The pan-European political group of Declan Ganley, Libertas, will again fight for a No vote in the upcoming Lisbon Treaty referendum. This group originally was established to highlight how the red-tape in Brussels was holding back the business and politics of Europe. It later opposed the Lisbon Treaty on the basis that it claimed Ireland would lose its democratic influence in Europe. It also claimed that countries would be threatened with tax harmonisation, particularly Ireland’s low 12.5% tax rate which many believe was the single most important factor in creating Ireland‘s boom years.
Libertas correctly points out that a second vote being forced on Irish people is a spectacularly undemocratic move, and that the European parliament is unwieldy and unresponsive to its people. However one of the most frustrating experiences in life is seeing a good cause being pushed by a bad advocate, and the media seem to exploit this to defame every oppositional group and individual to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. The media have found it easy to demonise the Lisbon Treaty No campaign because of the controversy surrounding Declan Ganley and his party since its inception in 2008. Much has been written regarding this millionaire’s known business links to the American military industry and some politicians rave that he is a puppet of shady CIA elements in a conspiracy to thwarted the growth of a powerful European state to counter the United States! As David Cronin points out, the media will continue to label Ganley as the leader of the no campaign in Ireland despite there being a greater representation of left-wing parties and figures comprising the opposition.
Libertas may not be working on behalf of the American government yet by focusing on this the media is ignoring the most important aspects regarding the rise of this group: Libertas is a euro-sceptic group of nationalists working to establish a pan-rightist bloc in Europe by tapping into the growing disenchantment over the economy. To this end Ganley has no qualms about buying allies, bribing others, standing with the most socially backward forces in Ireland and most worryingly befriending some of the most extreme far-right groups and individuals in Europe.
In the early stages of the formation of his group the right-wing reactionary nature of Libertas was highlighted when Ganley allied himself with some of the most socially conservative elements in Europe. While attending a panel discussion at a conference in Ballaghaderreen in Co Roscommon set up by the Catholic John Paul II Society and by the pro-life Human Life International, Ganley proclaimed his opposition to abortion, and same-sex marriages. More recently the Libertas candidate for Ireland East, Raymond O’Malley stated his opinion that the borders should be closed on the island to all fellow workers from EU states.
Although Ganley claims his party is not a euro-sceptic one and that he only wishes to reform the institutions across the EU, it is clear that he aims to push a extremely right-wing agenda onto the genuine complaints people have regarding demorcacy and society under the EU. His bedfellows in France also are indicative of this party’s far-right interests. The Movement for France (MPF) and Frédéric Nihous’s Hunting, Fishing, Nature and Tradition (CPNT) party came together recently to form a union under the libertas ‘.eu’ brand that Ganley is pushing for in Europe. The head of the Movement for France, Philippe de Villiers has called for the banning of Mosque construction in France and has been labelled a far-right figure by the media for his views on social issues and Islam. Mr de Villiers repeatedly praised Ganley as a ‘hero’ at the press conference announcing their new union.
Another less vilified figure to ally their selves with Libertas was the former Solidarity union leader Lech Walesa. At a Libertas party rally in Rome Walesa appeared and spoke of his hope for the success of the Libertas platform but this was overshadowed when it was revealed by a Libertas Polska official that Walesa was paid 100,000 euros for the endorsement. Polska Radio Online reports that:
“The nationwide daily Rzeczpospolita publishes a survey on Lech Walesa’s participation at Libertas’ conventions, conducted by Gfk Polonia. According to the survey, 34 percent of Poles think Walesa’s connections with Libertas damage the image of Poland abroad. The same amount of respondents claim they also spoil the image of the Solidarity icon himself. Forty seven percent of Poles condemn Walesa for taking large amounts appearance money from Libertas.”
Gazeta Wyborcza, the left-leaning and second largest selling Polish newspaper published an article entitled “How Walesa Is Disgracing Walesa.“ It claims that “this ambassador” of peaceful democracy and justice is now disgracing the Polish people. He is blackening his reputation adnt hat of the Poles by appearing at euro-sceptic rallies that are basically umbrella groupings “for nationalists and populists. And he takes money for it.”It continues that “Neither hostile IPN prosecutors or historians such as Mr Cenckiewicz, Mr Gontarczyk, or Mr Zyzak, nor the Kaczynski brothers can do as much damage to Mr Walesa as Mr Walesa himself.”
Offsetting any complaints that Wales’s ‘bribes’ were an aberration, the Irish Times ran a story about how Sören Wibe, leader of Junilistan (The June List), “claims that representatives from anti-Lisbon Treaty party Libertas offered considerable sums of money, including almost €1 million on one occasion, if his party agreed to change its name to Junilistan-Libertas“ Wibe explained how he was shocked by the “extremely unethical” nature of the overtures to his party made by Declan Gnaley. He stated that he was “insulted” by the offer of such money for political favour, and that “It goes against everything we stand for.”
The fact is that Libertas could be a growing problem for Europeans. The party runs on a moderate platform but employs the most reactionary of ideologies and groups in Europe to pursue its goals. And according to the internet traffic ranking website alexa.com, Libertas websites are the most frequently searched sites of any political grouping in Europe. Under these circumstances it is more than necessary to explore every facets of Ganley and his party. For example the growing anti-Semitism and racism in Poland today seems to permit a fertile breeding gorund for Ganley’s party.
The Polish branch of Libertas is being organised by a group of rightwing figures who previously had left some far right political groupings after failing for years to gain significant political support. Piotr Farfal, for example, is head of public broadcasting in Poland and has significant links to the far-right League of Polish Families and even openly admits that in his youth he was a neo-Nazi. This figure has been facing criticisms for giving Libertas such positive coverage during Ganley’s recent visit to the country, including the firing of a news presenter who refused to devote a large time to interviewing the Irish businessman and the interruption of regular schedules to cover the Libertas press conference.
As the Prague Post points out:
“All key figures were previously associated with anti-EU, Christian fundamentalist and nationalist movements, pushing to sharpen Polish anti-abortion legislation (which is already one of the most stringent in Europe), ban prostitution, restore the death penalty and make Poland's economy fully self-sufficient. Ironically, the same globalization they so despise allowed Polish nationalists to receive financial support from an Irish millionaire“
Friday, May 15, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
The opposition to Chavez: Is the cure worse than the ailment?
An intense debate surrounds the issue of Hugo Chavez and the nature of his 'Bolivarian Revolution'. Is he building a better life for the majority of his people or is he a demagogue gradually dismantling the democratic system in favour of a dictatorship? One thing is certain- Chavez's domestic opposition cannot be counted on to be genuine defenders of democracy.
On the opposition station Globovision the editor of El Nuevo Pais, Rafael Poleo, the leading opposition figures, threatened the president with being assassinated stating, "Be careful Hugo, you may end up like your counterpart Benito Mussolini, hung upside down." And despite Chavez's reputation of closing all oppositional media, Poleo received no official censure for his words, something he wouldn‘t have gotten away with in, for example, Colombia.
This opposition (I will only refer to the significant figures in this opposition, rather than any old man on the street) also complained about the “innocents being killed” in the “Apartheid State.” Yet despite repeated requests form international journalists, no evidence has been put forward by these people to prove such killings of Chavez opponents. In fact even mainstream journalists pay no heed to such declarations of Chavez’s “disappeared.”
El Nacional carried out a racist attack on Chavez's minister of Justice and the Interior Tarek El Aissami, who is of Lebanese descent. Only three weeks ago the lead editorial was entitled Creole Terrorists, A Foreigner's Shame. This was in response to El Aissami criticisms of certain statements made by a Venezuelan Cardinal. The newspaper explained how this criticism "lacks amplitude of criteria because in Venezuela we don't use kamikazes to eliminate our compatriots who think differently, like they do in the land of his family members." The editorial also accuses El Aissami of acting like a "fundamentalist Arab toward the Jewish community." The editorial adds that, "Unlike the majority of Venezuelans, El Aissami is not even a fervent Catholic...but rather a descendant who believes that terrorism is the only way to spread values and religious beliefs." There was nothing in this ministers actions or beliefs that would indicate any anti-Semitism or pro-terrorist opinions of course but it‘s an way to defeat someone who is of middle eastern descent!
In other words, the opposition to Chavez isn’t a respectable collection of democrats with a sensible alternative plan for the country. There is little ideology behind them except a dislike for the social programmes benefiting the majority and the poor, and the nationalising of some private industries. And it’s inevitable that these forces will fabricate some extremely negative slurs against the Chavez government. People should remember Otto Reich and his Office for Public Diplomacy which aimed to blacken the name of the Sandinistas, the democratically elected government of Nicaragua using ‘white propaganda‘.
This view of the opposition to Chavez does not seem to reach us in Europe or America. Instead we have websites like Vcrisis and its 'owner' the mouthpiece Aleksander Boyd.
In 2005 an editor’s note on this website actually explained how violence was the only tool left for those wishing to end Chavez's time in power! As Stephen Lendman explains in 'Capital of the World (the USA) Exports Its Poison to Venezuela':
"And then there's Aleksander Boyd who's built a career out of spewing hate and lies and never found an indisputable fact about the Chavez government and Bolivarianism he didn't denounce and try to discredit."
In my opinion Chavez's presidency is based on popular support and that pro-Chavez forces have won nine national elections in the last six years including the referendum on whether or not to recall Chavez from the presidency. When the media complained about Chavez becoming president for life as a result of the removal of term limits, it failed to mention that most Western democracies have no term limits on their leaders, including Britain and Ireland! But saying this, there are significant issues to be addressed and there needs to be an opposition in Venezuela to keep him in check. But the ones ranting right now about Chavez generally deserve little attention.
On the opposition station Globovision the editor of El Nuevo Pais, Rafael Poleo, the leading opposition figures, threatened the president with being assassinated stating, "Be careful Hugo, you may end up like your counterpart Benito Mussolini, hung upside down." And despite Chavez's reputation of closing all oppositional media, Poleo received no official censure for his words, something he wouldn‘t have gotten away with in, for example, Colombia.
This opposition (I will only refer to the significant figures in this opposition, rather than any old man on the street) also complained about the “innocents being killed” in the “Apartheid State.” Yet despite repeated requests form international journalists, no evidence has been put forward by these people to prove such killings of Chavez opponents. In fact even mainstream journalists pay no heed to such declarations of Chavez’s “disappeared.”
El Nacional carried out a racist attack on Chavez's minister of Justice and the Interior Tarek El Aissami, who is of Lebanese descent. Only three weeks ago the lead editorial was entitled Creole Terrorists, A Foreigner's Shame. This was in response to El Aissami criticisms of certain statements made by a Venezuelan Cardinal. The newspaper explained how this criticism "lacks amplitude of criteria because in Venezuela we don't use kamikazes to eliminate our compatriots who think differently, like they do in the land of his family members." The editorial also accuses El Aissami of acting like a "fundamentalist Arab toward the Jewish community." The editorial adds that, "Unlike the majority of Venezuelans, El Aissami is not even a fervent Catholic...but rather a descendant who believes that terrorism is the only way to spread values and religious beliefs." There was nothing in this ministers actions or beliefs that would indicate any anti-Semitism or pro-terrorist opinions of course but it‘s an way to defeat someone who is of middle eastern descent!
In other words, the opposition to Chavez isn’t a respectable collection of democrats with a sensible alternative plan for the country. There is little ideology behind them except a dislike for the social programmes benefiting the majority and the poor, and the nationalising of some private industries. And it’s inevitable that these forces will fabricate some extremely negative slurs against the Chavez government. People should remember Otto Reich and his Office for Public Diplomacy which aimed to blacken the name of the Sandinistas, the democratically elected government of Nicaragua using ‘white propaganda‘.
This view of the opposition to Chavez does not seem to reach us in Europe or America. Instead we have websites like Vcrisis and its 'owner' the mouthpiece Aleksander Boyd.
In 2005 an editor’s note on this website actually explained how violence was the only tool left for those wishing to end Chavez's time in power! As Stephen Lendman explains in 'Capital of the World (the USA) Exports Its Poison to Venezuela':
"And then there's Aleksander Boyd who's built a career out of spewing hate and lies and never found an indisputable fact about the Chavez government and Bolivarianism he didn't denounce and try to discredit."
In my opinion Chavez's presidency is based on popular support and that pro-Chavez forces have won nine national elections in the last six years including the referendum on whether or not to recall Chavez from the presidency. When the media complained about Chavez becoming president for life as a result of the removal of term limits, it failed to mention that most Western democracies have no term limits on their leaders, including Britain and Ireland! But saying this, there are significant issues to be addressed and there needs to be an opposition in Venezuela to keep him in check. But the ones ranting right now about Chavez generally deserve little attention.
Torture in American prisons
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
Fyodor Dostoevsky
When it came to light that Iraqi detainees had been abused the perception of America across the Middle East eroded even further. But why hasn’t there been a similar negative outcry over the abuses seen with domestic prisoners? The use of torture to erode the dignity of prisoners, to enforce obediance and to satisfy the sadism of the authorities has a long tradition within America itself.
This British documentary provides a horrifying glimpse into the world of torture in American prisons.
Here are some useful links for those wishing to learn more and to get involved in the fight for dignity and the welfare of prisoners on a national level:
The Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights "is a collaboration of doctors, social workers and allied health staff from a variety of medical disciplines with the common mission of preserving the basic rights and needs of individuals detained in correctional systems, both in the United States and abroad."
And one of the most brutal prison regimes in America today is the Louisiana State Penitentiary or 'Angola Prison' of which the following groups target for their calls for reform:
"Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children (FFLIC) is a statewide membership-based organization that fights for a better life for all of Louisiana's youth, especially those involved in or targeted by the juvenile justice system."
"The Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (JJPL) fights on several fronts to challenge the way the state handles our delinquent young people, particularly those confined in juvenile prisons"
Fyodor Dostoevsky
When it came to light that Iraqi detainees had been abused the perception of America across the Middle East eroded even further. But why hasn’t there been a similar negative outcry over the abuses seen with domestic prisoners? The use of torture to erode the dignity of prisoners, to enforce obediance and to satisfy the sadism of the authorities has a long tradition within America itself.
This British documentary provides a horrifying glimpse into the world of torture in American prisons.
Here are some useful links for those wishing to learn more and to get involved in the fight for dignity and the welfare of prisoners on a national level:
The Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights "is a collaboration of doctors, social workers and allied health staff from a variety of medical disciplines with the common mission of preserving the basic rights and needs of individuals detained in correctional systems, both in the United States and abroad."
And one of the most brutal prison regimes in America today is the Louisiana State Penitentiary or 'Angola Prison' of which the following groups target for their calls for reform:
"Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children (FFLIC) is a statewide membership-based organization that fights for a better life for all of Louisiana's youth, especially those involved in or targeted by the juvenile justice system."
"The Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (JJPL) fights on several fronts to challenge the way the state handles our delinquent young people, particularly those confined in juvenile prisons"
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Iraqi gays facing torture/death
A recent report indicates that the reduction in sectarian violence comes at a heavy price for the gay community in Iraq. Apparently Iraq has witnessed a spike in the numbers of homophobic murders and attacks in recent months, with December seeing as many as seventy murders of gays in the troubled nation.
Despite being disturbing in and of itself, there is an even more shocking development emerging from the streets of Baghdad and smaller cities. As Doug Ireland explains:
"As the murder campaign targeting Iraqi gays intensifies, a leading Arabic television network last week revealed the use of a horrifying new form of lethal torture against Iraqi gay men -- anti-gay Shiite death squads are sealing their anuses with a powerful glue, then inducing diarrhea, which leads to a painful and agonizing death. The use of this stomach-turning new torture was first reported by the Al Arabiya network, which is headquartered in the United Arab Emirates and was alerted to the story by a leading Iraqi feminist and human rights activist."
And the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission points to 'wanted lists' of gays being circulated around Iraqi towns and cities calling for any known homosexuals to be 'given up' to the vigilante (usually Shiite) militias cleansing the streets of what they style 'perverts'.
Hopefully the media will approach this topic in a nuanced and sensitive manner. It must be shown that while the welfare of lgbt persons are threatened all across the Middle East, there are groups working within an Islamic framework aiming to preserve their rights. Al-Fatiha for example campaigns for just this by emphasising the "progressive Islamic notions of peace, equality and justice."
Despite being disturbing in and of itself, there is an even more shocking development emerging from the streets of Baghdad and smaller cities. As Doug Ireland explains:
"As the murder campaign targeting Iraqi gays intensifies, a leading Arabic television network last week revealed the use of a horrifying new form of lethal torture against Iraqi gay men -- anti-gay Shiite death squads are sealing their anuses with a powerful glue, then inducing diarrhea, which leads to a painful and agonizing death. The use of this stomach-turning new torture was first reported by the Al Arabiya network, which is headquartered in the United Arab Emirates and was alerted to the story by a leading Iraqi feminist and human rights activist."
And the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission points to 'wanted lists' of gays being circulated around Iraqi towns and cities calling for any known homosexuals to be 'given up' to the vigilante (usually Shiite) militias cleansing the streets of what they style 'perverts'.
Hopefully the media will approach this topic in a nuanced and sensitive manner. It must be shown that while the welfare of lgbt persons are threatened all across the Middle East, there are groups working within an Islamic framework aiming to preserve their rights. Al-Fatiha for example campaigns for just this by emphasising the "progressive Islamic notions of peace, equality and justice."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)