rboiats-blog

[rboiats-blog]

FIGHT FOR THE REEF

"Its your Reef, but you're gonna have to fight for it"

The Great Barrier Reef is one of the natural wonders of the world.

But it is under threat from the most widespread, rapid and damaging set of industrial developments in Queensland’s history.

The Queensland Government is fast-tracking mega port developments, dredging and dumping of millions of tonnes of seabed and rock, and encouraging a shipping superhighway.

The Australian Government is approving these developments, including the world’s biggest coal port at Abbot Point, 50 km from the Whitsunday Islands.

It’s your Reef, but you’re going to have to fight for it.

Fight for the Reef is a partnership between WWF-Australia and the Australian Marine Conservation Society.

Fight for the Reef is working with the Australian community to protect the Reef and the $6 billion tourism industry and 60,000 jobs it supports.

Our aims

The aim of the campaign is to raise awareness of the industrialisation occurring on the Great Barrier Reef’s coastline.

Specifically, the campaign seeks to:

Immediately implement a moratorium on approving new development until a sustainable development plan for the Great Barrier Reef is completed.

Permanently prohibit new port developments outside existing, long-established major ports.

Ensure no dredge material is dumped within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Improve existing industrial developments along the Reef’s coastline to ensure they operate at the world’s best practice standards.

Limit ship numbers and anchorages and improve management to a level that ensures no impacts on the Reef.

Invest considerable new funding in protecting and restoring key Reef ecosystems.

Fight for the Reef partners

The Australian Marine Conservation Society is the leading charity devoted solely to caring for Australia’s oceans and their wildlife. Formed in 1965 it has a proud history of success, having protected the Great Barrier Reef from coral mining and oil and gas exploration and since then driven campaigns to promote sustainable fisheries, protect marine wildlife and create marine parks around Australia.

WWF-Australia is an Australian registered charity established over 35 years ago. In Australia and throughout the oceanic region, we work with governments, businesses and communities so that people and nature can thrive within their fair share of the planet’s natural resources. Since the late 1990s, conservation of the Great Barrier Reef has been one of WWF-Australia’s highest priorities.

Campaign team

Australian Marine Conservation Society:

Darren Kindleysides, Director

Felicity Wishart, Great Barrier Reef Campaign Director

Lissa Schindler, Great Barrier Reef Campaigner

WWF-Australia:

Ghislaine (Gilly) Llewellyn, Conservation Director

Richard Leck, Great Barrier Reef Campaign Leader

Nick Heath, National Manager – Freshwater

Media Contacts

Jane Garcia – 0434 489 533 or jane.garcia@essentialmedia.com.au

Daniel Rockett – 0432 206 592 or drockett@wwf.org.au

FAQ’s

What is the Queensland Government actually doing to the Reef?

The Queensland Government has been watering down environmental protection and fast-tracking approvals for ports and LNG plants along the Reef’s coast. It is committed to supporting industrialisation regardless of the impacts and is more concerned with the interests of the mining industry than it is about the impacts of coal ports and other developments on the Reef. Why else would they want to build the world’s largest coal port 50 km from the Whitsunday Islands?

What can the Federal Government do to stop this damage from taking place?

The Great Barrier Reef is a World Heritage Area and primary responsibility for its health and management rests with the Australian Government. The Reef is for all Australians, not just big industry. If the Queensland Government can’t look after the Reef, the Australian Government should step in, because the Reef and its tourism industry are too important to lose.

The Reef has World Heritage status. Doesn’t that mean it is already protected?

World Heritage Areas should have the world’s best protection, but that is not the case for the Reef. There are many activities that occur in and adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area that impact its health. In recent years we have seen improvements in the management of some of these activities, such as fishing and agricultural runoff, but we have serious concerns that industrial development along the Reef is having major impacts on its World Heritage values.

Why is the International World Heritage Committee concerned about the Reef?

In June 2011 the international World Heritage Committee expressed “extreme concern” over the approval of a number of major developments along the Reef coast. In March 2012, the Committee conducted a monitoring mission and visited Queensland. Following this visit, the Committee recommended a series of actions that the Australian Government needs to implement to improve protection of the Reef. If the Government does not respond adequately, the Committee may place the Great Barrier Reef on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Will ports and shipping really affect the Reef?

Port developments and shipping pose a huge threat to the Reef. Ports require millions of tonnes of dredging to establish channels and berthing facilities and there are plans to dump large amounts of this material in the Reef’s waters. Dredging threatens the feeding and breeding grounds of sensitive species like turtles and dugongs. We’ve already seen huge impacts on the southern Reef from port development and shipping. Current plans will mean over a 50-fold increase in dumping along the Reef in the coming years. The World Heritage Committee is greatly concerned, as are we.

The Reef is 3,000 km long and ships only pass through limited sections. How can they really damage the Reef?

Port developments are occurring along the entire Reef coast – from Gladstone in the south to the Cape in the north. The plan is for over 7,000 bulk carriers to crisscross the Reef every year, almost doubling the current numbers. Just one collision, error or spill could be disastrous for the Reef.

Mining is critical to our economy and jobs. Won’t this campaign hurt people’s jobs and the economy?

Tourism has the potential to sustain jobs long after the current ‘boom’, but only if we look after the things that tourists from around the world want to see – like a healthy Great Barrier Reef. Tourism on the Reef is an annual $6 billion industry and supports over 60,000 jobs. With mining, around 83% of the profits go overseas and if not properly managed and regulated, mining can affect other people’s livelihood for the worse.

What can I do to Fight for the Reef?

It’s your Reef, but you are going to have to fight for it. Join our growing community of concerned Australians and help improve protection of the Reef. You can also let your friends and family know about what is taking place along the Queensland coast – the development has been so fast that people simply don’t know any more what is happening and where.

Taken From http://fightforthereef.org.au/about/

"Its your reef, but you're gonna have to fight for it"

[rboiats-blog]

Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.

[rboiats-blog]

Gathered in the Kayapo village Piaraçu near banks of the imperiled Xingu River in May 2011, an assembly of 320 indigenous representatives from 18 ethnicities from the Xingu basin and beyond were joined by leaders of the Movimento Xingu Vivo and Amazon Watch to discuss the impending human rights and environmental disaster that is the Belo Monte Dam, and ways for its opponents to forge a single and unified force to resist its construction.

[rboiats-blog]

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced a long-delayed review of the police state-style “counter-terrorism” laws that federal and state governments in Australia rammed through in 2005 after the previous federal Liberal government declared an “urgent” security situation. The terms of reference for the review, and the personnel selected to conduct it, indicate that its purpose is to strengthen, not limit, the measures.

The 2005 legislation extended the terrorism laws that were imposed in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. Those laws already defined terrorism in sweeping terms that could cover many forms of political dissent, expanded the surveillance powers of the security forces, and eroded fundamental legal principles, such as habeas corpus (no detention without trial) and the presumption of innocence.

Further unprecedented measures were introduced in the 2005 amendments, such as control orders, preventative detention and police stop, question and search powers. One crucial amendment altered the wording of criminal offences from “the” to “a” terrorist act, thus permitting convictions without any evidence of a specific terrorist plot, let alone any actual terrorist attack.

The government’s review was supposed to be conducted in 2010, five years after these provisions were adopted. It will now report to the Council of Australian Governments next year. Gillard set the tone for the review in her announcement, asserting that terrorism was an “ever-present threat”. The review, she continued, would “ensure that our laws remain necessary and provide effective powers for our police and security agencies.”

Previous reviews of the anti-terror laws conducted by the Labor government since it took office in 2007 have retained the police powers intact, while boosting key aspects and broadening their scope beyond “terrorism” to deal with anticipated political and social unrest (see: “Australian intelligence agencies prepare for political upheaval”).

The latest review is designed to serve a similar function. Its terms of reference focus on whether the laws are “effective against terrorism—that is, they provide law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies with adequate tools to prevent, detect and respond to acts of terrorism.” To provide a fig leaf of concern for civil liberties, the panel is meant to also examine whether the laws “contain appropriate safeguards against abuse.” The six-person panel, headed by retired New South Wales Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy, consists of judges, police commanders and prosecutors.

The day after Gillard’s August 9 announcement, the High Court, Australia’s supreme court, unanimously handed down a decision that underscores how far the laws threaten freedom of expression.

The High Court overturned a successful appeal by Belal Khazaal, a former Qantas worker, against his conviction for “making a document connected with a terrorist act.” Khazaal, who had been free on bail since winning his appeal in the NSW Supreme Court last year, was sent back to prison to serve a 12-year sentence.

In September 2003, Khazaal posted on a readily-accessible jihadist web site a compilation of previously published documents that offered support for an Islamic fundamentalist “holy war”. The material was not posted in any clandestine manner, as would be required for a terrorist plot, and its contents were compiled from publicly-available sources. Khazaal’s electronic book included praise for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, lists of potential assassination targets, including US President George W. Bush, and advice for would-be assassins, from organising transport to checking bomb wiring.

Nevertheless, there was no connection to any terrorist act or plot. Nor was evidence ever produced suggesting that an assassination was attempted as a result of anyone reading the material. Moreover, after the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the police raised objections to the document with Khazaal in May 2004, he removed it from the Internet. Two months later, however, he was arrested and charged, in the lead-up to a federal election, when the then Howard Liberal government sought to stir fresh fears in the minds of voters.

Khazaal’s document reflected the deeply reactionary perspective of Al Qaeda, which justifies the mass murder of innocent people on the basis of religious fundamentalism. His prosecution in the Australian courts, however, has set a definite precedent for the criminalisation of political ideas. Once the capitalist state claims the authority to outlaw a particular point of view, no matter how abhorrent, this can be used against any other dissent, above all against left-wing and socialist movements within the working class.

In Khazaal’s original trial, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on an additional charge against Khazaal—that of “inciting a terrorist act”. The jury members evidently doubted that he had any intention of encouraging an actual terrorist attack. But he was convicted on the remaining charge of “making a document connected with terrorism,” for which the legislation requires no such intent. The law imposes an “evidentiary burden” on defendants of proving lack of intention—effectively reversing the centuries-old “mens rea” principle that the prosecution must prove a guilty mind.

Last year, the NSW Supreme Court, by a two-to-one majority, decided that Khazaal had satisfied this “evidentiary burden”, by raising the reasonable possibility that in publishing the manuscript he had no intention of facilitating a terrorist act, because he was functioning as a scholar or journalist who researched and published material relating to Islam.

The High Court, however, rejected this. The judges revealed the far-reaching logic of thelegislation’s wording, “making a document connected with a terrorist act”. They emphasised that in establishing this “connection”, the prosecution did not need to identify a specific terrorist act. Chief Justice Robert French said the courts had to respect “the clear intention of Parliament to create offences where an offender has not decided precisely what he or she intends to do.”

The 2005 amendment from “the” to “a” terrorist act, did not apply to Khazaal, because he was charged earlier, in 2004, but the judges declared that the change had only clarified what parliament’s intention had been all along. Significantly, the judges rejected Khazaal’s submissions that (1) the mere fact that a document makes reference to terrorist acts does not create the required “connection” to a terrorist act, (2) the words “connected with” require a terrorist act to be contemplated by somebody, and (3) a document will become “connected” only where the accused person actually contemplated its use to assist a terrorist act.

The decision opens up a wide field for the laws to be used against political, religious or academic statements that could be interpreted as offering support for terrorism. Anyone who says that terrorism could be justified because of oppression, or who expresses sympathy for the assassination of a repressive figure, could be subject to prosecution. By retaining and extending these laws, the Labor government has shown its contempt for basic democratic rights.

[rboiats-blog]

Ecuador Heroes or Hypocrites

On Thursday Ecuador's foreign minister announced  that the country would grant asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, defying threats by the British government invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed over. In his speech from the London Embassy foreign minister Ricardo Patino made Ecuador's position clear. 

"Today we've received from the United Kingdom a clear and written threat that they could storm our embassy in London if Ecuador refuses to hand in Julian Assange. We want to make it absolutely clear that we are not a British colony, and that the times of colonialism are over."

Ecuador's decision to grant political asylum to Assange was both predictable and reasonable. But it is also a ground-breaking case that has considerable historic significance.

At a meeting of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) on Sunday, the 12 foreign ministers from the continent's countries stated "We reiterate the right of states to grant political and diplomatic asylum," and said they hoped that the dispute could be resolved through negotiation.

The South American country made news headlines and received world wide praise for granting Assange diplomatic asylum, But does Ecuador deserve it? and is taking up political asylum there really in the best interests of Julian Assange, While all this was is taking place political refugee Alexander Barankov faces imminent extradition from Ecuador to its new ally Belarus.

A former Belarusian army captain, He is charged with "fraud" for blogging about corruption in Belarus and angering its dictator President Alexander Lukashenko.  The plight of Barankov poses a real test of Ecuador’s commitment to human rights. Barankov arrived in Quito in 2008 thanks to the Ecuadorian government’s very liberal immigration laws. He then set up a blog denouncing corruption and other crimes allegedly committed under the authoritarian ruler. 

Barankov currently sits in a Quito jail awaiting extradition. Ecuador initially granted him refugee status, but after a state visit by Lukashenko to Quito in June, he was arrested and is being held in prison, while the courts hear the case on Belarus’ fresh extradition request. If sent there, according to his partner, Maribel Andrade, he will face charges of treason and could be put to death. 

Belarus is ofetn refered to as 'Europes last dictatorship'  and atleast 2,200 people have been detained for opposition activities in just the last two years. Thirteen remain in prison under harsh conditions as “showcase prisoners."

If Ecuador approves the extradition of Barankov, the words of Ecuador's foreign minister about the huge importance of political asylum don't carry much weight, and in my opiniomn reduces the decision on Assange to nothing more than a Fuck You to the UK and the US. 

Claims that Correa made this decision because it was the only ethical thing to do become statements of the foolish. 

If we truly believe in Freedom of speech and peoples right to seek asylum then it's time, while screaming at the UK And the US to uphold the law and do the right thing, we ask the same of Preident Correa and Ecuador. We must ask ourselves what it is we are fighting for justice and freedom for some or justice and freedom for all. Will people really turn a blind eye to suit themselves?

Anyone willing to stand up to tyranny and corruption deserves all of our support and protection in what ever manner we are able to provide it.

Peace and love to you all.

[rboiats-blog]

Julian #Assange Speech 19.08.2012 from Ecuadorian Embassy UK

I am here today because I cannot be there, with you today. Thank you for coming, Thank you for your resolve, and your generosity of spirit.

On Wednesday night, after a threat was sent to this embassy, and the police descended on this building, you came out in the middle of the night to watch over it, and you brought the world´s eyes with you.

Inside this embassy, after dark, I could hear teams of police swarming up into the building through it's internal fire escape, but I knew that there would be witnesses,  And that is because of you.

If The UK did not throw away the Vienna Conventions the other night, that is because the world was watching, and the world was watching because you were watching.

So the next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights that we hold dear, remind them of your vigil in the dark before the Embassy of Ecuador, remind them how, in the morning, the sun came up on a different world, and courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice.

And so, to those brave people. I thank President Correa for the courage he has shown in considering and in granting me political asylum.

And i also thank the government, and in particular Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patiño, who upheld the Ecuadorian Constitution and it´s notion of universal citizenship, in their consideration of my asylum.

And to the Ecuadorian people for supporting and defending this Constitution.

And I also have debt of gratitude to the staff of this embassy, whose families live in London, and who have shown me hospitality and kindness despite the threats we all received.

This Friday there will be an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers of Latin America in Washington DC, to address this very situation. 

And so I am grateful to the people and governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela and to all other Latin American countries who have come out to defend the rights to asylum.

To the people of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia, who have supported me in strength, even when their governments have not. And those wiser heads in government who are still fighting for justice. Your day will come.

To the staff, supporters and sources of WikiLeaks, whose courage and commitment and loyalty have seen no equal.

To my family and to my children who have been denied their father. Forgive me,  we wil be reunited soon. 

As WikiLeaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expression, and the health of all our societies.

We must use this moment to articulate the choice that is before the government of the United States of America. Will it return to and reaffirm the values, the revolutionary values it was founded on? Or will it lurch off the precipice, dragging us all into a dangerous and oppressive world, in which journalists fall silent under the fear of prosecution, and citizens must whisper in the dark?

I say it must turn back. I ask President Obama to to the right thing. The United States must renounce its witch hunt against WikiLeaks. The United States must dissolve is FBI investigation. The United States must vow that it will not seek to prosecute our staff, or our supporters. The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.

There must be no more foolish talk about prosecuting any media organization, be it WikiLeaks or be it the New York Times.

The US administrations war on whistleblowers must end.

Thomas Drake, and William Binney, and John Kirakou and the other heroic whistleblowers must-the must-be pardoned and compesated for the hardships the have endured as servants of the public record.

And to the Army Private who remains in a military prison in Fort Leavenworth Kansas, who was found by UN to have endured months of torturous detention in Quantico Virginia, and who has yet-after two years in prison-to see a trial, he must be released.

Bradley Manning must be released.

And if Bradley Manning really did as he is accused, he is a hero, an example to all of us, and one of the world´s foremost political prisoners. Bradley Manning must be released.

On Wednesday Bradley Manning spent his 815th day of detention without trial, the legal maximum is 120 days.

On Thursday, my friend, Nabeel Rajab president of the Bahrain Human Rights Center, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for a tweet.

On Friday, a Russian band (Pussy Riots) were sentenced to 2 years in jail for a political performance.

There is unity in the oppression. There must be absolute unity and determination in the response.

Thank you.

Julian Assange - Speech from Balcony of  The Ecuadorian Embassy in London 19.08.2012

[rboiats-blog]

DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? with Nozomi HAYASE / Juice Media RAP NEWS

Posting again because you need to watch it, think about it and act!

[rboiats-blog]

Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the ‘Case’ Against #Assange by Naomi Wolf

Exclusive to News from Underground

Now that Andrew Kreig, of the Justice Integrity Project, has confirmed Karl Rove’s role as an advisor to the Swedish government in its prosecution of Julian Assange on sexual misconduct charges, it is important that we note the many glaring aberrations in the handling of Assange’s case by the authorities in Sweden.

Dr. Brian Palmer, a social anthropologist at Uppsala University, explained on Kreig’s radio show last month that Karl Rove has been working directly as an advisor to the governing Moderate Party. Kreig also reported, in Connecticut Watchdog, that the Assange accusers’ lawyer is a partner in the law firm Borgström and Bodström, whose other name partner, Thomas Bodström, is a former Swedish Minister of Justice. In that office, Bodström helped approve a 2001 CIA rendition request to Sweden, to allow the CIA to fly two asylum-seekers from Sweden to Egypt, where they were tortured. This background compels us to review the case against Assange with extreme care.

Based on my 23 years of reporting on global rape law, and my five years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters, I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case. New details from the Swedish police make this quite clear. Their transcript of the complaints against Assange is strikingly unlike the dozens of such transcripts that I have read throughout the years as an advocate for victims of sex crimes.

Specifically, there are eight ways in which this transcript is unusual:

1) Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.

Ask Sweden to produce ANY other police report in which any action was taken in a situation in which there is no stated lack of consent or threat of force. Police simply won’t act on a complaint if there is no indication of a lack of consent, or of consent in the face of violence. The Assange transcripts, in contrast to any typical sex crime report, are a set of transcripts in which neither of the women has indicated a lack of consent. (There is one point at which Miss W asserts she was asleep – in which case it would indeed have been illegal to have sex with her – but her deleted tweets show that she was not asleep, and subsequent discussion indicates consent.)

The Assange transcript is therefore anomalous, as it does not suggest in any way that either woman was unconsenting, or felt threatened. On this basis alone, therefore, the Assange transcript is completely aberrant.

2) Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.

The transcripts seem to indicate that the police processed the two accusers’ complaints together.

This is completely unheard-of in sex crime procedures; and the burden should be on Clare Mongomery, QC, or Marianne Ny, to produce a single other example of this being permitted.

Never will two victims be allowed by police to come in and tell their stories together–even, or especially, if the stories are about one man.

Indeed, this is a great frustration to those who advocate for rape victims. You can have seven alleged victims all accusing the same guy — and none will be permitted to tell their stories together.

It doesn’t matter if they coordinated in advance as the Assange accusers did, or if they are close friends and came in together: the police simply will not take their complaints together or even in the same room. No matter how much they may wish to file a report together, their wishes won’t matter: the women will be separated, given separate interview times and even locations, and their cases will be processed completely separately.

The prosecutor, rather than being able to draw on both women’s testimony, will actually have to struggle to get the judge to allow a second or additional accusation or evidence from another case.

Usually other such evidence will NOT be allowed. Miss A would have her case processed and then Miss W — with absolutely no ability for the prosecutor to draw form one set of testimony to the next.

The reason for this is sound: it is to keep testimony from contaminating separate trials–a source of great frustration to prosecutors and rape victim advocates.

Thus the dual testimonies taken in this case are utterly atypical and against all Western and especially Swedish rape law practice and policy.

3) Police never take testimony from former boyfriends.

There’s another remarkable aberration in this transcript: the report of a former boyfriend of “Miss A,” testifying that she’d always used a condom in their relationship.

Now, as one who has supported many rape victims through the reporting process, I have to say that the inclusion of this utterly atypical–and, in fact, illegal–note will make anyone who has counselled rape victims through the legal process’ feel as though her head might explode.

There’s a rape shield law in Sweden (as there is throughout Europe) that prevents anyone not involved in the case to say anything to the police, whether it be positive or negative, about the prior sexual habits of the complainant. No matter how much a former or current boyfriend may want to testify about his girlfriends’ sex practices — even if that woman wants him to — the courts will, rightly, refused to hear it, or record it, or otherwise allow it in the record.

4) Prosecutors never let two alleged victims have the same lawyer.

Both women are being advised by the same high-powered, politically connected lawyer. That would never happen under normal circumstances because the prosecutor would not permit the risk of losing the case because of contamination of evidence and the risk of the judge objecting to possible coaching or shared testimony in the context of a shared attorney.

So why would the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, allow such a thing in this case? Perhaps — bearing in mind the threat that Assange will be extradited to the US once he is in Sweden — because she does not expect to have a trial, let alone have to try to win one.

5) A lawyer never typically takes on two alleged rape victims as clients.

No attorney–and certainly no high-powered attorney– would want to represent two women claiming to have been victimized by the same man, for the reasons above: the second woman’s testimony could be weaker than the other one’s, thus lessening the lawyer’s chances of success.

There also is a danger that the judge may well object to the potential cross-contamination of the women’s stories.

Again, the only reason why a lawyer would thus weaken his own clients’ cases us that s/he does not expect the case to come to trial.

6) A rape victim never uses a corporate attorney.

Typically, if a woman needs a lawyer in addition to the prosecutor who is pursuing her case (as in the Swedish system) she will be advised by rape victim advocates, the prosecutor and the police to use a criminal attorney — someone who handles rape cases or other kinds of assault, who is familiar with the judges and the courts in these cases. She will never hire a high-powered corporate attorney who does not specialize in these cases or work with the local court that would be hearing her sex crime case if it ever got to trial. Given that a law firm such as this one charges about four hundred euros an hour, and a typical rape case takes eight months to a year to get through the courts – given that legal advice will cost tens of thousands of euros, which young women victims usually do not have access to – it is reasonable to ask: who is paying the legal bills?

7) A rape victim is never encouraged to make any kind of contact with her assailant and she may never use police to compel her alleged assailant to take medical tests.

The two women went to police to ask if they could get Assange to take an HIV test.

Sources close to the investigation confirm that indeed Assange was asked by police to take an HIV test, which came back negative. This is utterly unheard of and against standard sex crime policy. The Police do not act as medical mediators for STD testing, since rapists are dangerous and vindictive. A victim is NEVER advised to manage, even with police guidance, any further communication with her assailant that is not through formal judicial channels. Under ordinary procedures, the women’s wishes for the alleged assailant to take medical tests would be discouraged by rape victim advocates and deterred and disregarded by police.

First, the State normally has no power to compel a man who has not been convicted, let alone formally charged, to take any medical tests whatsoever. Secondly, rape victims usually fear STD’s or AIDS infection, naturally enough, and the normal police and prosecutorial guidance is for them to take their own battery of tests – you don’t need the man’s test results to know if you have contracted a disease. Normal rape kit processing–in Sweden as elsewhere–includes such tests for the alleged victim as a matter of course, partly to help prevent any contact between the victim and the assailant outside legal channels.

8) Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active investigation because they face punishment for doing so.

The full transcripts of the women’s complaints have been leaked to the US media. The only people who have access to those documents are police, prosecutors and the attorneys. Often, frustratingly, rape victims themselves cannot get their own full set of records related to their cases. In normal circumstances, the leaking of those transcripts would be grounds for an immediate investigation of the police and prosecutors who had access to them. Any official who leaks such confidential papers faces serious penalties; lawyers who do so can be disbarred. And yet no one in this case is being investigated or facing any consequences. It seems quite likely that the Assange documents were leaked by the police or prosecutors because they got a signal from higher-ups that they could do so with impunity.

Indeed, these are all major aberrations–suggesting that somebody at the top has interfered.

And who is at the very top in Sweden? Players working with Karl Rove, who was a party to the Swedish government’s collusion in the Bush regime’s rendition/torture program. As Britain holds its hearings into Julian Assange’s fate, we must take careful note of that connection.

By Naomi Wolf

Mirrored from News from the Underground: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/

[rboiats-blog]

Australian Government Acts of Treason

Both sides of Government are fucking us over!!

NEWS UPDATE 20th July 2010: Julia Gillard Treason Charge: http://omegatimes.com/article.php?intid=1321

All the links from the video:

Visit Larry Hannigan's youtube for the full talk http://www.youtube.com/LarryHannigan Julia Gillard Concealing Treason there for commiting treason. Here are the Charges. http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/22/summons2.jpg http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/548/summons3.jpg http://www.elijahschallenge.net/legal.htm http://www.elijahschallenge.net/legal/Werribee/All%20Councillors%20Wyndham%20... http://www.elijahschallenge.net/legal/Werribee/Reply%20to%20Principals%20Repo... http://www.elijahschallenge.net/legal/attainted%20of%20treasom/Brief%20of%20E... Gillards speech to the Fabian Society 2007 http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/T65O6/upload_bina... http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3-qvqeETt1IJ:parlinfo.aph.gov.a... One World Trust  http://www.oneworldtrust.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&am...

[rboiats-blog]

#FACTS about extraditions involving the USA, UK, Sweden and Australia:

1. Australian PM Julia Gillard and opposition leader Tony Abbot backed new Extradition Act amendments making it easier for U.S.A to extradite Aussies. The Greens fought it. 2. For the FIRST TIME Aussies can be now be extradited for minor offences. 3. The protection of "political" motives has been weakened. If the charge is "Terrorism" then "political" cannot apply to prevent extradition. 4. The U.S.A. recently expanded its definition of "terrorist" to include peaceful protesters - "Low level terrorism". 5. Under the new NDAA legislation, the U.S became a police state - citizens and foreigners can be arrested without warrant and indefinite detention applies. 6. In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it legal to publish classified documents. Obama is now trying to label media who do so as terrorists. 7. Modifications to the Act included changing "protection from death penalty" to "likelihood the death penalty would be carried out". 8. Note that the U.S.A is in the top 5 countries for killing its own citizens, and the only Western country in that top 5. 9. Even Minor Offences under the new Extradition Amendments are punished with up to 12 months imprisonment. 10. The UK/US Bilateral Treaty allows the U.S.A to extradite from the UK without any prima facie case (i.e. evidence). 11. The Swedish/US Bilateral Treaty gets around safeguards of normal extradition with a fast-track "Temporary Surrender" clause. 12. The US Grand Jury convenes in secret. There are 4 prosecutors, no defence, and no judge. It can issue indictments for Extradition with no proper legal process. 13. Sweden has NEVER refused an Extradition request from the U.S.A. 14. In 2001 Sweden gave two innocent Egyptian refugees to the CIA for rendition to Egypt, where they were tortured. 15. The Swedish Justice Minister who signed off on the CIA rendition torture flight was Thomas Bodström. 16. Thomas Bodström is now the business partner of Claes Borgström, the politician/lawyer of the two Swedish women in the Assange case. 17. The Australian Greens supported a motion by Senator Scott Ludlam to protect Julian from "Temporary Surrender" to the U.S.A via Sweden. Both Labor and the Coalition opposed it.

Via Christine Assange: @AssangeC on Twitter

[rboiats-blog]

WIKILEAKS RELEASE SYRIA FILES

DemocracyNow.org - WikiLeaks announced today it has begun publishing the Syria Files -- more than two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could not attend today's press conference announcing the release of the data trove because he is still inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden. According to WikiLeaks, "The Syria Files shine a light on the inner workings of the Syrian government and economy, but they also reveal how the West and Western companies say one thing and do another." Longtime WikiLeaks supporter Glenn Greenwald praises the release of the secret files. "[This] simply underscores the reason that WikiLeaks is so valuable. The ability to blow holes in the wall of secrecy, behind which the world's most powerful actors function, is something newspapers have a great deal of difficulty doing because they're subject to the laws of their state," Greenwald said. "They can't guarantee anonymity because reporters know who their sources are and can ultimately be forced to give them up."

Watch the extended interview with Glenn Greenwald: http://youtu.be/3U8qZGXtGJ0

[rboiats-blog]

NASA discovers portals in space between the Earth and the Sun!

NASA has turned science fiction into science fact by announcing the discovery of hidden 'portals' in Earth's magnetic field. Called X-points or electron diffusion regions, rather than being intergalactic folds in space leading to different galaxies and planets, these portals aid in the transfer of the magnetic field from the Sun to Earth. Essentially, these portals aid in the transfer of tons of magnetically charged particles that flow from the Sun causing the northern and southern lights and geomagnetic storms.

We call them X-points or electron diffusion regions,' said University of Iowa plasma physicist Jack Scudder, who is studying them.

'They’re places where the magnetic field of Earth connects to the magnetic field of the Sun, creating an uninterrupted path leading from our own planet to the sun’s atmosphere 93 million miles away.

Surrounding the Earth at distances from 10,000 to 30,000 miles away, the portals have been observed by NASA's THEMIS spacecraft and Europe's Cluster probes. In 2014, the U.S. space agency will launch a new mission called Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission (MMS) which will consist of four spacecraft which will circle the earth to locate and then study the 'X-points'.

More at source article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2168938/NASA-discovers-portals-space-Earth-Sun-dont-book-ticket-just-yet.html

[rboiats-blog]

Rally for Julian Assange July 1st 2012

Indigenous activist Robbie Thorpe speaks out on behalf of the first nations and his people in support of Julian Assange.

[rboiats-blog]

To the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers!

[rboiats-blog]

[rboiats-blog]

Make it happen 2012 - second transmission

[rboiats-blog]

It is time to make it happen. Keep watching our blog for more updates.