heard of” prosecuting the press for disclosure of material.

While a journalist has never been prosecuted under the Espionage Act, does Holder consider Assange a journalist? What about the New York Times and McClatchy, both published the Cablegate memos. Was Assange a source, a co-publisher, or both? Hopefully Holder will chose to clarify the Justice Department’s actual press policy and will do so on the record instead of elitist backstage double dealing.

This article was originally published at FDL

SOLDIER BOX Joe Glenton

“Recent history exposes the real face of the imperial project - kill-teams, Bagram prison, UK troops raping children, [Nazi] SS flags flying, Koran burning, house raids, kidnapping, torture, murder and mayhem. It is not a case of one loose cannon ruining the good work that has been done. This is a case of imperialism doing what imperialism does,” British Soldier - Joe Glenton

A former British soldier, who was jailed for refusing to fight, has revealed the horror behind the mask of “Britain as a force for good, liberty and democracy”.

Bobby Sands Lives At US Gulag
The Reason for Hunger Strikes-from Northern Ireland To Guantanamo 

By Ann WrightMay 21, 2013 "Information ClearingHouse" -"War IsA Crime" - I'm in Northern Ireland and yesterday on May 20, 2013, I spoke with several members of the Northern Ireland Parliament. With over 100 prisoners in Guantanamo on a 100 day hunger strike, the Obama administration would be wise to talk to some of them too--about the importance and legacy of hungerstrikes.

In 1981, Pat Sheehan was one of the Maze Prison hunger strikers-a hunger strike that brought huge international attention to the Northern Ireland "Troubles," with the goal of forcing the British government to treat those imprisoned as political prisoners, not criminals. Hunger strikers demanded the right to wear civilian clothes, the right to education and recreational opportunities, freedom from work obligations, and a set of other benefits not afforded to other inmates. Pat was on the hunger strike for 55 days and still alive when the hunger strike was called off by the prisoners.

Bobby Sands became the most famous of the 10 who died during the hunger strikes when he was elected to Parliament while on the hunger strike-Francis Hughes, Raymond McLeish, Patsy O'Hara, Joe McDonnell, Martin Hurson, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty, Thomas McElwee, Michael Devine also died.

After one prisoner died from his lung punctured from a feeding tube through the throat, the British ended force feeding those on hunger strikes. The British government eventually granted most of the hunger strikers’ demands. Public opinion changed dramatically in favor of those imprisoned and on the hunger strike.

Now Pat Sheehan is a member of the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Good Friday Peace Accord brokered by the Clinton administration brought to a close, a violent chapter in British and Northern Ireland relationships. The Peace Accord allowed former political prisoners to become part of the political process.

One never knows the future of those who have been imprisoned for political crimes--after peace talks, many may become political leaders, like Gerry Adams and Pat Sheehan. No one can predict the future paths of those in Guantanamo, but one can be assured that the continued imprisonment of those cleared for release from Guantanamo is disastrous for the individual and for the United States.

President Obama would be wise to call former hunger striker and now Northern Ireland Parliamentarian Pat Sheehan!Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and retired as a Colonel. She also worked as a US diplomat for 16 years and served in US Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned from the US government in 2003 in opposition to President Bush’s war on Iraq. In 2006, she was on a delegation to Guantanamo, Cuba to challenge the US prison at Guantanamo.

McKevitt appeal decision 'another injustice'

Republican News - Dublin19.05.2013

The Republican Network for Unity has condemned the decision of a court in Dublin not to allow an appeal by Michael McKevitt to proceed, describing the case as a miscarriage of justice.
Mr McKevitt was arrested in 2001 on the word of a paid informer David Rupert who identified him as a leader of the 'Real IRA'. In August 2003, he became the first person in the history of the 26 County state to be jailed on the charge of 'directing terrorism'.

His lawyers had argued that a search warrant used to raid his home was invalid, as it was issued under an act later found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; and that evidence used against McKevitt was taken while he was not legally represented.

In a recent ruling, the three judge panel accepted an argument by the State that Mr McKevitt had already exhausted his right of appeal. It also acceded to the State's application to strike out the matter because his application was "unstateable and unarguable."
"Once again Michael McKevitt and his family have been denied any semblance of justice," the RNU said.

"This man is now entering his 12th year of imprisonment. He was convicted on the word of David Rupert an agent and convicted fraudster, in the pay of MI5, FBI and in all probability also in the employment of the 26 county intelligence services. "Michael McKevitt was tried and convicted in the media long before he appeared before the special criminal court, he was arrested on a warrant that has now been ruled unlawful -- but not in Michael's case. Even after all the long years of his imprisonment these agencies still fear his principled unyielding Republicanism.

"This case is yet another example of interment via judicial process along side Marian Price from Belfast, Tony Taylor from Derry and Martin Corey from Lurgan.

"RNU once again calls for the immediate release of of these prisoners and demand Amnesty International declare them political prisoners."

GCHQ staff scolded over claiming Julian Assange was Framed

By Melanie Hall

11:52AM BST 21 May 2013

Internal GCHQ emails obtained by Mr Assange, who has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since seeking refuge there last June against extradition to Sweden, showed staff saying they thought the charges were “definitely a fit-up”.

Mr Assange obtained the emails by requesting the material under the Data Protection Act, and GCHQ has asked staff to behave more professionally after the Wikileaks founder, who has been ordered to stand trial in Sweden over the sexual assault allegations, revealed the contents.

One email sent in September 2012 by a GCHQ officer to a colleague, and which refers to the publication of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks, says: "They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ... It is definitely a fit-up... Their timings are too convenient right after Cablegate".

In another email, sent in August 2012, an employee writes: "He reckons he will stay in the Ecuadorian embassy for six to 12 months when the charges against him will be dropped, but that is not really how it works now, is it? He's a fool... Yeah... A highly optimistic fool.”

Mr Assange revealed the emails during an interview with a Spanish television channel, telling the presenter: "This is what the spies are discussing among themselves.

Related Articles

• Assange refused to meet Cumberbatch 
  14 May 2013
• Julian Assange vigil costs taxpayers £4million 
  19 May 2013
• WikiLeaks: Ecuador seeks new talks over Julian Assange 
  13 Mar 2013

"It [GCHQ] won't hand over any of the classified information. But, much to its surprise, it has some unclassified information on us. We have just received this. It is not public yet."

A GCHQ spokesman told the Independent: "We acknowledge that some of these comments were inappropriate but emphasise that no decisions were taken by GCHQ on the basis of these comments, nor was any reliance placed on them. We have reminded staff of the importance of professional behaviour at all times.

"As was made clear to Mr Assange when the information was disclosed to him, the comments he referred to were a small number of casual observations on current affairs issues made by a handful of staff on GCHQ's informal communications channels... We have given him all of the information that he is entitled to under the Act.”

“We are not able to comment on whether or not any material has been exempted,” the spokesman added.

Mr Assange and his supporters have claimed that the rape allegations made against him by two women in Sweden are part of an international conspiracy in a bid to silence him after WikiLeaks caused huge embarrassment in Washington when it released thousands of us administration diplomatic cables,

His final appeal against extradition to Sweden was dismissed by the UK Supreme Court in June 2012, and four days later he took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Bradley Manning, a US soldier, has been charged with supplying classified material to WikiLeaks, and his trial is due to start next month.

PRESSTITUTES

Better an Honest Socialist than a Lying Republican


- Dolours Price


 Have You No Shame?

Lies, Damned Lies, and Newspaper Reporting 
By Annie Machon

February 01, 2013 "Huffington Post" - -Where to start with this tangled skein of media spin, misrepresentation and outright hypocrisy?

Last week the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence presented this year's award to Dr Tom Fingar at a ceremony jointly hosted by the prestigious Oxford Union Society.

Dr Fingar, currently a visiting lecturer at Oxford, had in 2007 co-ordinated the production of the US National Intelligence Estimate - the combined analysis of all 16 of America's intelligence agencies - which assessed that the Iranian nuclear weaponisation programme had ceased in 2003. This considered and authoritative Estimate directlythwarted the 2008 US drive towards war against Iran, and has been reaffirmed every year since then.

By the very fact of doing his job of providing dispassionate and objective assessments and resisting any pressure to politicise the intelligence (à la Downing Street Memo), Dr Fingar's work is outstanding and he is the winner of Sam Adams Award, 2012. This may say something about the parlous state of our intelligence agencies generally, but don't get me started on that...

Anyway, as I said, the award ceremony was co-hosted by the Oxford Union Society last week, and many Sam Adams Associates attended, often travelling long distances to do so. Former winners were asked to speak at the ceremony, such as FBI Coleen Rowley, GCHQ Katherine Gun, NSA Thomas Drake, and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray. Other associates, including CIA Ray McGovern, diplomats Ann Wright and Brady Kiesling and myself also said a few words. As former insiders and whistleblowers, we recognised the vitally important work that Dr Fingar had done and all spoke about the importance of integrity in intelligence.

One other previous winner of the Sam Adams Award was also invited to speak - Julian Assange of Wikileaks. He spoke eloquently about the need for integrity and wasgracious in praising the work of Dr Fingar.

All the national and international media were invited to attend what was an historic gathering of international whistleblowers and cover an award given to someone who, by doing their job with integrity, prevented yet further ruinous war and bloodshed in the Middle East.

Few attended, still fewer reported on the event, and the promised live streaming on YouTube was blocked by shadowy powers at the very last minute - an irony considering the Oxford Union is renowned as a free speech society.

But worse was to come. The next day the Guardian newspaper, which historically fell out with Wikileaks, published a myopic hit-piece about the event. No mention of all the whistleblowers who attended and what they said, no mention of the award to Dr Fingar, no mention of the fact that his work saved the Iranian people from needless war.

Oh no, the entire piece focused on the tawdry allegations emanating from Sweden about Julian Assange's extradition case. Discounting the 450 students who applauded all the speeches, discounting all the serious points raised by Julian Assange during his presentation, and discounting the speeches of all the other internationally renowned whistleblowers who spoke that evening, the Guardian's reporter, Amelia Hill, focused on the small demo outside the event and the only three attendees she could apparently find to criticise the fact that a platform, any platform, had been given to Assange from his political asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy.

So this is where we arrive at the deep, really deep, hypocrisy of the evening. Amelia Hill is, I'm assuming, the same Guardian journalist who was threatened in 2011 with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. She had allegedly been receiving leaks from the Metropolitan Police about the on-going investigation into the News of the Worldphone-hacking scandal.

At the time Fleet Street was up in arms - how dare the police threaten one of their own with prosecution under the OSA for exposing institutional corruption? Shades of the Shayler case were used in her defence. As I wrote at the time, it's a shame the UK media could not have been more consistently robust in condemning the chilling effects of the OSA on the free-flow of information and protect all the Poor Bloody Whistleblowers, and not just come out fighting when it is one of their own being threatened. But such is the way of the world....

But really, Ms Hill - if you are indeed the same reporter who was threatened with prosecution in 2011 under the OSA - examine your conscience.

How can you write a hit-piece focusing purely on Assange - a man who has designed a publishing system to protect potential whistleblowers from precisely such draconian secrecy laws as you were hyperbolically threatened with? And how could you, at the same time, airbrush out of history the testimony of so many whistleblowers gathered together, many of whom have indeed been arrested and have faced prosecution under the terms of the OSA or US secrecy legislation?

Have you no shame? You know how frightening it is to be faced with such a prosecution.

Your hypocrisy is breath-taking.

The offence was compounded when the Sam Adams Associates all wrote a letter to theGuardian to set the record straight. The original letter is reproduced below, and this iswhat was published. Of course, the Guardian has a perfect right under its Terms and Conditions to edit the letter, but I would like everyone to see how this can be used and abused.

And the old media wonders why it is in decline?

Letter to the Guardian, 29 January 2013:

Dear Sir

With regard to the 24 January article in the Guardian entitled "Julian Assange Finds No Allies and Tough Queries in Oxford University Talk," we question whether the newspaper's reporter was actually present at the event, since the account contains so many false and misleading statements.

If the Guardian could "find no allies" of Mr. Assange, it did not look very hard! They could be found among the appreciative audience of the packed Oxford Union Debate Hall, and - in case you missed us - in the group seated right at the front of the Hall: the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

Many in our group - which, you might be interested to know co-sponsored the event with Oxford Union - had traveled considerable distances at our own expense to confer the 10th annual Sam Adams award to Dr. Thomas Fingar for his work on overseeing the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that revealed the lack of an Iranian nuclear weaponization program.

Many of us spoke in turn about the need for integrity in intelligence, describing the terrible ethical dilemma that confronts government employees who witness illegal activity including serious threats to public safety and fraud, waste and abuse.

But none of this made it into what was supposed to pass for a news article; neither did any aspect of the acceptance speech delivered by Dr. Fingar. Also, why did theGuardian fail to provide even one salient quote from Mr Assange's substantial twenty-minute address?

By censoring the contributions of the Sam Adams Associates and the speeches by Dr. Fingar and Mr. Assange, and by focusing exclusively on tawdry and unproven allegations against Mr. Assange, rather than on the importance of exposing war crimes and maintaining integrity in intelligence processes, the Guardian has succeeded in diminishing none but itself.

Sincerely,

The Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence:

Ann Wright (retired Army Colonel and Foreign Service Officer of US State Department), Ray McGovern (retired CIA analyst), Elizabeth Murray (retired CIA analyst), Coleen Rowley (retired FBI agent), Annie Machon (former MI5 intelligence officer), Thomas Drake (former NSA official), Craig Murray (former British Ambassador), David MacMichael (retired CIA analyst), Brady Kiesling (former Foreign Service Officer of US State Department), and Todd Pierce (retired U.S. Army Major, Judge Advocate, Guantanamo Defense Counsel).

Julian Assange | Sam Adams Awards | Oxford Union

Pussy Riot vs Marian Price v Julian Assange v British Gestapo

Pussy Riot vs Marian Price -
To each their own Hero and Villain 
A couple of high profile freedom of speech cases are unfolding particularly in the UK. The Pussy Riot sentencing in Moscow, the granting by Ecuador of political asylum to Julian Assange and finally the continues interrnment in British occupied Ireland of Marian Price. These cases are in many ways similar, if not, at least comparable to each other.  In two of the cases, we have college drop-outs breaking the laws of major power, while the British Gestapo are prosecuting two and in all cases the offenders have become something of a symbol of resistance to the power of the state. The British gestapo state internement without trial and torture of Marian Price is essentially about denying the right to free speech.  There are also some important differences between them, critical ones, which would also make it reasonable to say these cases as not similar but opposites.

So in order to organize the issues it was decided to make a little table comparing and contrasting the Pussy Riot and Marian Price cases.  This is, of course, hardly an exhaustive comparison.  Think of it rather as a "back of the napkin" kind of quick review:
 

	Pussy Riot	Marian Price
Origin	Russia	Irish
Persona	Collective & anonymous	Personal individual
Crime	Proven hate crime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALS92big4TY	Alledged holding of piece of paper at a political republican commemoration ceremony.
Ideological motive	Remove Putin from power, “3rd generation feminism”, homosexuality	Self-determination for Ireland. Open society, equality information freedom, free press, liberty.
Potential penalty	2 years medium security (sentenced)	Life supermax (in USA)
Defence tactic	Deny responsibility	NO charge, no trial
Legality	In line with mainstream law: http://mercouris.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/pussy-riot-2/	Unprecedented application of overruling law and internement without trial
Supporter	Western governments Western elites Russian elites	Democratic republic Worldwide opinion People of no property.
Past activities	Voina Performance Group: http://kaifolog.ru/2010/08/27/poshto-pizdili-kuru-22-foto.html http://plucer.livejournal.com/281211.html?nojs=1	Human rights activist, political prisoner activist. Irish republican.
Education	College drop-out	Nursing forced-out

 

And yet, looking at this table, I find myself wondering how a Russian "performance group" (that is what they call themselves) like Pussy Riot became the almost instant mega-hero of so many Western public figures.  Do you think that I am exaggerating?  Then check out this list of Pussy Riot supporters I found on Wikipedia:

Kate Nash, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Sting, Peter Gabriel, Cornershop, Faith No More, Alex Kapranos of Franz Ferdinand, Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys, Patti Smith, The Beastie Boys, Refused, Zola Jesus, Die Antwoord, Jarvis Cocker, Pete Townshend, The Joy Formidable, Peaches, Madonna, Genesis, Tegan and Sara, Johnny Marr, Courtney Love, Iiro Rantala, Propagandhi, Anti-Flag, Rise Against, Corinne Bailey Rae, Peter Hammill, Kathleen Hanna, Björk, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono, British comedian Stephen Fry, Reykjavík Mayor Jón Gnarr and Warren Kinsella.  A letter of support from 120 members of the German parliament, the Bundestag, was sent to the Russian Ambassador to Germany, Vladimir Grinin. The letter referred to proceedings against the women as being disproportionate and draconian. On August 9, 2012, 400 Pussy Riot supporters in Berlin marched wearing colored balaclavas in a show of support for the group.

To this, I would add the very intensive and, frankly, totally over-the-top coverage of the Western corporate media of the Pussy Riot trial.

Amazing, no?  Could it be due to the quality of actual "musical performance" (called "punk prayer") which got these ladies arrested?  Well, judge for yourself:

 

 

And to get a full "appreciation" for their artistic "talent", here is the translation of the lyrics:

 

St. Maria, Virgin, Drive away Putin

Drive away! Drive away Putin!

Black robe, golden epaulettes

All parishioners are crawling and bowing

The ghost of freedom is in heaven

Gay pride sent to Siberia in chains

The head of the KGB is their chief saint

Leads protesters to prison under escort

In order not to offend the Holy

Women have to give birth and to love

Holy shit, shit, Lord's shit!

Holy shit, shit, Lord's shit!

St. Maria, Virgin, become a feminist

Become a feminist, Become a feminist

Church praises the rotten dictators

The cross-bearer procession of black limousines

In school you are going to meet with a teacher-preacher

Go to class - bring him money!

Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin

Bitch, you better believed in God

Belt of the Virgin is no substitute for mass-meetings

In protest of our Ever-Virgin Mary!

St. Maria, Virgin, Drive away Putin

Drive away! Drive away Putin!

While I cannot disagree with some of the ideas contained in this screed (the Moscow Patriarchate is, indeed, both highly corrupted and totally controlled by the Kremlin, and "Patriarch" Gudaev is a scoundrel and crook of the worst kind), it is rather obvious to me that the real intention of this performance is not to denounce any wrongs, but to achieve a maximum shock effect.  In fact, the Pussy Riot collective is nothing but the latest re-packaging of the infamous "Voina" ("war" in Russian)  performance group which became famous by such "events" as organizing group sex flash mobs in public museums or having sex with a frozen chicken in a supermarket. You probably think that I am jocking, right?  Nope, and to prove this, I am (reluctantly) posting these (deliberately small sized) photos of these "events" here.  And if you think that I am exaggerating something, you can click on these photos for a better view of these "events" or you can even follow the following links for a full series of large, non-pixellated, and rather nauseating photographs:

 

http://kaifolog.ru/2010/08/27/poshto-pizdili-kuru-22-foto.html

 

http://plucer.livejournal.com/281211.html?nojs=1

 

 

If the first of these events was supposed to be some kind of statement about (then) President Medvedev, the second one - entitled "why was the chicken f*cked" and "tale about how the c*nt fed the war" - did not even carry some vague message of any kind.
 

It is rather obvious these ladies, whether packaged as "Pussy Riot" or as "Voina", have no other message and no other purpose than to offend, disgust or shock.  Their sole stroke of genius was to add to their usual sex-centered "performances" an anti-Putin and anti-Orthodox message.  Here, they really struck gold as that got them an overnight hero status in the West.  And that, in turn, says much more about the West, than about these sexually frustrated and otherwise dysfunctional women.

Indeed, while the western elites are lining up behind Pussy Riot, a putatively civilized western country like the UK is acting like some kind of comic-book Nazi regime, writing threat letters to a sovereign country like Ecuador:
 

 

For all the diplomatic verbiage wrapped around it, this is a crude, mobster like, letter of blackmail.  Furthermore, and as I already mentioned in my commentary yesterday, there is absolutely no precedent in recent history to the kind of behavior shown by the UK in this matter.  In fact, ALL of the Assange case is one never ending exercise in bending and abusing the law for the purpose of persecuting Assange: from the ridiculous allegations of non-protected sex, to the Interpol Red Notice, to the categorical refusal of the Swedish prosecutors to interview Assange in the UK, to the British refusal to give any guarantees of non-extradition and, finally, the the British threats to storm the Ecuadorian embassy - its all totally without precedent.
 

Compare that, again, to the case of the Pussy Riot prosecution in Russia which is very much in line, or even less severe, than what is considered the norm in most western countries (check this excellent and detailed legal analysis by Alexander Mercouris for more info).
 

It is true that what is at the core of both issues is free speech.  It does not matter whether speech is intended to be political or in support of some noble ideal, or whether free is used to offend, insult or shock.  Speech is speech regardless.  However, why is it that the western elites do not support all forms of hate-speech like they do support Pussy Riot's?
 

Would anybody seriously suggest that if these ladies had organized their performance in, say, a French synagogue, the western elites would all rise up in their defense?  Of course not.   So what is going on here?
 

Furthermore, speech is not the same as opinion.  If, at least in theory, western societies do not limit the expression of opinion, they all limit the freedom of speech be it for national security reasons, repression of hate crimes, liable laws, etc.
 

So let's cut through the crap here and set the record straight: the West's support for Pussy Riot is not due to to their opinions about Putin or the Moscow Patriarchate (such opinions can - and are -  frequently and freely expressed in Russia), and neither is it due to some unconditional support for free speech, which the West also restricts (much more so than Russia, I would argue).
 

The sad truth is that the West's support for Pussy Riot is, in reality, nothing more than yet another expression of its rabid hatred for anything Russian or Russian Orthodox.  And if that means erecting a small group of sexually dysfunctional women into a banner for freedom, so be it!  And that if that also means looking away from the obscene and outrageous persecution of a real hero for freedom like Julian Assange by the US Empire and its vassals - then so be it also!

In a paradoxical way, Pussy Riot are a perfect symbol of what the West stands for, just as Julian Assange has become a symbol for what Russia - and all the other nations on earth which refuse to submit to the US Empire - stand for.
 

I see some poetic justice here, a form of karma, really.  The modern, post-Christian, pagan, West, with all its boundless hypocrisy and arrogance, has sunk to a gutter level of ideological warfare, openly supporting the sick and pathological and persecuting the noble and courageous.  I also find it quite beautiful that a small country like Ecuador has dared to do that which all the otherwise self-enamored countries of Europe could not: show some true courage, dignity and self-respect.
 

Truly - to each his own hero and his own villain. 
 

Epilogue (provisional):
 

So Pussy Riot got themselves two years in jail.  I would have preferred that they be given 5 years of community service (you know, actually doing something halfway productive for their fellow Russians),  but that would immediately turn into yet another media circus, so I guess the judge made a good call.
 

As for Assange, his future will depend on the courage, or lack thereof, of the rest of the Latin American countries.  Ecuador cannot, by itself, prevail in a contest of wills against Uncle Sam's Poodle, but if this case sufficiently polarizes the public opinion in Latin America, the resulting public outrage might have some financial consequences for the UK and that might well force it to find some civilized and mutually acceptable solution to this embarrassing situation.  It would be nice if Russia or China also helped, but I am not holding my breath here - these two are not known for their altruism.
 

One more thing:

I apologize to anybody offended by the crude photos I posted today.  First, I assume that we are all adults here, but more importantly, and just like in my two articles about the "homo-lobby" (here and here), I feel that it is important to show things for what they really are and not just stick to abstract concepts.  It is one thing to discuss "sexual diversity" or "freedom of speech" and quite another to see a half-naked "man" with feathers or a woman publicly sticking a frozen chicken into her vagina.  A crude, disgusting, pathological and grotesque reality needs to be shown for what it is, and not for what its supporters want it to be.

 

The Saker

PS: Check today's BBC "coverage" of Julian Assange standing up to the British gestapo.

PPS: Here is the Ukrainian version of support for Pussy Riot:

 

Topless Protester Cuts Down Cross in Kiev

Activists from the Ukrainian feminist group Femen cut down a wooden crucifix in the center of the country’s capital, Kiev, on Friday in support of members of the Russian punk band Pussy Riot whose trial on hooliganism charges comes to an end today.

A video posted online showed a topless blond Femen protester wearing red shorts, with the words “Free Riot” scrawled across her chest and arms, cutting the cross with a chainsaw and then pulling it down using a rope pulled by two other activists, and then posing with her arms extended crucifix-style.

The cross was put up on a high hill near Kiev’s downtown Independence Square during the 2004 pro-democracy Orange Revolution to commemorate the victims of political repression under Joseph Stalin.

“By this act, Femen is calling on all the healthy forces of our society to mercilessly cut out of our brains the rotten religious prejudices which dictatorships rely upon and which prevent the development of democracy and women’s freedom,” the Segodnya daily quoted the activists as saying.

http://en.rian.ru/society/20120817/175271764.html

The Saker - www.vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

The Jackbooted British Gestapo

The British created the first concentration camps in the Boer War. Their holocaust in Ireland ethnically cleansed more than 6 million Irish. Every decade they re-introduce internment without trial since the foundation of the two neo-colonial scum states they created in Ireland.Marian Price, Martin Corey and may other Irish political prisoners of conscience are interned without trial in British Occupied Ireland. A Peace Process based on power sharing was sold to Ireland and the world. Clearly this is not the care unless PSF secretly support internment. The Jacbooted British Gestapo override their own queen and judges, to inflict their sadistic tyranny with torture in a peace process without due process today. A Peace Process without Due Process is meaningless.

Ecuador President Rafael “We Are Not A Colony” Correa Stands Up To The Jackbooted British Gestapo

By Paul Craig Roberts

                                    A coward dies many deaths; a brave man dies but once.

The once proud British government, now reduced to Washington’s servile whore, put on its Gestapo Jackboots and declared that if the Ecuadorean Embassy in London did not hand over WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, British storm troopers would invade the embassy with military force and drag Assange out. Ecuador stood its ground. “We want to be very clear, we are not a British colony,” declared Ecuador’s Foreign Minister. Far from being intimidated the President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, replied to the threat by granting Assange political asylum
The once law-abiding British government had no shame in announcing that it would violate the Vienna Convention and assault the Ecuadorean Embassy, just as the Islamic students in the 1979 Khomeini Revolution in Iran took over the US Embassy and held the diplomatic staff captive. Pushed by their Washington overlords, the Brits have resorted to the tactics of a pariah state. Maybe we should be worried about British nuclear weapons.

Let’s be clear, Assange is not a fugitive from justice. He has not been charged with any crime in any country. He has not raped any women. There are no indictments pending in any court, and as no charges have been brought against him, there is no validity to the Swedish extradition request. It is not normal for people to be extradited for questioning, especially when, as in Assange’s case, he expressed his complete cooperation with being questioned a second time by Swedish officials in London.

What is this all about? First, according to news reports, Assange was picked up by two celebrity-hunting Swedish women who took him home to their beds. Later for reasons unknown, one complained that he had not used a condom, and the other complained that she had offered one helping, but he had taken two. A Swedish prosecutor looked into the case, found that there was nothing to it, and dismissed the case.

Assange left for England. Then another Swedish prosecutor, a woman, claiming what authority I do not know, reopened the case and issued an extradition order for Assange. This is such an unusual procedure that it worked its way through the entire British court system to the Supreme Court and then back to the Supreme Court on appeal. In the end British “justice” did what the Washington overlord ordered and came down on the side of the strange extradition request.

Assange, realizing that the Swedish government was going to turn him over to Washington to be held in indefinite detention, tortured, and framed as a spy, sought protection from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. As corrupt as the British are, the UK government was unwilling to release Assange directly to Washington. By turning him over to Sweden, the British could feel that their hands were clean.

Sweden, formerly an honorable country like Canada once was where American war resisters could seek asylum, has been suborned and brought under Washington’s thumb. Recently, Swedish diplomats were expelled from Belarus where they seem to have been involved in helping Washington orchestrate a “color revolution” as Washington keeps attempting to extend its bases and puppet states deeper into traditional Russia.

The entire world, including Washington’s servile puppet states, understands that once Assange is in Swedish hands, Washington will deliver an extradition order, with which Sweden, unlike the British, would comply. Regardless, Ecuador understands this. The Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino announced that Ecuador granted Assange asylum because “there are indications to presume that there could be political persecution.” In the US, Patino acknowledged, Assange would not get a fair trial and could face the death penalty in a trumped up case.

The US Puppet State of Great (sic) Britain announced that Assange would not be permitted to leave Britain. So much for the British government’s defense of law and human rights. If the British do not invade the Ecuadorean Embassy and drag Assange out dead or in chains, the British position is that Assange will live out his life inside the London Embassy of Ecuador. According to the New York Times, Assange’s asylum leaves him “with protection from arrest only on Ecuadorean territory (which includes the embassy). To leave the embassy for Ecuador, he would need cooperation that Britain has said it will not offer.” When it comes to Washington’s money or behaving honorably in accordance with international law, the British government comes down on the side of money.

The Anglo-American world, which pretends to be the moral face of humanity has now revealed for all to see that under the mask is the face of the Gestapo.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. paulcraigroberts.org/