Showing posts with label Cruelty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cruelty. Show all posts

Monday, July 14, 2014

Cecily McMillan Rikers Island and the Manifestation of American Exceptionalism



As you read the appalling details surrounding the behaviour of the staff at Rikers Island Jail, NY, you might, like I, wonder if this is just another manifestation of the much vaunted and self delusionary "American Exceptionalism"?

Itself being but a euphemism for the abuse of power, torture, the total disregard for civil and human rights, and as history has already demonstrated, a total disregard of life itself.

You may also, as I did often, wonder at the mindset of those employed, not just at Rikers Island, but throughout the seriously flawed correctional system as a whole.


Released Occupy Activist Cecily McMillan: "There's No Sense in Prison"
By Sarah Jaffe, Truthout | Interview
13 July 2014


Released from Rikers prison after serving 58 days, Occupy activist Cecily McMillan discusses prisons, policing and why she'll keep protesting.

Cecily McMillan would rather not be famous. Not for the dubious honor of receiving the most serious sentence among thousands of Occupy Wall Street activists arrested over the course of the movement.

McMillan was released from Rikers Island after 58 days. She'd been sentenced to 90 days for felony second-degree assault for elbowing a police officer, Grantley Bovell, who was attempting to arrest her as Zuccotti Park was cleared on March 17, 2012, but got out early on July 2 for good behavior. She still faces five years of probation and a life with a felony record if her appeal, which is still going forward, is unsuccessful.

At trial, McMillan argued that she accidentally struck the officer after he grabbed her breast, bruising her. She'd previously refused to take a plea deal that would still have resulted in her pleading guilty to a felony. The jury found her guilty - though later nine of the 12 jurors issued a call for leniency in sentencing.

Video of McMillan suffering an apparent seizure after her arrest, while officers looked on and did nothing, was not allowed at trial, nor was evidence of other accusations of brutality against Officer Bovell. Despite the jurors and several members of the New York City Council calling for McMillan not to serve prison time, the judge, Ronald Zweibel, remanded her to Rikers immediately after her conviction, rejecting her lawyer's request for bail. "A civilized society must not allow an assault to be committed under the guise of civil disobedience," Zweibel said at her sentencing.

Upon her release, McMillan brought to the press a statement from the women of Rikers that she met while inside, with a list of demands for reforms of the institution. Though, she says, she is nobody special - "I'm just not as interesting as they're making me out to be" - her experiences have made her determined to speak out about prison conditions, as well as the connections between the prison system and the economic justice issues that led her to get involved with Occupy in the first place.

McMillan spoke with Truthout's Sarah Jaffe about prisons, protests, policing and the world she'd like to see. This is an edited transcript.

Truthout: How does it feel to be out?

Cecily McMillan: It's very discombobulating. I remember coming home, sitting on my bed, looking at all my clothes. It took me literally 30 minutes - being almost paralyzed with decisions available to me - before I could even pick out something to wear around the house. I've been wearing the same two outfits, same two sets of pajamas, for 58 days.

It's like that with everything. Getting up in the morning and choosing what to eat. It took me a while to even get any sort of voice back. When I got out and did the press conference I had to start my speech over because I literally lost my voice. I had forgotten what it meant to be listened to.

I am really overwhelmed with the task of adequately representing the needs of the women in Rikers. I had the very real experience, but nonetheless, that was only 58 days. Many of these women have been in and out, sent back again and again. I take very seriously the task that they have given me to represent their conditions in Rikers and the resources they need in order to get out.

I really fiercely miss my family in Rikers. These are the women that really sustained me in there, that really kept me going, that really helped me to continue to stand up for the values that I believe in. There's a bond and an experience that I have with them that I don't really have in my community on the outside.

It sounds like you've been thinking a lot about the role you have now, the way you can use the attention given to your case that isn't given to so many other people who are in there.

I'm really uncomfortable with the concept of a martyr, the concept of a leader. As far as I'm concerned, I just got sexually assaulted, which is a really commonplace experience for women in this country. I just got targeted, which is a really common experience for people of color in this country.

I don't think that I'm particularly special or even the best person to advocate on behalf of the everyday life of, not if, but when most of these women will find themselves in jail. When they asked me to deliver their demands, when they wrote them down, when they handed me 50 little sheets of paper that I read out to my team over the phone, I realized that I had some idea of what their oppression was, but not a clear structural understanding. It has been a constant worry that I won't do them justice.

Any particular stories about what it was like there that you'd like to share?

Maybe the best way that I could explain is through describing a search. Our dorm gets randomly searched at least twice a month, more if they want to set an example or if somebody has been smoking in the bathroom or if there have been rumors that somebody had some sort of contraband.

They use this space more or less to haze the new [correctional officers]. Two or three captains, 10 or so officers file into your dorm in full riot gear, the whole Plexiglas panel that's surrounding their body, the masks and a huge wooden bat. Another set of officers file into the bathroom and stand in a line facing the stalls that don't have doors. The first time they did the search I was using the restroom and had to finish my business right in front of them. They direct everybody to get down on the beds face down with your hands behind your back, after you put on your uniform and your ID badge. In Rikers you become a number. I'm 3101400431.

A third set of officers file in through sleeping quarters. Sometimes they bring in dogs. They call you row by row into the bathroom to strip down completely naked, do a deep knee bend forward, a deep knee bend backward, then have you open your mouth and shake out your hair and lift up your breasts.

After that the row files into the day room, and they have you face the wall standing throughout what can take up to a three or four hour process. Again you have three or so different captains, yelling "Miss, Miss," and if you turn around they're like, "I said turn around and face the wall! You want me to take your good days away?" You don't know who's giving orders where. They direct you into the entrance room where they make you sit down on a metal-detecting chair to check your body for any objects that you may be concealing. You have to put your cheek on a similar body metal detector device.

Then they bring out the women row by row again to our beds where they have flipped your bedding over, and you're made to stand there and hold your mattress off the ground. These old women up to 80 years old having to stand there for hours and then hold their mattresses up like this. They page through everything. They turned to me at one point and said, "McMillan! Why do you have so many books?" I was like, "Because I'm a grad student! Are you looking for cigarettes or are you looking for radical literature?"

If a CO isn't being humiliating enough, a CO will come over and ravage through your things even more. They can take anything away. These little soap hearts - this inmate would crush down soaps and reform them into hearts and put little pictures from magazines on them. Anything besides two pairs of pajamas - shoes that you got medically cleared, any commissary, if you have more than one shampoo and conditioner, pens. It takes like two weeks to get one of those.

After that you're all marched back out and whatever doesn't fit on your bed becomes trash. They will have another set of inmates come in - this is the real dirty part - and sweep up all of your belongings into these big trash bags and when you're let back into your room, the closest thing I can describe it to is growing up in southeast Texas and coming back home after a hurricane to return with your community to put your life back together again.

All sorts of things can go wrong. My bunkie, the woman next to me, had very serious asthma and they woke her up like this; she had a very severe asthma attack, to the point that she nearly collapsed and they said, "Stand up, why are you sitting down?" I said, "She has asthma," and they yelled, "shut the fuck up!" and I said, "You're going to have a lawsuit on your hands unless you get her her inhaler," and they asked her, "Which bed are you?" and she couldn't talk. I said, "She lives right next to me, I can get her inhaler," and they said, "Shut the fuck up!" and then she started wheezing and they're like, "OK, McMillan, go get her inhaler, quick!" and I trot off, and they yell, "Don't run, walk!" This woman ended up having to go downstairs to get a steroid shot.

That's a normal experience at Rikers, something you have to accept. They can come at any time, any day, during any set of services, 3:00 AM, doesn't matter.

The statement from the inmates in particular focused on the lack of medical treatment given to prisoners, and I hear that again in this story.

I have to agree wholeheartedly - this will seem like the most unlikely ally - with the president of the Correctional Officers Benevolent Association, Norman Seabrook, who I worked with before. Rikers is not and should not be a mental institution. I read a recent statistic that said more than 40 percent of the women there have been diagnosed with mental health conditions and I would say that's an underreporting. Every inmate is not required to undergo a thorough psychosocial consult. These women need help. Actual resources. Not to be put in a place that will literally drive you mad if you were whatever sane was to begin with.

Beyond the mental health standards, it is the norm to go downstairs for clinic - you have to sign up for sick call the night before; if you don't sign up you don't go. Then you have to wake up somehow of your own accord at 6 AM to go prepare for sick call. You could be waiting up to two or three hours at the door for sick call because when the door closes you're not getting out. I never got through sick call in less than six hours; you could be waiting easily up to 12 hours, and you could also still not see a doctor and have to come back two, three or four days in a row.

Very basic things like a cold, an ulcer, think about it. These tiny little things that can be fixed with ease turn into death sentences, rapidly. I witnessed another woman who had stomach cancer who found herself in so much unbearable pain that she was just yelling out her bunkie's name for hours before medical finally came up and when they did, they refused to touch her and required her to climb up on the gurney herself and wouldn't allow us to help her climb up on this gurney. The gurney ended up going up on two wheels as she nearly careened to the floor.

People keep asking me what was the doctor's name. Doctors don't have to give you their names. And of course they won't.

It's not that I don't want to talk about Judith's death. I'm happy to talk about Judith's death in the sense that I would love for her death to actually have eyes. I would love for anybody to recognize that she died, but I want to really paint a picture that this isn't an anomaly.

Another girl, when she was brought in for intake, was given what she thought was a routine physical, where a doctor that is known to be - nasty is the term that they use to describe him, telling inmates in Spanish that these uptight nurses, what they really need is a good fuck. He told this inmate that he needed to do an exam, told her that her chromosomal count was off, that he needed to do an exam to determine if she were really a man or a woman, had her pull down her panties as he stroked her. With no female nurse present.

It didn't even come out until after I had left. They were talking about medical abuses in the dorm after I left, and she said "That doctor? He gave me a gynecological exam when I came in." Another inmate said, "He's not a gynecologist," and she said, "He said he needed to determine . . . " and it wasn't until she finished the sentence that she realized that there was anything even wrong with that.

It's just horrifying. This is the pervasive treatment that such a broad swath of our society experiences on the outside every day, that humiliation has become that normalized.

People promise all sorts of things to these wonderfully resilient women all of the time and they very rarely follow through. I don't think that they thought that their voices would actually be heard by so many. I was terrified that I was going to get out and nobody was going to want to hear what they had to say on the inside. There's a reason why we have such a beautiful piece of real estate being occupied by a prison-industrial complex; that's why they're way over there with a bridge separating them from the rest of society. It's easier for society to put those people over there so that they don't have to be reminded daily of the degrading terms on which our democracy rests.

I'm hearing this, thinking about the incident that landed you in Rikers in the first place. I wonder if you feel like all of this is related, the way the police behaved outside of jail and the way inmates are treated on the inside?

Maybe that's what has made me relate so much to these women and why I feel so alienated from the community I had before. There's so much love; people are so overwhelmingly supportive; my friends are just incredible; my entire Occupy family is just beautiful. But to have undergone the experience that I had was in a sense to remove me of my class privilege.

I know that there's an irony in saying that as I have the opportunity to talk to you right now, which obviously means that I still do have privilege beyond measure in a comparative sense. But it at least allowed me a glimpse into what it means to be targeted by the police, to be characterized as dishonest, as undesirable by the court system, to be remanded without bail, as only the most serious crimes are. I had to spend like a week in jail trying to convince people that I wasn't some sort of mass murderer. They said, "Did you miss a court date?" and I said "No," and they said, "How many people did you kill?"

This is a double-edged sword. I went into Rikers and rather than the example to be made for Occupy Wall Street and of all dissent, I was just a normal person in there and there was a certain comfort to that. Even amidst the shocking humiliation there's also a solidarity of human struggle that I had really missed. Just be amongst other people who had been targeted, who had been treated poorly, who had been lost in the justice system, there was something to be said for that. I feel like in some ways I had been removed of all personhood except for the political idea they had wished to make of me and somehow through Rikers I regained my personhood, in the most humbling and profound way.

You want to talk about really seeing firsthand these books we read about the feminine condition, class condition, racial conditions, there's nothing like spending time in Rikers to make you feel those words. Feel the reality of the new Jim Crow. Feel the vulnerability of what it means to be a woman. Feel the helplessness of being a part of an undesirable criminal class.

I read that even when they were letting you out, they took you somewhere you weren't expecting to be?

Captains do not talk to inmates. The captains make all the decisions, so if you want a decision made you have to go through a CO to talk to a captain and the captain doesn't address you; they talk about you in front of you and then the CO tells you. I was passed through like a dozen captains that morning starting at 5 AM, and you're never even brought down till 7:30 AM after the court folks have been put into transportation. I was brought down at 5 AM, people from property, people from medication were called in early that morning just to discharge me. I was discharged at 8:30 AM, put into a van and I said to the very nice CO, "Have you ever seen them try to get rid of somebody so quickly?" He said, "No, I've also never been ordered to chauffeur somebody to a train station." I said, "Wait, what, no no no, I'm supposed to go to the Perry building," which is where people wait for inmates to get released. My friends were there; I really needed to meet them because I don't have an ID, a phone, without anybody that I care about knowing where I am. Especially being disappeared for 40 hours without any access to a lawyer or anybody able to find me after the initial arrest I was like, "Oh God, what is happening here?" They can and do disappear people at Rikers Island.

I was terrified. What are you going to do at Rikers Island in cuffs, tell an officer who doesn't show you a badge, a name, "No thank you, I'd like to go back to my dorm now"?

I'm in this car, the CO says OK, let me talk to my captain. He calls the deputy warden over; I tell him I do not consent to being driven to an unknown location without ID, without phone, without keys, without talking to my friends, nothing. Once I have passed the gates of Rikers, you are no longer in charge; I demand to be let go. I sat there for about 40 minutes as I'm sure they called all the way up to the commissioner, and then the CO said, "I'm sorry, I have orders; my wife died a couple of months ago from cancer and I'm in charge of these two young boys and I can't lose my job; I can't lose my pension. If I disobey orders, I'm going to get in trouble. This is coming from all the way up."

He drove me to Queensboro and dropped me off with my package and my MetroCard and he did, I will say, wait around until I managed to find somebody with a phone before he drove off. Luckily there was a young man who recognized my jail bag with my numbers on it; he said, "You look really distressed; did you just get out of jail? Do you want to borrow my phone?" and I said, "Please." He turned out to be an activist for Chinese immigrant rights; he sat there and waited with me until my friends came and picked me up. They asked, "You're WHERE?" and I said, "I don't know!"

You get a real sense that you could die, that you could disappear, that anything could happen to you while you're in there. This is the reality that these women live every day.

New York has been going through a lengthy debate over the practices of the NYPD, which became central to last year's mayoral election. How would you like to see the NYPD changed?

As one inmate said in her own demands, "A full-on investigation of the protocols of the NYPD. I mean look at this place, you're one of two white girls I've seen in here."

I don't know how to say it better. The NYPD, I have no problem with the human beings themselves at all. I think that there is a way that a police force could actually be used to protect the citizenry. I would love to see police officers help, especially the elderly, help children in times of need, in times of chaos. I think that there could be a really valuable role for police officers in a human community. But what we have right now is specifically not that.

I think "Stop policing, start protecting" is a really valuable chant. We've got to ask, who is it that the police are accountable to? It seems to me very clearly that it's not the people. The bankers haven't been arrested. I would love to see, what is the total sum of money that every prisoner in Rikers has ever allegedly stolen as compared to the 2007 housing market crash.

In that sense, I do think that the NYPD as a force has become the arm of the corporatocracy. The way that they treated Zuccotti Park, the way that they go out and seemingly round up undesirable people, especially at times that gentrification is in full swing, but never happen to be around in times when the same people actually require assistance or help. What are our police doing? Why are they doing it? Who are they responsible to? Why don't we have more community oversight? Why don't we have a democratic hand in selecting the commissioner?

I found it ludicrous that one of the reasons why they were saying I was clearly not the victim of anything is because I didn't report it to the internal affairs bureau. "Hey, um, excuse me police officers, can I tell you about how this other police officer, your friend, comrade and coworker, abused me?" You've got to be kidding me. Who would do that?

This big disarmament facade of removing guns from our streets via racial profiling - where's your disarmament strategy on the other side? Why is it that every police officer needs a gun?

I heard the recent number of how many New Yorkers died by gunshot wounds in 2013. I want to know how many of those bullets were at the hands of the NYPD. I think the police need to be democratically controlled just as our state is supposed to be. If you look at the basic demands of the women in Rikers, they were just asking for the same rights and the same avenues to participate in their own fate as we have begged for in this country for as long as I've been alive.

I think that the platform and demands laid out by the women of Rikers give us some serious direction for our own democratic organization as well. How can we, the citizens of New York City, file a grievance when an officer has abused his duty? If it's not the officers, who can we hold accountable for issuing the order? How can we know where the orders are coming from? Same demands as Rikers, same demands for New York City. We should have a say in our collective fate.

How do the prison system and these problems of police brutality intersect with the issues of economic injustice that the Occupy movement was fighting? There was tension within Occupy over whether fighting the police overshadowed the focus on economic inequality - do you see these as two parts of the same movement?

I was certainly of the camp that was like "we need to get off the [fuck the police] nonsense," but in reality, we did have to fight with law enforcement - I don't mean violently, I mean figuratively - in order to be allowed our basic civil right to protest. It wasn't so much a choice as it was a reality and because it was the nearest problem to us, the biggest hurdle to get at economic inequality; it became really central to what we were trying to do.

In terms of the NYPD and economic justice and the prison system, our prisons are the clearest barometer of the level of our democracy and our society. Maybe in terms of Occupy, had we been able to start with this, from this standpoint, we might have garnered a lot more strength across the 99% than when we started at Zuccotti. There's a certain amount of privilege that comes with being able to drop everything in your life and move into a public space.

That's not to belittle what Zuccotti was or Occupy Wall Street was by any means. Like I've been saying since I've gotten out, get your nose out of a book and get your ass into the streets; we're going to make mistakes; we're going to mess up, but we've got to stop talking about what we're going to do and we've got to start doing things in order to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Prison is the clearest vision of what is wrong with our corporate state. I have never more clearly understood how classist our society is. I did not meet a single other person in my entire time at Rikers who went to trial. Jury of your peers? Ha! They so clearly understand that there is no right to trial by jury, nor right to a speedy trial. There have been women waiting there for five years to go to trial, or for the right plea bargain. I was never in a room with more than I would say three white women. I met maybe a handful of people that lived in Manhattan.

In terms of the NYPD, I think that they have a strong understanding of the fact that the police are there specifically to remove them from society, not to protect them in society. The amount of women that had read The New Jim Crow in there is actually a lot, but they also understand it structurally. They don't sit around and scream about "fuck the police." They understand that the police are not answerable to them.

They are some of the most incredible organizers I've ever witnessed, in the fact that they manage somehow to continue living, to continue having humanity, to continue having community despite absolutely no access to affordable housing, to quality jobs, to a police system that protects them, to the resources that they need concerning domestic abuse, domestic violence, career training, job training, education, health care, mental health care, welfare. They have managed to organize their way around literally unlivable circumstances.

Can you imagine a world without prisons? Have you ever thought about prison abolition? What would we need for that to happen?

[A world without prisons] seems very easy to me. It's harder for me to imagine a world with prisons, even having been there.

The problem again isn't with the COs. We're looking at people who are not downwardly mobile upper-class white folks who want to run around Jim Crow-ing everyone. These folks, as one inmate said when I asked her what she thought about this story about the COs bringing in contraband, she said, "I'm not really surprised. We all come from the same place. All of them know us. They're just the ones who were lucky enough to get out."

These folks that are working these public sector jobs, you think they want to go to prison every day, you think they want to go to jail every day? Hell no. If we provided quality addiction programs where we treated addiction not like some sort of personal choice but the condition that it is, the mental health condition that it is, that helped people, COs would be working there. If we had solid resources for, so many women were actually in there for "assault" because they finally snapped and defended themselves against their abusers. I was in a room with four alone. If we had domestic abuse programs where women had resources for themselves and their children, where they didn't have to move in with friends in overcrowded high-priced apartments, and weren't made to resort to jobs that don't provide the money that is required to raise children. Mental health care programs. Health care programs. I met women in there that were in trouble for grand larceny, for stealing, in order to pay medical bills. If we put the same emphasis on social welfare and education, job training, we provided government sector jobs, both the COs and the inmates would lead much more fulfilling lives.

It is actually mind-boggling to me how we keep up the facade of prisons. The grand waste of taxpayer money, if you just look at it from a capitalistic self-interested standpoint. One of the women in there is writing a book called "Rosie's Babies" where she talks about the dozens of women that she's met in Rikers who had been born in Rikers and then were sent back again and again and again. I myself met four of these women.

There's no sense in prison. There's no rehabilitation; there's no citizenship; it is completely at odds with everything that we call democracy. It doesn't make any sense. People have called me a political prisoner; that's weird for me. But if I have to really think about that title and really come up with a definition of what a political prisoner is, it's someone who goes against the law or goes against the social rules or norms in order to stand up for the things that they believe in or the people that they care for, to do what is right by their communities. There's not a single woman in Rikers who isn't a political prisoner by that standard.

Just give these women, give these inmates, give our citizens the things that they need, the rights that they deserve. The resources they want to lead happy, fulfilling, contributing lives. That to me is so obvious. Truthout

Sunday, July 22, 2012

King Juan Carlos of Spain Tossed by World Wildlife Fund

What is it about the over privileged, or royalty for that matter, that they embrace the killing of wild animals with a passion that simply appalls the rest of us?

Being a Brit, I'm more than well aware of our own historical record, where the privileged and invariably chinless turned Africa into their own personal shooting gallery. Slaughtering as they did, by the tens of, if not hundreds of thousands, some of the most beautiful and magnificent creatures ever to grace this planet.

But for the most part, the part apart that is, from our present day over privileged chinless wonders, the Windsor-Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, who continue to blast feathered creatures from the sky, that shameful period in our history, is just that, history.

But the same can't be said however for Spain's own over privileged equivalent Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, King Juan Carlos is still indulging his own personal inadequacies by slaughtering God's* creatures every chance he gets. And let us be honest here, nothing highlights a persons' inadequacies and flaws of character, as does that of wanting to kill an animal for 'sport.'

But it is not just a flawed character that plays a role here, the 'over privileged' aspect is not to be ignored. Were, King Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria de Borbon y Borbon, not paid out of the public purse, and was just plain old Juan Carlos and scratched a living by the sweat of his brow, I wonder where he would find the $30,000 requirement to enable him to shoot an Elephant?

Yes, can you imagine it, this insidious piece of shit, this pathetic example of humanity, this King. forked out thirty thousand dollars to shoot a fucking Jumbo. How very fucking Regal is that?

I won't list the rest of his 'bag,' that you can find in the second article below, the petition, the one calling for Juan Carlos to be tossed from, and no, I'm not making this up, his position as the Honorary President of the Spanish branch of the WWF (World Wildlife Fund).

What part the petition played in the outcome I have no idea, I never sign such things, they are a perfect waste of time in my opinion. But whatever pressures were exerted and from whichever direction, Juan Carlos is toast, tossed, gone, he is no more vis a vis his role at the WWF.




Spain's king loses WWF title over elephant hunt

Conservation group's Spanish chapter strips him of honorary presidency
by Harold Heckle
21 July 2012

MADRID — The World Wildlife Fund's branch in Spain has ousted King Juan Carlos as its honorary president — a title he'd held since 1968 — after deciding his recent elephant hunting safari was incompatible with its goal of conserving endangered species.

The announcement Saturday was the latest in a string of bad news for Spain's royal family, which has been embarrassed by legal and other scandals.

The fund said in a statement that "although such hunting is legal and regulated" it had "received many expressions of distress from its members and society in general." It said members voted at a meeting Saturday in Madrid to "to get rid of the honorary President" by a substantial majority of 226 votes to 13.

The Royal Palace declined immediate comment on the announcement.

Many Spaniards were dumbfounded when news broke in April that the king had made a secret journey to hunt elephants in Botswana even though it was widely known he was president of the Spanish branch of the fund.

Such an opulent indulgence also angered Spaniards at a time when national unemployment hovers around 25 percent, the economy is contracting and there are fears the country may need an international financial bailout.

The Spanish public learned of the safari only after the king had to fly back in a private jet to receive emergency medical attention for a broken hip suffered during the trip.

In an unprecedented act of royal contrition, a sheepish Juan Carlos apologized, saying as he left the hospital: "I am very sorry. I made a mistake. It won't happen again."

It was a poignant moment because the royal family had been under intense media scrutiny for all the wrong reasons.

The king's son-in-law, Inaki Urdangarin, is a suspect in a corruption case, accused of having used his position to embezzle several million euros in public contracts through a supposedly not-for-profit foundation he'd set up.

Over Easter, the king's 13-year-old grandson, Felipe Juan Froilan, shot himself in the foot with a shotgun, even though Spanish law dictates you must be 14 to handle a gun.

The king on Tuesday decided to take a pay cut in solidarity with civil servants who are to lose their traditional Christmas bonuses as part of the government's most recent austerity drive.

The salaries of Juan Carlos and Crown Prince Felipe will be reduced about 7 percent — to about 272,000 euros ($334,000) and 131,000 euros ($160,000) respectively — in line with government policy, the Royal Palace said.

The king and prince acted voluntarily in cutting their salaries, the palace said. MSNBC





Spain’s King Juan Carlos: (call to) resign as Honorary President WWF (World Wildlife Fund)

Undated, sometime in 2012
Petition now closed

King Juan Carlos of Spain is the Honorary President of the Spanish branch of the WWF (World Wildlife Fund). The WWF is an international environmental organization advocating, amongst others, the protection of the African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) because the conservation status of this animal is considered vulnerable!

Recently Spain’s King Juan Carlos went for a private hunting trip to Botswana where he killed an African elephant, a species which conservation status is deemed “vulnerable”!

"He had a hunting permit for hunting elephant," said Jeff Ramsay (Botswana government spokesman). King Juan Carlos is well known to be an enthusiastic hunter, which is his favorite pursuit!

Across Africa last year, some 12,000 elephants are shot illegally, mostly by poachers. Spain's King Juan Carlos paid 30.000$ for his hunting liscense, to get a trophy of a killed elephant and therefor got the permit to kill an African Elephant!

Spain’s King Juan Carlos is also a great fan and supporter of bullfights, in which bulls get tortured for hours and finally stabbed to death! The king reportedly killed a Russian bear which had been made drunk with "vodka and honey"!

A Honorary President of the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) can NOT be a passionate hunter, someone who kills animals for fun. That is a catastrophe, an insult to all animal rights activists and absolutely revolting!

We the undersigned petition you, Spain’s King Juan Carlos, to resign as a Honorary President WWF (World Wildlife Fund). Show some final respect to the animals and give up your Spanish WWF presidency.

We call everybody NOT to donate any money to WWF, until the animal killer Spain's King Juan Carlos finally resigns or the WWF makes an clear statement to this scandal!

update: the real proof of hypocrisy: "Spanish king apologizes for Botswana hunting trip". King Juan Carlos is a trophy hunter since more then 20 years! Now he should apologize for shooting Mitrofan, the tame Russian bear.
He should also apologize for shooting something like nine bears in a row in Romania, including a pregnant she-bear. And while he's at it, he should apologize for his support of bullfighting.

How can the WWF accept him as a Honorary President?? The WWF knew about his passion for hunting and still does not find it necessary to exclude Juan Carlos from their organization! Is it only about collecting LOTS and LOTS of donations??! Please rethink your WWF membership if WWF does NOT react on this scandal!

Please share this petition with friends! change.org






Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Women Prisoners in the US Still Shackled Whilst Giving Birth

This isn't news to me, I have known about this practice for years, but I have a feeling that it may come as quite a shock to some of my European readers. Or perhaps I should rephrase that; my readers from civilised parts of the world.

I cannot think of anything more degrading, anything more traumatic, or anything more unnecessary, than to be forced to give birth whist shackled to a bed.

Misogyny is not the sole domain of Islamic males is it? No, it flourishes alongside that other characteristic that is the domain of inadequate men everywhere, the power play, the total control of women. And nowhere does it flourish more than among the cops and the screws (correctional officers) of the American police state.

If only as an academic exercise, how I would love to see the results of a comprehensive psychological study of both police and prison guards. Boy! I bet that would make some scary reading.

I can't get a job because I'm below average intelligence, invariably racist, I have anger issues and an authoritarian attitude. I know, I'll join the police force or the prison service. What a great idea, what could possibly go wrong?


Women are born free in the US but everywhere give birth in chains


America is almost unique in the civilised world for forcing pregnant prisoners to undergo childbirth cuffed and shackled
Sadhbh Walshe
6 June 2012


Only 16 of 50 states in the US have any regulations or laws against the shackling of female prisoners during childbirth

In 2007, a 17-year-old girl called Cora Fletcher was charged with retail theft. Over a year later, after she missed a court date, she was sent to the Cook County jail, in Illinois. She was eight months pregnant at the time.
During a pre-natal check-up at the facility, her baby appeared to have no heartbeat, so she was sent to the county hospital. As the medical team tried to induce her, Fletcher claims that both her hands and both her feet were shackled to either side of the bed. Only when she finally went into labor, three days later, was one hand and one foot released. It's hard to imagine a more crucifying way to force a woman to try to give birth.
Sadly for Fletcher, there was no payoff for the trauma and humiliation she was forced to endure, as her baby was born dead.
Fletcher was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit brought against Cook County on behalf of 80 female prisoners and detainees who also claimed to have had similar experiences of being shackled during childbirth. Just under two weeks ago, the county agreed to a settlement of $4.1m dollars payable to the women, who will each receive between $5,000 and $45,000.
The Cook County sheriff's office made it clear, however, that they were agreeing to the deal for expediency's sake only and were admitting to no wrongdoing. This despite the fact that Illinois became the first state in the union to ban the practice of shackling women during labor, back in 1999 – at least seven years before any of the women named in the lawsuit had their babies. A spokesman for the department, Frank Bilecki, went so far as to issue a statement claiming the jail's treatment of (female) detainees is the "most progressive in the nation".
If that is the case, women in America better watch their backs.
The practices of making pregnant women wear belly chains and of shackling their hands and feet before, after and sometimes during labor, are just another way in which the United States distinguishes itself – or fails to distinguish itself, perhaps – as anything but a bastion of liberty and justice and a champion of women's rights. No other country in the "civilized world" finds shackling pregnant women a necessary or desirable procedure. The practice has been repeatedly and vigorously condemned by the committee against torture at the United Nations; and it has been decried by both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (You can imagine how doctors relish the prospect of trying to safely deliver a baby whose mother is in chains.)
Yet, here in America, only 16 of the 50 states have any kind of legislation to restrict or ban the practice. And as was evidenced in the Cook County, Illinois law suit, even states that do have laws on their books don't necessarily feel compelled to uphold them.
No one knows exactly how many women have been subjected to this degrading treatment, as prison officials are not obliged to keep records of pregnancies and births that occur to women in their custody. That in itself speaks volumes about the lack of attention paid to the needs of the exploding female prison population. (The US has more women prisoners than any country in the world, and their numbers are increasing at twice the rate of the male population.) When you ask a prison official why women are shackled when they are in transit or away from the facility, the answer will invariably be because that is standard prison procedure and that leg irons, handcuffs and belly chains are necessary to prevent the prisoner escaping and to protect the public.
Chaining up prisoners who are dangerous felons is one thing, but as the vast majority of incarcerated women are nonviolent offenders who, for the most part, are only guilty of crimes of poverty and addiction, a one-size-fits-all shackling policy is not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Especially since the chances of a woman in the middle of labor going on the lam are almost nonexistent. That should be self-evident, but it seems that no allowance is made for the physical vulnerabilities of women, even when they are pregnant.
And so you have a situation where someone like Cora Fletcher finds herself literally and figuratively bound by practices that would be harsh if applied to a multiple murderer, never mind a teenage girl who stole something from a store. As if the rigors of childbirth were not punishing enough, the state chooses to make the experience as torturous for a woman as possible.
There is reason, however, to hope that the days of this barbaric practice are numbered. The recent $4.1m settlement was welcomed by human rights advocates and many lawmakers as a strong message to jails and prisons that shackling women before, during and after childbirth is unlawful and unconstitutional. Cook County has paid a hefty price for its decision to violate their own state's laws. Other local governments can expect to do the same.
Advocacy groups are gearing up to get legislation passed in the 34 states that still allow the practice and are pushing for a federal standard to ensure that the laws are upheld in all 50. It's a shame that it will, apparently, require endless lawsuits and relentless campaigning to put an end to a practice that any reasonable person should find abhorrent. But if that's what it takes, so be it. Gruniad







Previous: California Prisons: I wouldn't Put These Blokes In Charge of My Dog

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Peadophile Priests Prime Ministers Politicians and Police

Not a story about the UK, if from reading the header, that is what you were expecting, but more details surrounding the previous shocking expose, Forced Child Castrations Reportedly Found in Roman Catholic Care.

Evil is a word I seldom use, the main reason being, the way the word has been hi-jacked by the religious, giving a single word the status of an entity in its own right; evil, like the Devil, lurking in some dark corner as it were.

But there is evil here, not in the form of some supernatural demon, but like evil the world over, evil in the only form it takes, the only form it has, man alone. And nothing so evil as man cloaked in the garb of all evils, the apparel of religion. And in this particular case, worn by those of the Catholic Church.

And let not one of you, for the love of what ever fictional entity you may pray to, have the affront to tell me, ''but this isn't true Catholicism'' because it is. This cult of perversion and pederasty is every bit true of Catholicism as intolerance, misogyny, and the cult of death is Islam.

The paedophile will never stop abusing children, if only in his fantasies. The wife beater, for all his contrition and promises after the act, will never stop beating his wife, and the priesthood will never stop physically and sexually abusing children. It is what they are, it is their being, their fundamental make up, it is as unalterable as their DNA.

And unimaginable as it might seem, there are those that carry even more guilt than those that perpetrated these horrific acts on children, those that let it happen decade after decade, the Ratzinger's of this world.



Time for the truth about Catholic sex abuse in the Netherlands
By Robert Chesal
19 March 2012

The revelation that a number of minors who were abused in Dutch Roman Catholic institutions were also forcibly castrated has shocked the Netherlands. It casts grave doubt upon the recent findings of a commission set up to look into abuse in the church. RNW's Robert Chesal, who first brought the sex abuse scandal to light, argues that only parliament can be trusted to investigate further.

We now know that former Dutch cabinet minister Wim Deetman did not meet the expectations he raised when he chaired the commission of inquiry into sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church. He did not get to the bottom of the abuse scandal or reveal all of the horrors that took place behind church doors in the Netherlands.

Whistle blowers punished

We know this thanks to investigative journalist Joep Dohmen of the newspaper NRC Handelsblad. Dohmen wrote about a boarding school student who had been sexually abused by a Dutch monk. When the former student reported the abuse to the police in 1956, he was brought to a Roman Catholic psychiatric ward, declared a homosexual and then castrated. The same surgery was probably performed on at least ten other schoolmates of his who tried to blow the whistle on abuse.

The main abuser in this case was ‘Gregorius,’ the brother superior of the Roman Catholic Harreveld boarding school in the east of the Netherlands.

We cannot yet say for sure why the Deetman Commission left all this information out of its voluminous report on sexual abuse in the church that was published just three months ago. The commission received a clear complaint detailing the castrations in 2010, which it now says it did not investigate "for lack of sufficient leads".

This explanation looks shaky at best, seeing as Joep Dohmen was able, in just a few months’ time, to find irrefutable evidence of one such illegal castration and strong indications of ten more.

Senior politician involved

But Dohmen found something even more important. He discovered that the Deetman Report failed to mention a certain political figure who tried to secure a royal pardon for Gregorius and other convicted Catholic brothers from Harreveld. That was Victor Marijnen, a former Dutch prime minister and leading member of the Catholic People's Party (KVP). The KVP later merged with Protestant parties to form the Christian Democrats (CDA) - the political party of inquiry commission chairman Wim Deetman.

Victor Marijnen was in an extraordinary position in the 1950s. Not only was he a rising star in his political party, he was also vice-chairman of the Dutch Catholic child protection agency, and –most pertinently– director of Harreveld boarding school. The Deetman Commission was aware of these connections and the potential conflicts of interest they represent. The commission was aware of Marijnen’s letter to the Queen on behalf of sexual abusers, too, but omitted these facts in its report.

Reacting to Dohmen's revelations, the Deetman Commission explains that it did not mention Marijnen because it did not detail any cases that could be traced back to an individual, for the sake of protecting privacy. However, elsewhere in the same report we see numerous mentions of cases that can be traced back to individuals, even highly-placed figures such as bishops Ad Simonis and Philippe Bär. The commission did not shy away from slapping these men on the wrist.

It's not unreasonable to conclude that the Deetman Commission refrained from investigating the castration because it knew this would inevitably lead to closer scrutiny of the Harreveld situation, exposing the role of Victor Marijnen and showing Mr Deetman’s own political party in a very negative light indeed.




The big picture

But this may be too narrow a view. The bigger picture is this: Victor Marijnen was just one member of a wider elite of Catholic notables who weilded vast power in the 1950s. They were captains of industry, chairmen of commissions, judges, high-ranking civil servants and politicians. And it was through this old boys network that abuse at Harreveld and other Roman Catholic institutions was covered up.

In short, the Harreveld castration story reveals collusion between institutions, bishops, politicians, the police and the justice system that enabled sexual abuse in the church to continue unpunished for decades on end.

Questions to answer

It's now clear that the critics were right when they complained that a church-installed commission of inquiry could not, or would not, get to the bottom of the abuse scandal. There must now be an impartial inquiry whose integrity is beyond doubt. Only parliament can fulfil this role. And perhaps the first witness called to testify under oath should be Wim Deetman himself. Radio Netherlands

Journalists of the Year 2010
RNW's Robert Chesal and Joep Dohmen of NRC Handelsblad were named journalists of the year in 2010 for their work in exposing sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church in the Netherlands.

Dohmen also published the book "Vrome Zondaars" (Pious Sinners) on the same subject.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Forced Child Castrations Reportedly Found in Roman Catholic Care

Jesus Christ! is there no end to the horror stories that keep coming out of the Dutch Catholic Church?


Forced castrations reportedly found in Roman Catholic care
17 March 2012

Underage sexual abuse victims were castrated in Dutch Roman Catholic psychiatric wards in the 1950s, according to the Rotterdam-based newspaper NRC Handelsblad.




Castration was performed on young men who were thought to be homosexual, but also as a means of punishing those who blew the whistle on abusers, the paper quotes sources as saying.

NRC discovered proof of the forced castration of one young man and strong evidence that at least ten other abuse victims were subjected to the removal of their testicles. The proof includes court documents, medical records, letters from lawyers and private correspondence.

According to the paper, the practice was reported in 2010 to the Deetman Commission which completed its investigation of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church last December. The commission, led by former cabinet minister Wim Deetman of the Christian Democrat party (CDA), made no mention of the castration of abuse victims in its final report.

NRC also writes that a prominent Dutch politician tried to secure a royal pardon for Catholic brothers convicted of sexual abuse at Harreveld, a former boarding school in the Netherlands. The politician was Vic Marijnen, who later became Dutch prime minister.

Marijnen was chairman of the Harreveld board of governors at the time when the abuses took place. He was also vice-chairman of the Netherlands' main Catholic child protection agency and leader of the Catholic People's Party (KVP), which later merged with Protestant groups to create the Christian Democrats.

In a reaction, the church-installed Deetman Commission says it did not publish any findings on the castration of abused minors in its final report because it had "too few leads for further investigation." The commission did not report on the actions of Vic Marijnen because "the case was unmistakeably tied to circumstances which could be traced back to an individual person." In its final report, the commission left most identities anonymous as a means of protecting individuals' privacy. Radio Netherlands and more Catholic Church abuse stories.


H/T Maren.

Saturday, January 07, 2012

Bullfighter Jose Padilla - Twat

I suppose it must have been playing on my mind, after all, a comment left on a blog defending bullfighting, is a pretty rare thing. In fact I would go as far as to say it's unique; where it concerns bullfighter, Juan Jose Padilla it is. Consequently, and as much on auto-pilot as anything else, I set to first thing this morning and knocked these few pics out.

Every comment on every post that I have read, concerning Padilla getting his, has. as you may well imagine, been a tad short in sympathy department. The sentiments more in keeping with my first graphic in this little gallery, which of course is my own core sentiment.

O fucking le, you twat.








Tuesday, January 03, 2012

When a Child Is Abused by a War Veteran

To be honest, I wasn't going to run with this when I first started reading.


When a Child Is Abused by a War Veteran
by David Swanson
29 December 2011

I'm torn between the pleasure of having just read a brilliant and moving first-person stream-of-consciousness account of a true story of one woman's childhood, and the deep sadness that comes from learning about the absolutely horrific hell that this woman is extremely lucky to have survived — a hell that many others have known and will know, despite the ease with which it might be prevented.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: "These novels will give way, by and by, to diaries or autobiographies — captivating books, if only a man knew how to choose among what he calls his experiences that which is really his experience, and how to record truth truly." Set aside the old-fashioned metaphysical vocabulary and the sexism. Factor in the world-changing force now developing called self-publishing. Emerson is being proved right, and there is no better example than "This Girl's Life: Being the Child of a War Veteran," by Michelle Brown.

Brown begins her masterpiece thus:

"I lived a rough life with my dad. He abused us physically all the time. There were four of us who lived in our home, my brothers and sisters, along with my mom and dad. My older sister had already left home. She'd had enough. My dad took a lot of my life from me, and I still have nightmares about the things that went on in that home. We were afraid to tell anyone, afraid of what would happen to us. My dad was a war veteran and we really did not know how to treat someone like that."

The treatment that Brown received as a girl, by her account, rivals in my estimation that meted out to prisoners of the CIA. She was starved, sleep-deprived, forced to stand endlessly, denied access to a bathroom, and beaten almost daily with all manner of objects. She was terrorized, physically damaged, cut, bruised, sight-impaired, brain injured, and of course denied medical care or pain killers. This girl grasped at every shred of possible explanation why, and the evidence pointed strongly in one direction: war.

"My dad would tell us all the time that he beat us because he thought we were the enemy. Well, if that was the case, why didn't he beat up people outside the family?"

Brown's primary response toward her father was and is hatred. "I hated my father — and hate is such a strong word, but I did. I really wanted to love him, but the Vietnam War ruined him and his family. … I was so afraid of my dad. I was even afraid to get the story out, thinking he would get mad at me and haunt me, even though he was dead."

Where did such a frightening father come from?

"My mom, Della, told me that Rico wasn't violent until he went into war. Rico would sometimes tell us about when he was in the war watching all his friends get their heads blown off. Rico would say he had to eat rats over there. In fact, my dad had his foot bitten by a rat. He had Agent Orange sprayed on him. He would say that the Army would teach them to be heartless, but I still say he didn't have to take those things out on us, his children. … In Vietnam, the Army would give the men medicine to take so they wouldn't get horny and want to have sex. … My father told my mom he couldn't love his children, because what if we died on him? He said his family looked like the enemy. … My mom says my dad would send her pictures when he was in the war of men with their heads blown off, no legs … dead. Just horrifying pictures.

"… My dad would get up in the middle of the night, wake everybody up, and talk about his experiences in the war, about how he had to kill men in the war. … I talked to one of the guys who was in the war with my dad, and he told me that my dad had to kill women and kids over in Vietnam."

So, in fact, beating women and kids was actually an improvement on the behavior this man had engaged in previously, behavior for which he was trained and praised.

How, year after year after year, was the constant beating of a wife and all of his children kept quiet? Brown's grandmother knew. Brown's grandfather and uncles knew:

"My mom said my dad put a knife up to her dad's throat and said he would kill him if they didn't get out of his home. My dad chased her brothers down the street."

The author's school knew, despite lots of lies about falling down, and lots of staying home until bruises healed:

"My father even came to my classroom at school and whipped me in front of all my friends. That made me so damn mad, because he was hitting me in public now."

A friend knew:

"My dad had a best friend who would come to our house and my dad would tell his friend, 'Watch how I treat my wife and kids.' After that day Rico's friend came over and saw how my dad treated us, he never spoke to my dad again. I never saw him again. He was so mad that he left my dad's home and never returned."

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) knew enough. Brown's father lied to the VA that he had no children, but the VA diagnosed him with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and as suicidal and homicidal, bipolar, schizophrenic, and personality disordered, as well as depressed and cocaine addicted. You'd think something in that toxic stew might have triggered a procedure that would have involved counseling for the father and/or an investigation into whose lives he might be destroying. You'd be wrong.

Books are flying off the shelves claiming that we are leaving war and violence behind us. But these books calculate Vietnam War deaths and injuries without including the Vietnamese, and without including anything that happens back home or after the official end of the war. Here we are dealing with damage from the Vietnam War that we are just now learning about in 2011, almost 2012. Imagine how much more is beneath the surface. Imagine the horrific suffering coming out of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars that we will be learning about in the 2040s and later if we last that long. Imagine the suffering from our current wars of children not yet born.

Personally, I could barely stand to read what Michelle Brown recounted, and I doubt I could have survived it myself to tell about it. That she has both survived it and gone on to warn others about it so eloquently is a double miracle. Yet I am going to quibble with two aspects of how Brown views her own story.

First, she overlays it with religion:

"I wish things could have turned out differently, but like my mom always says, there is God's plan and yours, and God's plan always wins."

Frankly, if I could make any sense out of the notion of God or out of the notion of a God who planned for Brown to be tortured every day of her childhood, I would condemn that God and dedicate myself to opposing him or her or it.

Belief that all things, good and bad, are part of a master plan does not stifle all efforts to make the world a better place. Brown is trying to warn others and to advise them to leave abusive relationships. Yet she is also very understanding of the idea that one has a duty to tolerate the intolerable:

"To put up with a man like my dad because of her wedding vows had to be hard. I think I would have broken my wedding vows under those same circumstances, but that just goes to show you what a strong black woman my mom really is."

Secondly, Brown condemns her father's abuse of a woman and her children in the United States, but decidedly not his murdering of women and children in Vietnam. In fact, she praises this man whom she hates for the crimes that made him a criminal:

"I understand men and women having to fight for our country, but why did I have to be the enemy in the end, when I hadn't even been born when my dad came home?"

"… I am not trying to bash anyone who has ever fought in a war, because there are good men and women who have fought for this country. They deserve good honors. I'm not saying my father didn't do a good job of fighting for this country, but it's what he did when he came home that was so bad."

Is that true? Was killing Vietnamese people in huge numbers a "service," a heroic act, a duty, something to be proud of, something with a positive effect on the world, something that can be sensibly characterized as "defending the United States"? Shouldn't questioning of what we are taught as children extend to these areas as well?

I was honored that Brown sent me an early copy of her book. I was dismayed to see that she had included with it a letter praising it, a letter from the Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, a man who of course has been, in Congress and in the White House a key supporter of the making of war. Brown wishes her father could have been punished and believes with some satisfaction that he is being eternally punished in an imaginary world. "The person who inflicts pain needs to be punished," she writes. But would she include Lyndon B. Johnson on the list of people who inflict pain? Richard M. Nixon? Barack Obama?

When will we ever move beyond seeking to help veterans and their families to seeking to avoid producing more veterans?

When will we ever learn? truthout


David Swanson is the author of "War Is A Lie."

Monday, December 26, 2011

Iran: The Cruelest Nation The Never Ending Evil: Re-Up

Re-upped verbatim from 2007.




As Amnesty International calls for an end to child executions in Iran I wonder to what avail their pleas.
Little I shouldn't wonder, the regime in Iran is addicted, it feeds it's addiction with the life's blood of it's victims, no horror is too great to feed it's insatiable appetite for cruelty, pain and misery.
It is a beast that has no place on this earth, but it is a special beast, it is a thinking beast, it thinks enough that it will not stop it's evil but try to hide it from the world by carrying out it's unspeakable barbarity behind the walls of a prison, behind the walls of a prison shut away in a room they stoned a woman to death.

They are disgusting creatures.


According to this senior member of IRI’s judiciary, “stonings are carried out precisely in accordance with Islamic traditions, but they are not executed the way they once were. And they are less frequent than they used to be. Nonetheless, they are still carried out in Tehran. For example, last year, a 32 year old woman named Masomeh who had been charged with having relations outside her marriage, was stoned in a room in Evin prison. Members of the judiciary repeatedly denounced newspaper reports that Masomeh had been stoned to death, even though they were fully aware that she had been exectued by stoning in Evin prison.” more



More from Iran.

Currently, there are eight women sentenced to death by stoning and 32 facing execution by other means, five of them are below the age of 20.


According to a source familiar with Fatemeh's conditions in Tehran's Evin prison, the judge who sentenced Fatemeh to death has taken it upon himself to personally visit Fatemeh in jail to inform her that she will soon be hanged.

Executions and barbarity Iran Focus

The Cruelest Race: Re-Up

Re-upped from 2007

.

The Cruellest *Race Of People On The Face Of The Earth


That is how a woman of my acquaintance described the Iranians.

In most everything I have researched I have yet to find much, if anything, to refute her claim.

It must be noted that the lady that made this claim is a strong, serious professional, (head Sister of an intensive care unit) and was in fact married to an Iranian and lived in Iran between Nineteen Seventy Four and Nineteen Eighty Five.

It might be of interest also to note, given that this period included the taking of the embassy hostages, that she was unaware that the hostage situation was ongoing or even existed.

My intention in writing on this subject is to try to bring to attention the unenviable situation that is the lot of women who live under Sharia law/ Code and Islam. Though the two are different entities, they are but one. Sharia law is the law of Islam.

The Iranian revolution celebrated its twenty-sixth anniversary this week and I am of years sufficient to remember it well.

Well I remember it, but more importantly I remember the “Cultural Revolution” and the ensuing bloodbath and the slaughter of thousands who’s crimes included the capital crime of apostasy (the rejection of Islam) to “Enemy of the revolution,” the former being written in Sharia law and the latter we can take as a euphemism for educated, and as history has shown exacted a no lesser punishment.

Not surprisingly one group that was targeted in the subsequent purges were some twenty thousand teachers, who by virtue of being educated were all seen as enemies of the revolution, or were else arrested on some hitherto unknown crime.

It was perhaps at this point that the seed for this article was first sown.The moment has never left me as I laid witness to the evening news showing some poor tearful woman being led away to her death, her only crime being that she was a teacher, and no doubt her crime compounded by nothing more than that she was female.

As well you can imagine, it was with no little dismay that I first viewed the photograph that heads this article.
Dismay turning to disbelief, disbelief that any society could commit such an atrocity on a girl of sixteen years. To snuff out the life of something so precious as that which is a young girl, such a precious precious thing.
To snuff out that precious life and show the world the contempt these men of Islam feel for this wretched girl. Their contempt and cruelty hung in the public square, as she herself is, hung like some worthless piece of meat as a testimony to their injustice, their barbarity and this thing they dare call the religion of peace.

Disbelief to turn to anger, anger to turn to rage, rage to fury, and yes fury to turn to hatred. A hatred I might add that is cemented in me, cemented for all time. To hate with such a passion is far from good, for it can destroy a man, it weakens him so, it leaves him tired and spent, for hatred is a fierce consumer of energy and energy is something I have little enough to spare.

But in writing of this travesty I must put such hatred aside, for I must not let such feelings obscure the intent of this piece, which is to write about the short tragic life of Atefeh Sahaaleh and perhaps then bring to your attention the plights of other women and girls who are forced to endure the barbarities and consequences of living under this religion that calls its self Islam.Make no mistake in thinking that evil men are misinterpreting Sharia law to further there own ends, there is no need to misinterpret. Sharia law is an evil upon this earth and evil men do it’s bidding.

Before I continue let me make this statement; I make no apologies for where I draw the material from or links I provide for the purpose of writing this article. Everybody has his or her own agenda, mine here is to try in my own small way to expose what is happening in Iran today.

It is not my intention to enter into an argument of Left/Right politics or what took place under the puppet rule of the Shah. The regime of the Shah was but a brief spell in modern history, what I discuss here is the contemporary culmination of centuries of Sharia law that results in the cruelties, barbarism, and misogyny that is manifestly displayed in twenty-first century Iran.

My attention was first drawn to the plight, though post mortem, of Atefeh when I read the transcript of a FrontPage Symposium discussing her case and that of other women in modern day Iran.

But before we examine the transcript a few points to bear in mind that are brought to light in the video.

The age of consent in Iran for a girl is nine years of age, and as such she is responsible in law. (fifteen for a Male)

Atefah received her first jail sentence and one hundred lashes at the age of thirteen for “Crimes against chastity”

She subsequently received two more jail terms for the same offence.

And her fourth and final arrest was based upon an anonymous petition whose only signatures were those of two members of the “Moral police” who’s overtures Atefah had rebuffed on the evening of her release from her first jail term.

(From the video) Iranian lawyer Shadi Sadr said (31mins 35secs) “It normally takes six months for an appeal to be heard, this took place within twenty days and a decision was handed down on the same day. Something is very odd in this case but I can’t put my finger on it.”

It is here that I draw your attention to Haji Rezaii who, as is the way of the Iranian judicial system, gathers the evidence and acts as both prosecutor and judge. And once having tried, found guilty and then passed the death sentence on Atefah took it upon himself to present Atefah’s case to the court of appeals.

This then from the first page, the highlights are mine and in this first paragraph are designed to draw attention to questions alluded to by Shadi Sadr (above) as she asked in the BBC documentary.

She (Atefah)defended herself at the so-called trial ) She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims. I've also heard charges(which I had suspected would be the story) that the Mullah judge, Haji Rezai, who was also the proud executioner, had in fact wanted her for himself as a "temporary wife" and because either she or her parents had refused him, he had become enraged and had turned against her and falsified her age as 22, so that he could execute her.


Update: I can't keep up with clips being removed. I'm sure you can find the complete thing on Youtube if you're interested.

Caution.
At 26mins 55secs, duration 45secs, there are brief scenes from an actual stoning and a hanging. If you do watch, perhaps I might suggest you watch the actions of the mob rather than the fate of the victims.
Fortunately in the case of the former the video is of very poor quality.


The full transcript of the symposium is here, I urge you to read it in it’s entirety for it sheds light on many things, not least the psyche of the Iranian male and the misogynist society of Iran.

The Execution Of A Teenage Girl. BBC 49 mins.




2 3 4 5 6

Atefeh Sahaaleh Born Neka 1988 Murdered Neka 2004 Rest In Peace Next time, temporary marriages, stoning and other injustices. *What ever you do, don't leave a comment telling me that Iranians are not a race, I am well aware of that.

Friday, December 23, 2011

62-Year-Old Man, Pepper Sprayed to Death by Florida Police

No happy Christmas for this fellow.

No Justice for 62-Year-Old Man, Pepper Sprayed to Death by Florida Police

Nick Christie, 62, was arrested near Tampa for public intoxication about two and a half years ago. Concerned about Christie's recent erratic behavior, his wife had asked police to take her drunk husband to the hospital -- where he could take his medication -- rather than haul him off to jail. But Lee County Sheriff's Office police had another idea: They took Christie down to the station where they stripped him naked, covered his face with a spit mask, and paper sprayed him, until he died.

Fox 13 in Tampa reports:

The District 21 Medical Examiner ruled his death was a homicide because he had been restrained and sprayed with pepper sprayed by law enforcement officers. But to this day, nobody has ever been charged with a crime, and the Lee County State Attorney cleared the sheriff's office of any wrong doing.

It's been more than two and a half years and his wife still can't accept what happened.

"I was shocked. This was something out of a horror movie," says Joyce Christie. She said her husband was depressed and was showing signs of erratic behavior a few days before leaving for Florida.

She called authorities and pleaded with them to take her husband to a hospital and be given his medications. Instead, he was taken to jail for disorderly intoxication.

Her lawsuit alleges he was pepper sprayed 10 times over a 48-hour period, at times while in a restraint chair.

And:

Monshay Gibbs was a deputy trainee at the jail at the time. In a video deposition, she testified that she thought the way Nick Christie was treated was excessive.

"He had a spit mask on and was naked," she said on the video while under oath. Gibbs testified that Christie pleaded with guards to take off the spit mask because he couldn't breathe.

He later died at the hospital. His heart failed from the shock of the pepper spray. The Lee County Sheriffs Office declined to comment on our story because of Joyce Christie's wrongful death lawsuit, which is scheduled for trial the middle of next year.

Kamran Logham, who helped to develop pepper spray, said after the excessive use of the chemical agent on Occupy protesters that pepper spray is only appropriate if a person is physically threatening a cop or another person. A photo obtained by Fox clearly shows Christie was strapped to a chair. AlterNet