MasterAdrian

Gay guy, Amsterdam, NL, human interest, pro-equality, anti-hate.

  • 45 Words You Should Know: HIV/AIDS
    http://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/words-you-should-know

    45 Words You Should Know: HIV/AIDS

    If you or a loved one has been recently diagnosed with HIV, you undoubtedly have a lot of questions about what the condition means for you and your future.

    One of the challenges of an HIV diagnosis is navigating through a whole new set of acronyms, slang, and terminology. Don’t worry: we’re here to help. Hover over the 45 most commonly used terms and lingo to see what they mean, and get a better understanding on the condition.

  • Hyderabad Inc. to withdraw gay support? - Times Of India
    http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-15/people/45215839_1_sc-verdict-support-group-lgbt-community

    Hyderabad Inc. to withdraw gay support?
    Apuurva Sridharan & Sarah Salvadore, TNN Dec 15, 2013, 01.15PM IST
    Tags:

    Supreme Court|
    Ronak|
    Mogli|
    LGBT|
    Hyderabad Inc.

    (Hyderabad Inc. to withdraw…)

    With the SC verdict on Sec 377, a few companies have now suspended their gay support groups, which safeguarded the rights of the LGBT community in corporate Hyderabad.

    It begins with a snide remark, passed off as a ’water cooler joke’. Then comes the mimicking, which is supposed to be taken in good humor. But being ’open’ about your sexuality at the workplace is a daunting task, what with the so-called ’straight’ colleagues dealing with it in an insensitive manner. In a bid to reduce workplace bullying and discomfort, many corporate giants based in the city have, over the years, put in place inclusive HR policies for the LGBT community. But post the Supreme Court upholding the validity of Section 377, many companies have withdrawn their queer support groups, or have indirectly imposed a gag order on gay employees.

    Vijay Mogli, member of a community-based organisation in the city, who used to work with one of the corporates, reveals that post the SC verdict, his company has rolled back their ’queer support group’. “We had approached a particular company and pointed out to them that they stand to lose good employees, if they don’t have a support group for the community in place. We gave them the examples of two other organisations which had LGBT friendly-policies. The company then began a gay support group. But post the SC verdict, the organisation has suspended the group till ’further notice’.”

    Ronak, an employee of the corporate giant, confirms the news. “In Hyderabad, not many employees support the LGBT-friendly policies, which are meant to provide us with a safe environment. I am the only person from Hyderabad who is part of the group,” says Ronak.

    “During the pride walk in Pune, my company had supported it wholeheartedly. But now, I don’t think they can do that anymore,” expounds Ronak. This paradigm shift in policy can be mostly termed as a kneejerk reaction. “These companies need to operate based on the law of the land. And if the law criminalises homosexuality, they are forced to withdraw support,” explains Vijay.

    This also puts a question mark on the various benefits enjoyed by a gay employee and his partner. “A few multinationals have insurance policies that also cover the gay employee’s partner. This progressive step was welcome and other corporates too could have followed suit. However, given the nature of the situation now, it seems highly doubtful,” says Vijay.

    But what comes as a surprise is the unsaid diktat of ’no speaking to the media’ that has been issued to employees by the companies. While being homosexual is a personal preference, companies fear that ignorance on the issue could lead to this personal aspect spilling to the workplace, which could result in the organisation coming under legal hassles. Manas*, an IT professional says, “Our company does not have issues with us being homosexuals. But in accordance to company policies, we aren’t allowed to publicly comment on this issue. If we do, we risk being fired from our jobs.” And this is precisely the reason why Rohit* has been refraining from showing his support even on social media. “A lot of my friends from the community have been asking me why am I not showing support to the group online. While many of us want to show our support, at least via our social media, company policy dictates we can’t speak publicly on the issue. I can’t really explain to my gay friends why I’m mum on the issue, but the fact remains that I have a job to keep,” he shares.

    With the umbrella of legal safety off their heads, the LGBT community in corporate India find themselves in a vulnerable position. It’s the water cooler they fear the most.

  • dropin: Wise Thoughts - Issue based LGBT Arts Organisation based in Haringey, North London. UK.
    http://www.wisethoughts.org/dropin.php

    Wise Thoughts Logo
    Gaywise Drop-in’s

    Free Drop-in services for people living working or socialising in North London. The Drop-in’s provide a social meeting space for LGBT people and offer the ideal opportunity to socialise and access information on local services and events.

    The 2 Drop-in’s offered at present are:

    * gayWise – for people aged 18 + held every 1st & 3rd Thursday of the month from 6pm to 8pm (except public holidays) @ Wise Thoughts Offices.
    youthWise- for young people aged 13yrs to 19 yrs only. The Drop–in is held 2nd Thursday evening of the month from 5:30pm to 7pm (except public holidays). Contact Subodh or Elaine for details on 020 8889 9555. Be kept up to date with YouthWise activities via Twitter.

    Join in FREE Drop-in & have fun!

    For further information / bookings contact:
    Wise Thoughts on 020 8889 9555 or email: info*at*wisethoughts.org

  • Several Palestinians (Including Children) Kidnapped In West Bank, Gaza | Occupied Palestine | فلسطين
    http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/several-palestinians-including-children-kidnapped-in-we

    Several Palestinians (Including Children) Kidnapped In West Bank, Gaza

    November 24, 2013 by occupiedpalestine 0 Comments

    Sunday November 24, 2013 11:46 by IMEMC & Agencies

    Israeli soldiers kidnapped, on Sunday at dawn and on Saturday evening, several Palestinians in different parts of the occupied West Bank, and in the Gaza Strip. Most of the invasions and arrests took place in the Hebron District, in southern West Bank.

    File - israeli Soldiers, Image RB2000
    File – israeli Soldiers, Image RB2000

    Mohammad Awad, spokesperson of the Popular Committee against the Wall and settlements in Beit Ummar, north of Hebron, said that dozens of soldiers invaded the town, and kidnapped Montaser Abdul-Hamid Awad, 22.

    He added that Awad is a former political prisoner who spent two years in Israeli prisons. He was taken prisoner, on Sunday at dawn, after the soldiers violently broke into his house, and searched it causing excessive damage.

    Dozens of soldiers also invaded Doura city, southwest of Hebron, broke into a home and kidnapped one resident identified as Noureddin Mohammad Wishah, and took him to an unknown destination.

    Furthermore, Israeli military sources stated that the soldiers kidnapped two Palestinians in Beit Ola village, near Hebron, one of them identified as Ibrahim Ahmad Al-‘Adam. Another Palestinian has been kidnapped in Beit Awwa town, and another in Hebron city.

    On Sunday at dawn, soldiers installed a roadblock on the Halhoul Bridge, north of Hebron, while dozens of soldiers invaded a number of neighborhoods in Hebron city, and in Nouba village, west of Hebron.

    Medical sources said that the soldiers attacked, and injured, Ahmad Suleiman Al-‘Emla, 22, from Beit Ola village, and Adham Jamal Saya’ra, 20, from Kharas village. Both were working near Ramadeen village, south of Hebron; they suffered moderate injuries and were moved to the Hebron Governmental Hospital.

    Local sources in the Jenin refugee camp, in the northern West Bank city of Jenin, said that at least fifteen military vehicles invaded the camp, and fired dozens of rounds of live ammunition.

    Soldiers then broke into a number of homes, and violently searching them, using some as monitoring towers, and kidnapped two Palestinians identified as Ahmad Abu Zeina, 25, and Tawfiq Saber Jarjou’, 26.

    The invasion lasted for three hours, while Israeli sharpshooters were seen taking positions on rooftops in the camp.

    Furthermore, Israeli military sources said that resident Odai Bassem Al-Jamry, 16, from the Balata refugee camp in the northern West Bank city of Nablus, has been taken prisoner in Haifa, allegedly after he attempted to stab an Israeli soldier.

    His father is a Palestinian security officer; the soldiers searched his home, and confiscated a computer and other equipment.

    In related news, soldiers kidnapped three Palestinians near a Kibbutz close to the border with Gaza, in an area east of the Al-Boreij refugee camp, in central Gaza.

    The army said that the three were not armed, and were taken prisoner after approaching the border fence. They were moved to an undisclosed interrogation facility.

  • Torture in Palestine: a glimpse into Israel’s history of unrivalled cruelty | Occupied Palestine | فلسطين
    http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/torture-in-palestine-a-glimpse-into-israels-history-of-

    Torture in Palestine: a glimpse into Israel’s history of unrivalled cruelty

    October 16, 2011 by occupiedpalestine 0 Comments
    Palestine’s Prisoners | Pictures | Topic | Category – Torture | History | Category

    EmpireStrikesBlack | Oct 4, 2011 | Martin Iqbal

    Recognition of ‘Israel’ is tantamount to approval of the crimes against humanity that forged its existence. Such recognition is absolutely inexcusable on any level, moral, legal, or otherwise.

    Amnesty International has concluded that there is no nation on the face of the planet in which torture is as well-established and documented as in the case of the state of Israel(1). This, coming from an organisation not exactly renowned for its tenacity with respect to the Zionist entity’s crimes, is particularly telling. In addition to this the Zionist entity has a long history of refusing to investigate or even acknowledge the brutal torture that it visits upon its occupied, dispossessed, and terrorised victims.

    The Shin Bet (known officially in English as the ‘Israel Security Agency’) is Israel’s domestic ‘security’ force, which boasts the motto “Defender that shall not be seen”. Reporting directly to the Office of the Prime Minister, the Shin Bet is responsible for carrying out the most unimaginably depraved torture on innocent Palestinian detainees, a handful of which will be documented herein.

    Ever since its birth, forged in the fires of Jewish terrorism, ethnic cleansing, massacres and rape, the Zionist entity has encountered resistance (peaceful and armed) from dispossessed and occupied Palestinians. Having absolutely zero moral or legal claim to the land it now occupies, Israel responds to righteous peaceful or armed resistance in the only way it can: with violence and force characterised by unmitigated brutality.

    Through a mere handful of examples, the reader will see how with unspeakable cruelty, the Zionist entity destroys individuals and families alike, physically and psychologically. Lives are torn apart, human beings are subjected to nightmarish treatment, inflicting unthinkable pain and distress. Their only crime? Exercising their right to self-determination in the face of a violent foreign occupier.

    Torture by the Israeli regime is systemic in Occupied Palestine. It is the Zionists’ bulwark, indeed their only bulwark, against the rightful resistance mounted by the dispossessed and occupied Palestinians. What is euphemistically called ‘interrogation’, ranges from beatings, to isolation and sensory deprivation. From assault and mutilation of the genitals, to sodomy and rape. Electric shocks at the mouth, temples, and testicles are widely used, as are attack dogs. Invariably detainees are held in stress positions within tightly confined cells, and deprived of sleep, food and water. Detainees often have committed no crime other than having been politically active, voicing opposition to the occupation.

    The cases that follow are taken from Ralph Schoenman’s 1988 book, ‘The Hidden History of Zionism’. The source materials he cites include the Al-Fajr Jerusalem Palestinian Weekly, case studies carried out by himself and Mya Shone, as well as a five-month 1977 study by the London Sunday Times.

    I cannot stress enough the importance of reading these accounts in full; the pure brutality visited upon the victims stretches even the most cruel imagination.

    Fazi Abdel Wahed Nijim was arrested in July 1970. He was tortured at Sarafand and set upon by dogs. Arrested again in July 1973, he was beaten in Gaza prison. Zudhir al-Dibi was arrested in February 1970 and interrogated in Nablus where he was whipped and beaten on the soles of his feet. His testicles were squeezed and he was hosed with ice water. Shehadeh Shalaldeh was arrested in August 1969 and interrogated at Moscobiya. A ballpoint refill was pushed into his penis. Abed al-Shalloudi was held without trial for sixteen months. Blindfolded and handcuffed while at Moscobiya, he was beaten by Naim Shabo, an Iraqi Jew, Director of the Minorities Department.

    Jamil Abu Ghabiyr was arrested in February 1976 and held in Moscobiya. He was beaten on the head, body and genitals and made to lie in ice water. Issam Atif al Hamoury was arrested in October 1976. In Hebron prison the authorities arranged his rape by a prisoner trustee.

    In February 1969, Rasmiya Odeh was arrested and brought to Moscobiya. Her father, Joseph, and two sisters were detained for interrogation. Joseph Odeh was kept in one room while Rasmiya was beaten nearby. When they brought him to her she was lying on the floor in blood-stained clothes. Her face was blue, her eye black. In his presence, they held her down and shoved a stick into her vagina. One of the interrogators ordered Joseph Odeh “to fuck” his daughter. When he refused they began beating both him and Rasmiya. They again spread her legs and shoved the stick into her. She was bleeding from the mouth, face and vagina when Joseph Odeh fell unconscious.


    The Case of Ghassan Harb

    Ghassan Harb, a 37-year-old Palestinian intellectual and journalist for Al Fajr, a prominent Arabic daily, was arrested in 1973. He was taken by Israeli soldiers and two plain-clothes agents from his home to Ramallah prison where he was held fifty days. During this time he was neither interrogated nor accused. He was denied any contact with his family or a lawyer. On the fiftieth day, Ghassan Harb was taken with a sack over his head to an undisclosed place. Here he was subjected to sustained beating: “Fifteen minutes, twenty minutes beating with his hand across my face.”

    Stripped naked and a bag placed over his head, he was forced into a confined space. He began to suffocate. He managed by moving his head against the “wall” to remove the bag and found himself in a cupboard-like compartment some 2 feet square and 5 feet high [60 cm. and 150 cm. Respectively].

    He could neither sit down nor stand up. The floor was concrete with a set of stone spikes set at irregular intervals. They were “sharp with acute edges,” 1.5 centimeters high. Ghassan Harb could not stand on them without pain. He had to stand on one leg and then replace it continuously with the other. He was kept in the box for four hours during the first session.

    He was then made to crawl on his knees on sharp stones while being beaten for an hour by four soldiers. After being interrogated, Ghassan Harb was returned to his cell and the routine was repeated: beatings, stripping, forced to crawl into a dog kennel two feet square and then the “cupboard.” While in the cupboard at night he heard prisoners pleading, “Oh my stomach. You are killing me.”

    Ghassan Harb was released two-and-a-half years later, never having been charged with a crime or brought to trial. His lawyer, Felicia Langer, succeeded in taking the matter of his maltreatment to the Israeli Supreme Court. No full statements were taken or admitted into the court hearing; no witnesses were called. The court dismissed out of hand all charges of torture.
    The Case of Nader Afouri

    Nader Afouri was a strong, vital man, the weight-lifting champion of Jordan. When he was released in 1980 after his fifth imprisonment, he could neither see, hear, speak, walk nor control his bodily

    functions. Between 1967 and 1980, Nader Afouri was held ten and a half years as an administrative detainee. Despite the brutal treatment and torture inflicted upon Nader during five imprisonments, the Israeli authorities could neither extract a confession nor produce any evidence with which to bring Nader Afouri to trial.

    The First Imprisonment-1967-1971:
    “I was arrested initially in 1967, the first year of the occupation. They took me from my home in Nablus, blindfolded me and hanged me from a helicopter. All the people of Beit Furik and Salem villages near Nablus witnessed this.

    “They brought me to Sarafand, the most harsh prison, a military prison. I was the first man from the West Bank or Gaza to be brought there. When they set the helicopter down, they pushed me out and ordered me to run. I heard gunfire and ran as they were shooting at me.

    “They took me to a large room full of red, yellow and green lights. I could hear screams and the sounds of beatings. I heard a man yell: ‘You’ll have to confess.’ Then I heard a man confessing. Soon, I discovered this was a recording meant to intimidate me.

    “Then they took me to the interrogator. They tied me with chains to green doors. Each door had a pulley. They opened the doom, spreading my hands and legs, then wound the pulleys till I fell unconscious.

    “They made me get up on a chair, tied my hands to chains hanging from a window and slowly removed the chair. My muscles tore as the weight of my body pulled on my hands. The pain was terrible.

    “There were five or six men. They all beat me. They hit me with blows on the head. They chained me to a chair. One would beat me and some of the other men in the room would say ‘Stop.’ Then they would change from one to the other, each hitting me in turn. I was kept chained in that chair and never allowed to stand up.

    “They kept torturing me. An interrogator sucked on a cigarette. When it was red, he placed it on my face, chest and genitals – all over.”

    “One shoved a pen refill up my penis while the others watched. As they did this they asked me to confess. I started to bleed from my penis and was taken to Ramle Prison Hospital but was soon brought back again to Sarafand for further interrogation.”

    “I was in Sarafand twelve-and-a-half months and was interrogated continuously. No one can endure twelve-and-a-half months. On four occasions my friends in the other prisons were informed officially that I had died.”

    “The first month in Sarafand, I was always blindfolded and had chains on my hands and legs. After one month they removed the hand chains and blindfold. But I wore leg chains for twelve-and-a- half months. Day and night I had chains on my legs. The marks are still on my ankles.”

    “This was the routine: They would beat me, interrogate me, then throw me in the cell. I would rest awhile; then they would take me again.”

    “The cell was 3 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet high [1 meter by 1.3 meters by 1.3 meters]. My height is 5 feet 6 inches [1.7 meters]. I slept crouched with my legs up against my stomach. There were no windows in the cell and no furnishings, only a pot for shitting. I had two blankets.”

    “The stones on the floor were very sharp. They punctured my feet when I walked. They began to bring other prisoners. They gave us army clothes with numbers on the back. I was number one. They would only call me by my number, never by my name. They were always insulting me, yelling ‘Maniuk (Faggot), I will fuck you.’ When we were chained outside they brought savage dogs. The dogs jumped at us, grabbed our clothing and bit us.”

    “Over thirty people were arrested after my own detention and all underwent the same torture. All, however, broke down under torture and wrote confessions and are in prison for life. I didn’t confess. The torture destroyed my penis and I could only urinate drop by drop. I could not walk for three-and-a-half months when I finished the interrogation. But I did not confess. I never spoke a word in twelve- and-a-half months.”

    Nader Afouri was sent to Nablus Prison where he began a hunger strike demanding his freedom. He took only water and a little salt. After ten days he was promised his release. Ten days later when Nader Afouri had not been released, he renewed the hunger strike for yet another week. Again the Administrative Vice-President of Nablus Prison promised to release him. When there was still no action after twenty-five days, Nader Afouri announced another hunger strike.

    “I was sent to the cells of Ramle prison after twenty-two days of this hunger strike. Dr. Silvan, the director there, brought several soldiers with him. They beat me on the head. I passed between life and death. They chained my hands and forced a tube in my nose. It was like an electrical shock. I began to shake. I became hysterical when the food reached my throat and began to scream constantly. They gave me an injection in the hip and I relaxed. When this torture failed to make me talk I was placed in the Prison Hospital at Ramle and then sent back to Nablus Prison.”

    Each time a confession was extracted from another prisoner incriminating him, Nader Afouri would be called for interrogation. Often he did not even know the people who spoke against him. But still he did not confess, nor was he brought to trial.

    Nader Afouri was well respected in Nablus and became a leader of the prisoners. When Abu Ard, an informer, accused him of leading the other prisoners, Nader Afouri was sent to Tulkarm prison.

    “Fifteen soldiers came in and beat me on the head with a chair. I fell unconscious. They put my shirt in my mouth and beat me more. I became hysterical as I was gagging. They gave me an injection and I fell unconscious. I awoke alone in the corridor. I couldn’t see. All Tulkarm Prison went on strike and the prisoners met with the Director to speak about me. He promised he would release me the next day if they stopped their strike.”

    “The Director came the next day and shook hands with me and said: “I swear by my life that you are a man.” They brought me socks and a jacket and promised me a private visit with my family.”

    Nader Afouri was not freed. Instead he was sent to Bet Il prison from which he was eventually released in 1971. His four years of imprisonment were without trial and labelled administrative detention.

    Only a few months lapsed before Nader Afouri was detained again. His second imprisonment lasted from 1971 until 1972 and a third from November 1972 until 1973.

    The Fourth Imprisonment: Nov. 1973 – Nov. 1976:
    “Hebron, Moscobiya, Ramallah and Nablus: I stayed three months in a cell in each of these four prisons and the interrogation and torture continued.”

    “It was snowing during the interrogation in Hebron. They stripped me and put me outside in the cold. They tied me with chains to a pole and poured ice water over me. They let me down and brought me to a fire to warm up only to bring me outside again for the ice water treatment.”

    “Iron balls were put into my scrotum and squeezed against the testicles. Pain just enveloped me. “One of the investigators, Abu Haroun, said he would turn my face into a bulldog’s. He was scientific. He hit me with rapid punches for two hours. Then he brought a minor and said: ‘Look at your face.’ I did indeed look like a bulldog.”

    “In Nablus they burned me with cigarettes and again pressed the metal balls against my testicles-squeezing the egg against the iron. They used pliers to pull out four of my teeth.”

    “I was detained three years administratively. During that time as an act of revenge, they also dynamited my house.”

    The Fifth Imprisonment: November 1978 – 1980:
    “They arrested me again in November 1978 and sent me directly to Hebron. They greeted me, sneeringly, declaring: ‘We will make you confess from your asshole.’ I told them I speak from my mouth, not my asshole.”

    “At first they spoke nicely to me because they knew torture wouldn’t work. Then they brought the men in charge of interrogation: Uri, Abu Haroun, Joni, the Psychiatrist, Abu Nimer who has a finger missing, Abu Ali Mikha and Dr. Jims.”

    “They chained me to a pole and concentrated their beatings on my chest. They lay me down on the floor and jumped high in the air landing on my chest. Uri did this seven or eight times. It was savage, unending torture for seven days. They smashed their boot heels on my fingernails, breaking my fingers.”

    “It was snowing so they poured ice water on me. They handed me a paper and gave me two hours to confess. I said I knew nothing. They chained me to a chair. All of them began to beat me with their hands and feet. I fell down. My head was on the floor. I saw Uri fly through the air and I felt his karate chop on my head. This was the last memory I had for two years. “I have been told that I was dragged back to the cell. The other prisoners had to feed me, clean me and turn me over. I was incontinent and shat on myself. I could not move my hands or walk. I could not hear. I could not recognize anyone. Only my lips could move and I would swallow whatever was put in my mouth. People had to move my head. They had to move my limbs from under my body. My weight fell to 103 pounds [47 kilos].”

    “Two years later, I woke up in a mental hospital. I had five fractures in my hips and I couldn’t walk.” His friends were able to arouse public concern throughout Israel and the Occupied Territories. Israeli officials and journalists wrote that Nader Afouni was “feigning” and that he was an excellent “actor.”

    But the prisoners who had taken care of him and the journalists and sympathizers who visited him when he was finally transferred from prison to a hospital, as well as the hospital staff that eventually treated him, bore witness to his condition. Nader Afouni became a cause celebre for the Palestinian people, a symbol of the torment inflicted upon them and of the heroic dimension of their resistance.
    The Case of Dr. Azmi Shuaiby

    Azmi Shuaiby, a dentist, was an active member of the El Bireh City Council in the West Bank and an elected representative to the National Guidance Committee. Since 1973, Dr. Shuaiby has been arrested, brutally tortured and imprisoned seven times. Between 1980 and 1986 he was forbidden to leave the limits of El Bireh and was confined to his house after 6 p.m. In 1986, he was again imprisoned and then deported from the West Bank.

    He has never been accused of armed actions or of promoting violence. But Dr. Shuaiby refuses Israeli demands that he collaborate. He has written articles against the occupation and settlements and in favor of an independent Palestinian state.

    In 1973, when first arrested at the age of twenty, Azmi was told: “We have been watching you. You were first in your class at the University. We can make you a very rich and powerful man in the West Bank. You must cooperate with us and join the Village Leagues.” Upon his refusal, the series of arrests and savage torture began. Dr. Shuaiby described the methods of torture, both physical and psychological to which he was subjected.

    “They used heavy batons. They put my legs between chair legs so I couldn’t move. Then they beat the soles of my feet.

    My feet swelled. After one minute I could no longer feel my legs. The pain was excruciating. I was unable to stand. They would stand behind me. I couldn’t tell if anyone were there. Suddenly, the interrogator clapped his hands over my ears with great force. It caused sudden, terrible pressure in my nose, mouth, and ears – a loud ringing which went on for five minutes. I lost my balance and hearing.

    They used a giant guard to punch me constantly. He said: “You are a dentist? Which hand do you use? If we break your hand you will no longer be a dentist.” Then he beat my hand until I felt it break.

    They tied my hands behind my back and suspended me on a hook. They spread my legs and beat me on the testicles with sticks. Then they squeezed my testicles. I cannot describe the agony produced by squeezing the testicles. You feel stabbing pain in your stomach, in all your nerves.

    You want to faint.

    They put me outside in the winter, naked and fully exposed, with my cuffed hands suspended from hooks. I was hung this way from 11 p.m. at night until just before sunrise. Then I was returned to my cell. They had put water on the cell floor so that I couldn’t sleep. They told me I must collaborate with them and that when I did I must tell neither the Red Cross nor anyone else that I was working for them. I replied: “OK, I will tell them that you said I must not tell anyone you want me to work for you.” I refused to collaborate. They beat me endlessly.”

    In 1980, the Israelis introduced new techniques. Dr. Shuaiby designates these methods “psychological torture”; he found them harder to endure than the physical torment. “Your brain is affected.”

    Dr. Azmi Shuaiby was subjected to the following ordeal: Isolation: “No one was allowed to speak to me, not even the soldiers. The cell was 4.5 feet by 5.5 feet and 9 feet high [1.5m by 1.8m by 3m]. In one corner was a stinking hole used as a toilet. There was only a tiny window near the floor. I could never see the sky. The bare light was on day and night. I had nothing to read. I heard no voices. Food was put in the corner and the door opened very slightly. I had to strain to reach for it piece by piece.

    “The bedding consisted of a plastic cover less than one half inch [1 cm.] thick. It was always wet. Once a week I was allowed to go out for a few minutes to air the bedding. No soldier was permitted to speak to me.

    To maintain my sanity I collected small pieces of orange peel and made shapes with them. I would ask myself questions and then answer them. I also pulled threads from the blanket and knit them together.”

    The Cupboard: “I was entombed for four days and nights, squeezed into a bent but standing position in a cupboard 20 inches by 20 inches [50cm. by 50cm.]. It was very dark. A filthy sack had been tied over my head. My hands were handcuffed behind my back with special cuffs. If I moved my hands in any way the cuffs automatically tightened. I was unable to move in the cupboard. I had to sleep while standing. I slept a minute at a time, awakening abruptly, convinced that I was suffocating.”

    The Interrogators: “The interrogation and torture were carried out by a team. All were officers and captains, their names Gadi, Edi, Saini, Yacob and Dany. The interrogation room is their kingdom; no one can enter.

    During the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the interrogation team was sent to Lebanon and a new staff brought to the West Bank prisons. The ‘new staff’ consisted of former torturers. One man had been an interrogator ten years before; now he was a businessman. ‘Captain Dany’ returned from Lebanon during my imprisonment. Captain Dany is a very tall, handsome man of thirty-five years. He is very crude, constantly yelling ‘Fuck your sister, fuck your mother.’ He would force my mouth open and spit in it. In 1973, he tried to force a bottle into my anus. When he saw me on his return from Lebanon, he said: ‘Oh, Azmi is here,’ and proceeded to tell me about the young children in Ansar. ‘I interrogate children 10, 11 and 12,’ he began, giving me accounts of their beatings.”

    Dr. Azmi Shuaiby was imprisoned three times in 1982. Between December 7, 1981, and January 16, 1982, he was kept in isolation during the General Strike in the West Bank and the closure of Bir Zeit University. From April 1 to May 3, when the Israelis disbanded the West Bank City Councils, Azmi was placed in the “cupboard” and then again in isolation. He was kept in isolation throughout the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

    “Recently they told me: “We will destroy your clinic by jailing you every alternate month. Our computer will determine when you are scheduled to be imprisoned again.” In 1986, Dr. Azmi Shuaiby was deported.
    The Case of Mohammed Manasrah

    Mohammed Manasrah was a trade union activist, secretary of the Bethlehem University Student Senate and is currently a writer and journalist. He was imprisoned three times for a total of four-and-a- half years and then placed on additional probation for two years. His torture during interrogation was unrelenting, resulting in sexual dysfunction and hearing loss. He also endured numerous additional briefer detentions as well as house arrest and town restrictions.

    The First Imprisonment:
    “I was nineteen years old in 1969 when I was arrested for the first time. I was taken with a group of people and held in the Moscobyia [the Russian Compound in Jerusalem] for six months, where I was interrogated about demonstrations, publications and organizations. “Moscobiya was barbaric. They took our clothes and covered our eyes. They cuffed our hands and chained ten of us in a row. We were stripped naked. They threw water on us. Then they beat us in turn, using sticks on our heads and on our sexual organs. They would alternate throwing water on us and beating us on our sexual organs. We would hear them filling the buckets and brace ourselves, but no matter how we tried, we could never prepare ourselves for the beatings.

    “My friend, Bashir al Kharya, a lawyer, has been in prison since 1969. They beat his head with heavy sticks for three days. His head became green from mold and was infected with bacteria for five years. He is still held in Tulkarm Prison.”

    The Second Imprisonment:
    “In 1971, the authorities accused me of membership in both the P.F.L.P. (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and Fatah [Yasir Arafat’s group in the P.L.O.] even though one couldn’t be a member of both organizations.

    “The security services lacked any evidence but they gave me the choice of being charged with membership in an illegal organization and being sentenced to prison or voluntarily moving to Amman [Jordan]. I told them I would rather be imprisoned for a lifetime than be exiled. I confessed to membership in the United Student Council, the council of all student organizations which had been declared illegal. I was then imprisoned for one year in Ramallah and Nablus prisons.”

    The Third Imprisonment:
    “In 1975, they raided my house in Dheisheh camp and confiscated all my books. They brought me to Bassa Police Station where they beat me for two days. They asked no questions. One interrogator stood in front of me and another behind me. Suddenly the one behind would clap his hands with great force on both my ears. Blood flowed from my ears and mouth. I suffered brain damage. One prisoner, whom they were trying to terrify, fainted when they brought him to where I was being tortured. “They imprisoned me for three years. I was held in Hebron, Ramallah, again in Hebron, Farguna, Beersheba, again in Hebron and then again in Beersheba. They would transfer me for ‘security reasons’ as punishment after hunger strikes.” Torture in Hebron Prison: Mohammed Manasrah was taken to Hebron and tortured in many different ways: They tied me upside down and beat me endlessly on the feet with a piece of wood. You can’t imagine how much they hit me. My feet swelled to a huge size and turned blue. \ bled under the skin. They stripped me of my clothes and hung me by chains with my hands above my head and my feet barely touching the ground. They beat me constantly on the feet, always concentrating on my feet. Sometimes they would let me down and put my feet into a basin of filthy, stinking cold water. This would relieve the pain. Then they would hang me up again. I had to sleep chained up, with my hands above my head. This went on for fourteen days. Maisara Abul Hamdia was with me. For every blow I received, he got two.

    Maisara would be hanging when I entered the torture room. Then Maisara would find me hanging when he was brought to the torture room. [Maisara was later deported to Jordan.]

    After fourteen days, I would lose consciousness constantly. I was put in Cell #5. It was 5 feet 3 inches by 2 feet and 5 feet 6 inches high [160cm. by 60cm. by 168cm.]. It was as high as I am tall and its length was such that I had to put my legs on the wall when I lay down. The only sound I ever heard was that of the keys. I became terrified whenever I heard that sound. I don’t know exactly how long I was there. It was somewhere between five days and one week.

    I was beaten all night when they transferred me from Cell #5 to Cell #4. They used wide sticks and beat me on the head and sexual organs. They pulled my hair and hit my head on the wall. I have a permanent problem with my sexual organs and have had many X-Rays taken of my head and sexual organs.

    I was brought to the military courtroom early in the morning and made to wait all day. But there was no session. Instead, Abu Ghazal, the famous interrogator, came. He grabbed my hair and swung me around the room, smashing me against the wall. My hair was pulled out. He threatened to send me to Sarafand or “Akka” [a secret prison used in 1974 and 1975] if I didn’t confess within two days.

    I was put in a cell and slept the entire time. I didn’t know if it were day or night, two days or ten. I still feel cold when I recall this period. I get chills in my legs. After two days, ten soldiers rushed into my cell and started to beat me. They dragged me along the floor to the torture room. They told me that my friends and comrades had confessed. I said: “Bring them to me.” I knew these were lies. They brought two types of people to me in order to make me confess: kind, weak people who couldn’t bear to see how I was being tortured and “asafir” [spies]. Now they initiated other methods – alternating between beatings and soft talk in the hope that I would crack and “confess.” They accused me of being a member of the P.F.L.P., Fatah and the Communist Party. They would change their accusation, but one thing remained constant: after each accusation-they would beat me savagely.

    They brought two Majors to see me who lectured me for six hours – about the Soviet Union’s crimes against the Jews and China’s oppression of its national minorities. They accused me of being a communist because they found books on Marxism in my house. I told them there couldn’t be peace here without self-determination for the Palestinian people. They asked me to write this down and sign it and I did.

    After forty-six days of interrogation and detention they sent me to a military court in Ramallah. I was accused of having carried out actions against the authorities. My lawyer, Ghozi Kfir, asked for specifics. The court responded: “This is a revolutionary and a deceiver.” Before the hearing my lawyer and the prosecutor had worked out a deal. I was to be released without charge if I did not speak in court about how I was tortured. But the judge ignored the agreement and sentenced me to five years. I served three years and was placed on probation for two.”

    ~ The Hidden History of Zionism by Ralph Schoenman; Chapter 10: The Prevalence of Torture.

    The Zionist entity doesn’t limit its thirst for cruelty to adults; Palestinian youths are targeted with brutality in equal measure. In 1983 Himsam Safieh and Ziad Sbeh Ziad, from the Galilee, committed the crime of raising the Palestinian flag on the first anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. As a result they were detained for six months, during which time they were stripped naked and left in a cold room. They were sprayed with cold water and beaten from head to toe, including their genitals. On top of this they were electrocuted – all in an attempt to extract false confessions. At the end of their detention, they were released without charge. During the first intifada in 1987, over 17,000 Palestinian youths were detained by Israel, many of whom were subjected to this kind of treatment.

    In an attempt to crush the uprising (which consisted of mass strikes and demonstrations), Israeli soldiers roamed Palestinian villages and towns, terrorising the population. Youths as young as 13 years of age were taken from their homes, beaten senseless, and then buried alive. Some were subsequently dug up and rescued by villagers who had seen where they had been buried, others were not so lucky.

    Israeli soldiers poured boiling water over a two-year-old infant, rendering her catatonic.

    Israeli helicopters flew over towns, dropping an unknown green gas on the defenceless population. They fired canisters of the mysterious gas into homes and prevented the residents from leaving. Throughout the West Bank and Gaza, cases of miscarriages, vaginal bleeding, and asphyxiation occurred as a result. Needless to say, the gas was a gift from the U.S.A, bearing the markings: “560 cs. Federal Lab. Saltsburg, Pa. USA MK2 1988”.

    What is most significant about these horrifying cases of torture and brutality is that they are not uncommon, nor are they the results of ‘rogue’ cops or soldiers. They are a direct result of Zionist policy. As discussed by Schoenman, the patterns of torture reported are “similar to those found in hundreds of testimonies published by Israeli lawyers, Felicia Langer and Lea Tsemel, by Palestinian lawyers Walid Fahoum and Raja Shehadeh, by Amnesty International and the National Lawyers Guild and the series of accounts this author documented from former prisoners.” Furthermore, it is worth reiterating the fact that Amnesty International has found the Zionist entity to be the world’s most prolific torturer.

    Israel’s Shin Bet, the very group responsible for perpetrating the horrific torture outlined in the examples above, continues its savage practices to this day. From 2001 to 2009 inclusive, the Israeli State Attorney’s Office received over seven hundred complaints of torture carried out by the Shin Bet; the Zionist entity refused to investigate a single one of these cases(2).

    In a recent example a Palestinian youth was held for six years by Israeli jailers, during which time he was held mainly in solitary confinement, and had boiling oil poured over him(3). As a result, Raf’at Bani Odeh now suffers from serious physical and psychological scars.

    As brutal, vicious, and barbaric as these practices may be, it is difficult for one to be surprised. The usurping Zionist entity is literally built on lies, blood, and hate. Al Nakba, euphemistically referred to by historical revisionists of the negationist persuasion, as ‘The War of Independence’, was an orgy of violence levied at an innocent, defenceless indigenous population. Massacres of men, women, and children were committed in an attempt to terrorise the Palestinian population at large into flight. Hundreds of villages were razed to the ground so that their rightful residents could never return. ‘Israeli’ towns and villages took their places, with Hebrew names to supplant the Arabic. As ‘Israeli’ war criminal Moshe Dayan would say: “There is not a single community in the country that did not have a former Arab population”.

    To this very day, Al Nakba continues in slow motion as Israel ‘Judaizes’ the entirety of Occupied Palestine and ethnically cleanses the rightful occupants from their land.

    It is not enough to decry the ethnic cleansing, land theft, and occupation that afflicts the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza, whilst recognising ‘Israel’. The violent, racist, usurping Zionist entity occupies the entirety of Historic Palestine. What is happening to the West Bank and Gaza is simply a continuation of the very crimes that forged Israel’s existence: terrorism, massacres, extra-judicial murder, torture, ethnic cleansing, and land theft. Recognition of ‘Israel’ is tantamount to approval of these crimes against humanity, and such recognition is absolutely inexcusable on any level, moral, legal, or otherwise.
    Notes

    (1) ‘The Hidden History of Zionism’ by Ralph Schoenman, 1988.
    (2) ‘Failure to investigate alleged cases of ill-treatment and torture’ – B’Tselem.
    (3) ‘Family says Israeli jailers poured boiling oil on its son’ – The Voice of Palestine.

    Source

  • Mayor Boris & police endorse event with extremist clerics | Peter Tatchell Foundation
    http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/religion/mayor-boris-police-endorse-event-extremist-clerics

    Mayor Boris & police endorse event with extremist clerics
    posted by Peter Tatchell ... on Fri, 22/11/2013 - 15:26

    Speakers say blasphemers, adulterers & apostates should be killed

    MPs, City of London police & top BBC official support GPU

    London, UK - 22 November 2013

    “People who have sex outside of marriage, blasphemers and Muslims who leave the faith should be killed, according to some speakers at this weekend’s Islamic Global Peace & Unity (GPU) conference in London. The conference website says the event is backed by the Mayor of London, the City of London police commissioner, MPs, the former Archbishop of Canterbury and a senior BBC official,” reports Peter Tatchell, Director of the human rights organisation, the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

    On the assumption that the GPU website is accurate:

    “It is appalling that the Mayor, City of London police and prominent public figures are endorsing an event that promotes at least seven speakers with bigoted, violent views. It’s the equivalent of supporting an event with BNP and EDL hate speakers.

    “How can the mayor and police justify giving their approval to a conference that hosts speakers who advocate discrimination and violence?

    “On the GPU website there are messages of support from the Mayor of London Boris Johnson, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Labour MP Stephen Timms and Labour peer Lord Parekh. Noam Chomsky is also listed and quoted under “Supporters.”
    http://www.theglobalunity.com/about/supporters

    “Speakers named on the GPU website include the Commissioner of the City of London Police Adrian Leppard and his Assistant Commissioner Wayne Chance, Tory MP Rehman Chishti, BBC commissioning editor Aqil Ahmed and Muslim Council of Britain leader Farooq Murad.
    http://www.theglobalunity.com/speakers

    “I have written letters of protest to the Mayor of London and the Commissioner and Assistant Commission of the City of London police, urging them to withdraw their support for the conference.

    “The seven extremist preachers have variously expressed opinions such as:

    “In their view, homophobia is praiseworthy, women should stay in the home and blasphemers and apostates should be killed.

    “They stir anti-Semitism and say that people who have pre-marital or extra-marital sex deserve flogging and stoning to death.

    “Opposing social integration and community cohesion, some clerics advocate a form of religious apartheid: Muslims should not associate with non-Muslims and Muslim parents should not send their children to non-Muslim schools.

    “Freedom of religion is condemned as a blasphemous ideal and Ahmadiyya Muslims are said to deserve persecution.

    “There are at least seven extremist preachers listed to speak at the GPU on 23 and 24 November at ExCel London.

    “They are: Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ya’qoubi, Sheikh Shady Al-Suleiman, Iman Abdul Wahid Pedersen, Sheikh Said Rageah, Sheikh Muhammad Al Shareef, and Sheikh Yasir Qadhi,” said Mr Tatchell.
    Quotes from the seven extremist GPU speakers (with links to sources):

    Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri

    He has defended Pakistan laws that impose the death penalty for blasphemy and are used to persecute Ahmadiyya Muslims.

    http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/exposing-dr-tahir-ul-qadri-rest-of.html
    and
    http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/concept-of-jihad-allama-tahirul-qardri.html
    and
    http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/faith-and-integrity-mullah-tahir-ul.html

    Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ya’qoubi

    He believes: Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are blasphemous and “false ideals.” The Grand Mufti of Syria was wrong to oppose violence against Jewish settlers in the Palestinian terrorities.

    “....these wrong and false ideals like ‘freedom of religion’ or ‘freedom of expression’. In Islam I do not allow under the banner of ‘freedom of expression’ someone to come and curse or insult a Prophet of Allah... it is blasphemy, it is not freedom of speech at all.”

    http://www.therevival.co.uk/defending-deen
    and
    https://www.facebook.com/notes/brotherhood-and-unity-amongst-muslims/mufti-of-syria-makes-troubling-statements-about-prophet-muhammadsaw/290738087679?comment_id=10720212&offset=0&total_comments=5

    Sheikh Shady Al-Suleiman

    The Sheikh says adulterers should be stoned to death:

    “Remember that if there is an Islamic state the punishment of zina, the punishment of those who commit zina, if they have never been married before, they will be lashed 100 lashes. If they are married while they committed zina, or previously been married and divorced, and they committed zina, then their punishment is stoning to death.”

    http://tifrib.com/shady-alsuleiman
    and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OCK2RmnCmi8


    and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJuSwwsAVHo&noredirect=1

    Iman Abdul Wahid Pedersen

    He admits that the stoning of adulterers is cruel, but he has defended the cruel punishment:

    “I agree that stoning is a cruel punishment, but it doesn’t change the fact that according to Islam the practise has been ordained by our Creator. We are not in a position to change this. Things that are stated unambigiously in the Koran or by the Prophet Mohammed are not open to debate among Muslims.”

    http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?t=7119

    Sheikh Said Rageah

    He says Muslims should disassociate themselves from non-Muslims. Blasphemers who don’t repent should be killed. Women should stay at home and never leave the house without necessity:

    “You will see a lot of them going to the kuffar (non-Muslims) , taking them as supporters and helpers and friends and allies…(Arabic) If they were true believers in Allah and the messenger (Arabic) they would never take them as allies.”

    “…it could also, y’know, be to the point as far as killing that person (who commits blasphemy) if he doesn’t repent what he’s saying…Muslims do not tolerate anyone to insult Muhammad, Isa or Jesus, Moses, any of the prophets of God. If you’re in a Muslim country and you insult Muhammad or Jesus, you will receive the same punishment because both of them are the messengers of God.”

    “Islam and Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala) is telling us in the Quran: stay home because otherwise you’re gonna cause fitnah to a lot of people…Allah created women for beauty…so women are like this they must understand. They should stay at home and not come out of the house unless it’s a necessity, otherwise Shaytan will take advantage of that and leave the people being tested and tried.”

    http://tifrib.com/said-rageah

    Sheikh Muhammad Al Shareef

    The Sheikh believes the social integration of Muslims is wrong. Muslims should not associate with non-Muslims, and Muslims should not send their children to non-Islamic schools:

    “The horror story begins when the child is entrusted to a non-Muslim…”

    ”If a parent has chosen public school for his son, in the final year when he looks over the school yearbook and sees a picture of his son standing hand in hand dancing with a kafir woman, at that time it will be too late to question his upbringing. Now is the time to question it, now, before it’s too late.“

    http://www.kalamullah.com/current-affairs11.html
    and
    http://www.irfi.org/articles2/articles_3901_3950/islamic%20schools%20-%20who's%20responsiblehtml.htm

    He also states that Jews control the media and Muslims should not ally with them, imitate them or marry them:

    “Who owns the press? Well, you can believe me when I say that it is not the god fearing beloved of Allâh.
    “It would be profitable for us to reflect on the implementation of our Wala’ and Bara’ in regards to the Jews:
    “Firstly: We should not take them as our close allies. Secondly: We should not imitate them. Thirdly: A Muslimah may never marry a Jewish or Christian man that remains in his beliefs.”

    http://islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=636
    and
    http://sunnahonline.com/ilm/jihaad/0006.htm

    Sheikh Al Shareef says homophobia is praiseworthy:

    “Alhamdulillah [praise to God] that you’re homophobic. Alhamdulillah we have a fear of homosexuality. And then they will say it as if it is a derogatory term, but in fact it is a praiseworthy term.”

    http://www.studentrights.org.uk/article/1241/what_kind_of_revolution_fosis_
    and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C65Watj1-58

    He argues sex outside of marriage deserves 80 lashes:

    “One of them is a married person committing zina and the other is an unmarried person committing zina. So a married person committing zina is actually much, much more serious in Islam. They’re both serious and they’re both major sins but it is much more serious…if somebody’s married the punishment for that would be eighty lashes.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ca_5KxXtJVY


    and
    http://tifrib.com/muhammad-alshareef-2

    Sheikh Yasir Qadhi

    The Sheikh claims the toleration of homosexuality is a sign of social regression:

    “For those who have been around for a little bit longer than those who are eighteen or nineteen, look at how this own society and culture has evolved in the way it looks at homosexuals. In our own time, I remember as a kid in the eighties, which gives you an idea how old I was, growing up in the eighties I grew up, OK? I remember how homosexuals were looked down upon and the names that were given to these people, and how disgusted the average masses were with that segment of society. Now look, now look at how we have regressed, not progressed.”

    http://tifrib.com/yasir-qadhi

    He says Jews control Islamic studies and want to destroy Muslims:

    “You go to America, you find that 95% of the Islamic Studies professors are Jews, you know that? 95% of Islamic Studies [sic] are Jews. And 0% of Judaic Studies [sic] are Muslims. I am not advising any Muslim to waste his time studying Judaism but I’m saying, why are Jews studying Islam? There is a reason, not that they want to help us, they want to destroy us [...] they want to bring about doubts, look at the doubts that exist, look at the divisions, the discord, look at the disunity, look at all these ideologies that are being spread (4). Know that the Yahood [Jews] and the Kuffar [Infidels] like this type of thing.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060622155909/http://www.judeoscope.ca/article.php3?id_article=0370

  • Paul Flowers’ escort Ciaron Dodd reveals drug-fuelled sex in rooms paid for by the Co-op | Mail Online
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510241/Paul-Flowers-escort-Ciaron-Dodd-reveals-drug-fuelled-sex-rooms-paid-Co-

    The rent boy and trysts in rooms paid for by the Co-op: Escort reveals Flowers sent him emails to organise drug-fuelled sex from his work account

    Ciaron Dodd said they met in plush hotel rooms paid for by struggling bank
    The £650-a-night escort revealed messages sent by Reverend Flowers
    Methodist minister used work account to arrange ’drug-fuelled threesomes’
    Mr Dodd says relationship ended when Flowers refused to pay £2,000
    Flowers allegedly met him through the escort website ‘Manchester Lads’

    By Nazia Parveen, Eleanor Harding and Sam Greenhill

    PUBLISHED: 23:15 GMT, 19 November 2013 | UPDATED: 08:20 GMT, 20 November 2013

    252 shares

    191

    View
    comments
    Ciaron Dodd said Paul Flowers was debauched and ’showered him with gifts’

    Ciaron Dodd said Paul Flowers was debauched and ’showered him with gifts’

    The humiliation of Paul Flowers worsened yesterday when a rent boy claimed the ousted Co-op chief hired him for sex.

    Ciaron Dodd, 21, said they met in plush hotel rooms paid for by the struggling bank.

    The Methodist minister, who was forced to quit his £130,000 role in June, showered him with gifts and took him for nights out to the theatre, said Mr Dodd.

    The explosive allegations came as the Labour Party faced further damaging questions about its links with Flowers.

    Pictures have emerged of a lavish reception hosted by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls at 10 Downing Street for Flowers and fellow Co-op grandees while Labour was in power.

    It also emerged that Labour knew two years ago that Flowers had been forced to resign as one of the party’s city councillors after gay porn was found on his computer.

    But it appears the Co-op was not told – allowing him to continue until June as its banking chairman, a position from which he helped to approve massive donations to Labour and Mr Balls.

    Dodd, a £650-a-night escort, has backed up his claim by producing damning messages sent by Flowers, 63, from his work email - in which he organises drug-fuelled threesomes.

    Dodd said: ‘I knew what he did for a living and couldn’t believe how debauched he was.

    ‘Every time he saw me he knew he was risking everything – but he just didn’t seem to care.

    ‘He took me to the theatre and gave me presents like chocolate and wine. I was old enough to be his grandson but he didn’t seem to think we looked like the odd couple.’

    In emails from Flowers’ work account – paul.flowers@co-operative.coop – he wrote unguardedly about sex and drugs.

    One email to the rent boy states: ‘Been waiting for you to come and have some coke (cocaine) and k (Ketamin) with me. P x.’

    More...

    Co-op Group boss dramatically quits in growing row over ex-banking chief caught buying crystal meth and cocaine
    Let’s hear it for the Crystal Methodist: Why, by tonight, Flowers will be portrayed as a hapless ’victim’ of an evil newspaper

    In another exchange, Mr Dodd asks if he can bring his friend Lucas. Flowers replies: ‘I like him a lot – but I can’t afford 2 of you this time! PXx’.

    Mr Dodd claimed the relationship ended when Flowers refused to pay £2,000 he owed.

    Another 31-year-old escort, who asked not to be named, said the bank boss often talked about his work.

    He told the Sun newspaper: ‘He said there was going to be a public announcement about how a deal with Lloyds TSB had fallen through. A few days later I heard it on the news.’

    Part-time model Mr Dodd said Flowers contacted him through the escort website ¿Manchester Lads¿ in 2011.

    Part-time model Mr Dodd said Flowers contacted him through the escort website ¿Manchester Lads¿ in 2011.

    Risking everything: Paul Flowers was forced to quit his £130,000 role in June

    Risking everything: Paul Flowers was forced to quit his £130,000 role in June

    Part-time model Mr Dodd said Flowers contacted him through the escort website ‘Manchester Lads’ in 2011.

    For their first meeting, Flowers took him to see a play, You Can’t Take It With You, at Manchester’s Royal Exchange theatre before taking him to a hotel.

    Flowers then paid £650 to hire Mr Dodd for the night and take a cocktail of drugs including amyl nitrate (poppers), cocaine, ketamine and party drug GHB, he claimed.

    The pair were soon seeing each other once a week and Flowers would regularly take his new male companion to high-class restaurants and top up his bank account with extra cash, Mr Dodd said.

    On top of his standard ‘fee’, he received almost £500 over a 28-day period and he was paid an extra £150 if he brought another rent boy along to the sex sessions.

    Mr Dodd said: ‘I would meet Paul at the Renaissance Hotel in Manchester – which was paid for by the bank – while he was in town on business.

    ‘I would also go to his house where he would hold parties with other escorts and friends. It wasn’t long after our first meeting that Paul tested the water with me in terms of drugs.

    ‘He asked me if I dabbled and before long drugs were always involved when I met with him.

    ’Paul enjoyed my company too, though. He’d like to spend hours drinking, talking and taking drugs. He would raise his glass and say, “To good health darling” before we had a drink.’

    Mr Dodd, from Manchester, said Flowers would often go to work after less than an hour of sleep.

    It has also emerged Reverend Flowers was convicted of gross indecency in a public toilet with a man believed to be a trucker in 1981.

    He admitted the offence at Fareham Magistrates’ Court in Hampshire, and was fined £75 with £35 legal costs.

    Flowers told justices he was ‘shamed and embarrassed’ about the incident but maintained he was involved ‘at the other man’s instigation’.

    Yet he was allowed to continue as a Methodist minister.

    Even then, Flowers had friends in high places. He produced a character reference from a Labour peer, Lord Soper of Kingsway, who told the court his friend had suffered a traumatic experience.

    Yesterday, Flowers stepped down from Terrence Higgins Trust’s board of trustees.

    The Tories last night urged Mr Miliband and Mr Balls to ‘come clean’ about their links with Flowers, who has been suspended from the party.

    Both men have been scrambling to distance themselves from the disgraced Methodist minister since the Mail on Sunday captured him on film buying hard drugs, including crack cocaine and crystal meth.
    Hospitality: Paul Flowers (centre) at Downing Street for the launch of a Co-op venture in 2010

    Hospitality: Paul Flowers (centre) at Downing Street for the launch of a Co-op venture in 2010

    Labour support: Ed Miliband at the same function with Co-op chairman Len Wardle (left)

    Labour support: Ed Miliband at the same function with Co-op chairman Len Wardle (left)

    But damaging details have emerged about the extraordinary position Flowers had held at the heart of Labour. At the Downing Street dinner in February 2010, he can be seen drinking wine and mingling with guests, who included a string of Labour ministers.

    Mr Miliband is pictured laughing and joking with Len Wardle, another senior Co-op figure who has quit as the group’s chairman because of ‘serious questions’ over his decision to appoint Flowers to the bank’s board.

    Mr Balls, one of 32 Labour MPs who receive financial sponsorship from the Co-op, was also pictured networking at the event, which was held to launch the ‘Friends of the Co-operative ideal’.
    BY NUMBERS.jpg

    A report of the event, in Co-operative News, reveals that Mr Miliband was ‘in demand’ from senior Co-op figures because he was in charge of Labour’s manifesto for the election that May.

    A few months later, Flowers, who describes Mr Balls as a ‘political friend’ was appointed to the Co-op’s ‘political strategy working group’.

    Along with Mr Wardle, he approved millions of pounds in donations to the Labour and Co-operative parties, including a £50,000 donation to Mr Balls.

    Despite the economic crisis – and the Co-op’s dire finances – the group has increased its political donations from £664,000 in 2008 to £880,000 last year.

    Flowers boasted to MPs earlier this month that he had helped oversee an increase in the maximum annual donations to £1.15million before stepping down.

    Following the Number 10 dinner, Mr Miliband appointed Flowers to his exclusive business advisory board.

    The Labour leader went on to hold dinners with Flowers and other business figures at Westminster restaurants in July and November of 2011.

    This March, he invited Flowers for private talks at his Commons office. The following month the Co-op Bank threw Labour a financial lifeline with a £1.2million loan.

    In a letter to the Labour leader, Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps demanded answers to nine critical questions, including what the Labour leadership knew about Flowers’ resignation from Bradford council and what personal dealings Mr Miliband had with him while the Co-op was doling out cash to Labour.

    Mr Shapps wrote: ‘The latest revelations about the conduct and behaviour of Paul Flowers have shocked and appalled the public.

    ’They have also raised serious questions about the Labour Party to which you have not yet adequately responded.’

    Tory MP Brooks Newmark, a member of the Commons Treasury committee, which is investigating the near-collapse of the Co-op during Flowers’ time as chairman, said there were also questions about whether Labour had been involved in his extraordinary rise.

    Mr Newmark said: ‘Labour need to come clean about exactly what place Paul Flowers held in the Labour hierarchy.

    ’We know that the Reverend Flowers’ judgment was deeply flawed, no doubt not helped by whatever drugs he was taking.

    ‘But the question does arise whether, in spraying shareholders’ money around to the Labour Party, including an extraordinary gift of £50,000 to Ed Balls, was he engaged in some sort of payback for being given this £132,000 bank job for which he was manifestly ill-suited?

    ’We know there is a special relationship between Labour and the Co-op – did the Reverend Flowers receive support from Labour in getting the job?’

    Flowers was a senior Labour councillor before rising to prominence in the Co-op movement.

    The inappropriate material that cost him his council seat was found when he gave his laptop to the Bradford authority’s IT department for a routine servicing.

    Shocked council officials confronted him with the images, and he resigned immediately. But in public, he pretended he was leaving for family reasons and because of his high-pressure role at the Co-op Bank.
    Pugh

    Yesterday, a spokesman for Bradford Council said: ‘Inappropriate but not illegal adult content was found on a council computer handed in by Councillor Flowers for servicing. This was put to him and he resigned immediately.’

    Bradford Council confirmed last night that it did not inform the Co-op of the reason for Mr Flowers’s resignation because, although he had breached the council’s rules, he had not broken the law.

    At the time, the then leader of the council, Councillor Ian Greenwood, paid tribute to his work and called him ‘a highly gifted individual who has made an enormous contribution as a member of the executive’.

    Mr Miliband and Mr Balls both deny having close links with Flowers.

    Labour refused to comment in detail on the fresh allegations yesterday.

    A spokesman said: ‘Ed Miliband and the Labour leadership have been as shocked as anyone at the recent revelations regarding Paul Flowers. That is why we have taken immediate action and suspended him from the Labour Party.’

    Mr Balls was under further pressure last night to hand back a £50,000 donation from the Co-op. Mr Newmark said: ‘Mr Balls should ask himself whether it is right to accept that money and consider giving it back.’

    A spokesman for Mr Balls insisted there was no reason to return the money as it had been properly donated by the Co-op Group.

    Former Co-op bank chief caught on camera in ’crystal meth deal’
    Co-op Group boss quits in growing row over ex-banking chief caught buying drugs

    The Co-op was plunged into fresh chaos yesterday as its chairman fell on his sword for appointing crack addict Reverend Paul Flowers to head the group’s bank.

    Len Wardle’s resignation came as anger is growing among ordinary investors whose retirement incomes are being raided to prop up the disaster-prone bank.

    He admitted ‘serious questions’ were raised by the drugs scandal over former banking chairman Paul Flowers.

    Mr Flowers, a former Labour councillor and Methodist minister who was chairman of the Co-operative Bank when it ran into trouble, faces an investigation by the police after being covertly filmed counting off £20 notes to buy hard drugs.

    He was covertly filmed buying crystal meth and crack cocaine.

    More...

    Co-op Group boss dramatically quits in growing row over ex-banking chief caught buying crystal meth and cocaine
    Let’s hear it for the Crystal Methodist: Why, by tonight, Flowers will be portrayed as a hapless ’victim’ of an evil newspaper

    Resigned: Co-operative Group chairman Len Wardle has quit his job with immediate effect
    Ursula Lidbetter replaces Mr Wardle in running the troubled Co-op Group

    Resigned: Co-operative Group chairman Len Wardle, left, has quit his job with immediate effect. Ursula Lidbetter, right, replaces Mr Wardle in running the troubled Co-op Group

    The Co-operative Group yesterday launched a fact-finding investigation into ’any inappropriate behaviour’ at the group or the Co-operative Bank and a ’root-and-branch review’ of the structure of the organisation.

    There is growing incredulity that a man with no banking experience and a penchant for crystal meth and cocaine had been made chairman of a bank.

    But today Mr Wardle announced he will quit the £145,000 position he has held since 2007.

    He was due to leave next May but he said it was now right for him to go straight away, having led the board that appointed Mr Flowers.

    Mr Wardle said: ‘The recent revelations about the behaviour of Paul Flowers, the former chair of the Co-operative Bank, have raised a number of serious questions for both the bank and the group.

    ‘The recent revelations about the behaviour of Paul Flowers, the former chair of the Co-operative Bank, have raised a number of serious questions for both the bank and the group. I led the board that appointed Paul Flowers to lead the bank board, and under those circumstances I feel that it is right that I step down now, ahead of my planned retirement in May next year’

    – Len Wardle

    ‘I led the board that appointed Paul Flowers to lead the bank board and under those circumstances I feel that it is right that I step down now, ahead of my planned retirement in May next year.

    ‘I have already made it clear that I believe the time is right for real change in our operations and our governance and the board recently started a detailed review of our democracy.

    ‘I hope that the group now takes the chance to put in place a new democratic structure so we can modernise in the interests of all our members.’

    Critics have questioned how he could have been appointed given his apparent lack of experience, and Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, said that, even before the weekend’s revelations, it was clear he was ‘manifestly unsuitable’.

    The Co-operative Bank is facing a rescue plan which will see majority control turned over to investors including US hedge funds, after it was left with a £1.5 billion gap in its finances following the takeover of the Britannia Building Society in 2009.

    Mr Wardle’s departure will see him replaced by his deputy, Ursula Lidbetter, chief executive of the Lincolnshire Co-operative.

    The Co-operative Group said: ‘It is intended that Ursula will chair the group through the current governance review, which will include consideration of how the board is constituted and chaired.’
    ED BALLS UNDER PRESSURE OVER £50,000 DONATION FROM CO-OP

    Shadow chancellor Ed Balls is under pressure over a £50,000 donation from the Co-op

    Ed Balls has come under pressure to return a £50,000 donation backed by the former Co-operative Bank chairman hit by claims of hard drug use.

    Labour’s leadership has attempted to distance itself from Paul Flowers, a former councillor, after it emerged he attended a private meeting with Ed Miliband and both men were also present at two dinners in Westminster.

    Sources insisted he was ’neither influential nor important’.

    Yesterday the 63-year-old was suspended from the party for bringing it into disrepute following footage that appears to show him buying drugs days after being grilled by the Treasury Select Committee over the bank’s disastrous performance.

    A Labour source: ’It’s true that there was a private meeting with Ed in March of this year. There were two informal dinners - three meetings that we can find records of in the space of three years.

    Earlier this month Mr Flowers told the Commons Treasury committee said: ’My recollection is that we paid for a particular researcher to assist the shadow chancellor in the work that he needed to do, and that we believed to be a legitimate and proper use of resources.’

    Tory MP Brooks Newmark told the Daily Telegraph: ’The Rev Flowers’ judgment was clearly impaired if he was prepared to give Ed Balls £50,000.

    ’Mr Balls should now ask himself whether it is right to accept that money, and consider giving it back.’

    MPs have castigated financial watchdogs for rubber-stamping the appointment of Rev Paul Flowers, which they denounced as a farcical ‘box-ticking exercise’.

    Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Commons Treasury Select Committee, said it was obvious when Flowers appeared before them earlier this month that he was ‘manifestly unsuitable’ to be a bank chairman.

    He called for the regulation of senior bankers to be tightened to include continuing and ‘intrusive’ supervision.

    ‘It’s been a complete disaster. Nothing less than saying that will do,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s World At One.

    He attacked the ‘approved persons regime’, whereby a City panel supposedly checked the competence of Rev Flowers, as ‘nothing more than a massive bureaucratic, back-covering, box-ticking exercise that satisfied regulators but did little or nothing to protect shareholders or customers of banks’.

    In fact Flowers was only checked by the regulator when he became a member of the Co-op board and was not re-interviewed at all when he was promoted to chairman in April 2010.

    Flowers quit his post in June this year as his ‘ethical’ bank was driven to the brink of collapse, threatening the retirement incomes of thousands of pensioners.

    Yesterday he was also suspended by the Labour Party amid embarrassment over a £50,000 donation to Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls.

    He faces a police inquiry into his use of hard drugs, and the Co-op announced a ‘root and branch review’ into ‘any inappropriate behaviour’ during the tenure of its former boss.

    Mr Wardle will be replaced by his deputy, Ursula Lidbetter, chief executive of the Lincolnshire Co-operative.

    She told BBC Radio 4’s The World At One: ’The stories (about Mr Flowers) are shocking but it’s not something that I can comment on today. There are investigations going on, it is in the hands of police.

    ’Len had already told the membership that he was going to stand down next May and in light of the review of governance, which Len started, he felt that making a fresh start with a new chairman would be the best way forward.

    ’We have to devise a governance for the Co-operative Group which is fit for the future, for the scale and complexity of the organisation. It’s an amalgamation of many, many organisations over its 150-year history, and we realise that it needs to change, it needs to be simpler, and that will mean changing many things.

    The one thing we do want to make sure is that members still have a voice at the heart of the Co-operative Group. There are seven million members and we think their voice should be heard loud and clear, but we are open-minded about how we achieve that.

    ’The review will look at absolutely everything - it will look at what went wrong, it will look at the opportunities and we will devise a governance structure that is fit for the future, involves our members and makes sure we are very efficient and highly effective in the future.’

  • Iran to leave talks if Congress OK’s sanctions: MP « Aletho News
    http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/iran-to-leave-talks-if-congress-oks-sanctions-mp

    Iran to leave talks if Congress OK’s sanctions: MP

    Press TV – November 18, 2013

    A Senior Iranian lawmaker says the Islamic Republic will leave the negotiating table if the US Congress approves additional sanctions against Tehran.

    “The US Congress has recently been seeking to approve a bill to increase sanctions against Iran. It has been decided that the negotiations be suspended if the bill gets through the US Congress,” said Mohammad Hassan Asafari who sits on the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Majlis.

    The Iranian lawmaker made the remarks after a meeting in which Iran’s nuclear negotiating team briefed the parliamentary committee on two rounds of nuclear talks with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – Britain, China, France, Russia and the US – plus Germany.

    The US Senate Banking Committee is mulling over whether to move ahead with a new anti-Iran sanctions bill it had delayed before the latest round of talks between Iran and the group of six world powers which was held in the Swiss city of Geneva on November 7-10.

    The new round of sanctions against Iran, which the Senate Banking Committee has been asked to “mark up,” were passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in July. The House bill seeks to cut Iran’s oil exports by one million barrels a day for the next year and includes threats of military force against Iran.

    The White House, however, is resisting growing pressure from Congress over Iran sanctions, trying to convince US lawmakers not to impose what they call further “punitive” measures.

    “Our hope is now that no new sanctions would be put in place for the simple reason that if they are, it could be viewed as bad faith by the people we’re negotiating with, [and] it could destroy the ability to be able to get agreement,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said before a closed-door briefing with the Senate Banking Committee on November 13.

    During Sunday’s meeting, Iran’s negotiating team also briefed the country’s lawmakers on the agenda of the forthcoming round of negotiations slated to be held on November 20 in Geneva.

    “The negotiating team and the members of the Majlis National Security [and Foreign Policy] Committee reiterated in the meeting that the suspension of enrichment as well as the closure of the Fordow facility and the Arak heavy water [reactor] or any other [nuclear] sites is not on our agenda,” Asafari noted.

    Meanwhile, Israel has been trying to force the US administration into imposing additional sanctions to stop an agreement between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.

    Israel’s Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett has recently met with a number of congressmen in Washington in order to persuade them to oppose a diplomatic deal with Iran.

  • State of Michigan Incredibly Claims It Has The Right To ’Regulate Sexual Relationships’ -
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/18/michigan-claims-right-regulate-sexual-relationships

    State of Michigan Incredibly Claims It Has The Right To ‘Regulate Sexual Relationships’
    Author: Randa Morris September 18, 2013 9:33 am
    What does the right to ’regulate sexual relationships’ even mean? Will the State of Michigan will start requiring permits for authorized activities?

    What does the right to ‘regulate sexual relationships’ even mean? Will the State of Michigan will start requiring permits for authorized activities?

    On September 9, 2013 Attorneys for the state of Michigan filed paperwork in District Court asserting the state’s right to “regulate sexual relationships.” The court filing is in response to a civil action filed earlier this by Plaintiff Deboer. Deboer filed a suit against the state’s unconstitutional same sex marriage ban, which denies same sex couples the right to marry or to adopt children. In the state’s response, filed on behalf of Governor Rick Snyder, the Michigan attorney general claims:

    “One of the paramount purposes of marriage in Michigan — and at least 37 other states that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman — is, and has always been, to regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society.”

    Far from being a casual statement made off the cuff, this is a statement that has been carefully crafted by the state’s attorneys, and undoubtedly reflects the position held by Snyder administration.

    The state not only claims the authority to regulate sexual relationships, but states that regulating sexual relationships is the paramount purpose of marriage in Michigan.

    Attorneys also make the claim that the state has the right to regulate procreation, and argument which has been tried and debunked at least a thousand times already. If procreation were the primary reason to allow or not allow marriage there would be a lot of people denied marriage certificates, not just gay and lesbian couples. Infertile couples, for instance, and couples who have passed the age of “procreation.”

    If the court were somehow to rule in favor of the state in this case, it is logical to assume that marriages between senior citizens or between couples that cannot conceive, could (hypothetically) be denied using the same ruling. Could the state also move ban sex for any reason other than procreation? A good many GOP and Tea Party reps across the country would certainly support such laws.

    This claim goes even further beyond the procreation argument though. The Snyder administrations asserts that the state has the right to regulate sex. How many citizens in the state of Michigan realized that the “paramount purpose of marriage in the state of Michigan” was for the state to regulate their sexual relationships?

    A ruling that upholds the state’s right to “regulate sexual relationships” could also (hypothetically) open the doors for any number of laws banning sexual activity, both inside and outside of marriage. Other states have attempted to outlaw anal sex and oral sex. What about sex outside of marriage? What about Adultery?

    Maybe they’ll outlaw everything except the missionary position.

    Or regulate the number of times a couple can have sex in a week or a month.

    Maybe they’ll start requiring temporary sex permits — for legal and state approved sexual activities only, of course.

    This is what a Tea Party controlled government looks like. A government that is preoccupied with regulating sexual relationships, while ignoring poverty, joblessness, crumbling schools, failing infrastructure. A government so big it can afford to watch your every activity in the bedroom but far too small to pass a single law to help it’s struggling people get out of bankruptcy.

  • Palestinian held without trial takes case to Israel’s supreme court | World news | theguardian.com
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/18/palestinian-held-without-trial-israeli-court

    Palestinian held without trial takes case to Israel’s supreme court
    Israel says Samir al-Baraq is an al-Qaida biological weapons expert who was planning attacks when he was arrested

    Share 21
    inShare0
    Email

    Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
    theguardian.com, Monday 18 November 2013 09.13 GMT

    Administrative detention
    A Palestinian protester during 2012 demonstrations near Ramallah against the practice of ’administrative detention’. Photograph: Abbas Momani/AFP/Getty Images

    Israel’s supreme court is set to rule on the continued detention of a Palestinian man accused of being an al-Qaida member who has been held in an Israeli jail without charge or trial for more than three years.

    Samir al-Baraq has demanded to be released from “administrative detention”, the system by which Israel keeps security suspects locked up without going through a normal judicial process. The Israeli authorities are seeking a further six-month extension to the detention order.

    Israel says Baraq, a Palestinian born in Kuwait, is a biological weapons expert who was planning attacks against Israeli targets when he was arrested in July 2010 while attempting to enter the country from Jordan.

    According to court documents, Baraq studied microbiology in Pakistan, underwent military training in Afghanistan and was recruited in 2001 to al-Qaida by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is the group’s leader today. In 2003, he spent three months in Guantánamo Bay, the US high-security jail in Cuba, and later spent five years in prison in Jordan.

    Previous petitions against his administrative detention orders have been unsuccessful. In July, when extending the order, a military tribunal said: “The respondent is a senior al-Qaida operative with personal and direct ties to current commanders of the organisation. There can be no disagreement about the danger posed by him, and that his release would ignite military activities of the Salafi Jihad against the state of Israel.”

    However, Baraq’s lawyer, Mahmid Saleh, told Army Radio: “If he is such a senior terrorist, then why hasn’t he been prosecuted? There is no evidence against him.”

    According to the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem, there were 135 Palestinian prisoners held on administrative detention orders in September 2013. There have been a series of hunger strikes by prisoners protesting over the orders.

  • Pa. pastor facing church trial over gay marriage
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/pa-pastor-facing-church-trial-over-gay-marriage-0

    Pa. pastor facing church trial over gay marriage
    By MICHAEL RUBINKAM
    — Nov. 18, 2013 12:40 AM EST
    You are here
    Home » AP Party » Pa. pastor facing church trial over gay marriage
    Related

    Churches changing bylaws after gay marriage ruling
    Queer marriage for the straight couple? I do!

    Share
    0
    inShare
    Tumblr

    A Pennsylvania pastor charged under United Methodist law with officiating his son’s same-sex marriage is scheduled to go on trial.

    The Rev. Frank Schaefer, 51, could be defrocked if a jury comprised of fellow Methodist clergy convicts him of breaking his pastoral vows by officiating the 2007 ceremony in Massachusetts. Schaefer’s supporters argue that church teaching on homosexuality is outmoded.

    “Public opinion has changed very rapidly,” said the pastor’s son, Tim Schaefer, 29. “I hope this leads to a renewed conversation to revisit these policies to see if they are a little archaic.”

    The nation’s largest mainline Protestant denomination accepts gay and lesbian members, but rejects the practice of homosexuality as “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Clergy who perform same-sex unions risk punishment ranging from a reprimand to suspension to losing their minister’s credentials.

    The issue has split the church. Hundreds of Methodist ministers have publicly rejected church doctrine on homosexuality, and some of them face discipline for presiding over same-gender unions.

    Critics say those pastors are sowing division within the church and ignoring the church’s democratic decision-making process. Indeed, the denomination’s top legislative body, the 1,000-member General Conference, reaffirmed the church’s 40-year-old policy on gays at its last worldwide meeting in 2012.

    The Methodists have set aside three days for Schaefer’s trial, to be held at a church retreat in Spring City, Pa., beginning on Monday.

    Tim Schaefer, of Hull, Mass., will testify on his father’s behalf.

    “(The defense wants) to highlight how hurtful the policy of the church is toward the LGBT community,” he said.

    Tim Schaefer struggled as a teenager, aware of Methodist doctrine on homosexuality. He said he prayed every night that “God would make me normal, take this away from me.” He contemplated suicide but knew it would devastate his family. Schaefer finally told his parents at age 17, and he said they accepted him completely.

    Years later, Schaefer knew he wanted his dad to perform his wedding ceremony.

    “I remember thinking I have two choices: I can ask my dad and know I am putting him in a position ... where he would risk his career, or I could not ask my dad and really risk hurting his feelings. I think he would have been devastated if I hadn’t asked him,” he said.

    Frank Schaefer has said he informed his superiors in the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference that he planned to officiate his son’s wedding, and again after the ceremony, which took place at a restaurant near Boston. He said he faced no discipline until April — about a month before the church’s six-year statute of limitations was set to expire — when one of his congregants filed a complaint.

    Schaefer could have avoided a trial if he had agreed to never again perform a same-gender wedding, but he declined because three of his four children are gay.

    A Methodist trial resembles a secular trial in many ways, with counsel representing each side, a judge and jury, opening statements and closing arguments, and testimony and evidence.

    The 13-member jury, called a “trial court,” will be selected from a pool of 35. It takes at least nine votes to convict. If Schaefer is convicted, the trial moves to a penalty phase, with the same jury settling on a punishment. At least seven members of the jury must agree on the penalty.

    Schaefer can appeal a conviction, but neither the church nor the person who brought the charge may appeal an acquittal.

  • Congregation unite in protest at suspension of parish priest | Herald Scotland
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/congregation-unite-in-protest-at-suspension-of-parish-priest.2271024

    Congregation unite in protest at suspension of parish priest
    Monday 18 November 2013

    The furious congregation of a church has walked out in protest after the suspension of their parish priest.
    FAITH: Father Matthew Despard has the backing of his parishioners.
    FAITH: Father Matthew Despard has the backing of his parishioners.

    Only a handful of parishioners remained yesterday to take mass at St John Ogilvie’s Church in High Blantyre with Archdiocese of Motherwell acting Bishop Joseph Toal after Father Matthew Despard was removed from his ministry the night before.

    Before they went into church, people signed a petition calling for the reinstatement of Father Despard, suspended for writing a controversial memoir that claimed there is a culture of homosexual bullying in the Catholic Church.

    When Bishop Toal, accompanied by Father William Nolan, tried to take mass, Geraldine Penches said she wanted to make a statement, and received a roar of applause from the congregation in a packed church.

    Her short statement referred to Father Despard as “a very honest man” and said: "This is more scandal to rock the Catholic Church which has to be hushed up.

    “Because Father tells the truth he is removed from his priestly duties. We the people are the church, not the bishops. When people said on Saturday night they wouldn’t return, the Bishop said we’ll close the church. I don’t think Pope Francis would be very pleased with that.”

    After her remarks, the Bishop tried to continue with mass. The atmosphere was charged and some women were in tears. Most of the congregation walked out, with many queuing to sign the petition.

    “I felt so strongly about this and what they’re doing to Father Despard that I had to make a statement in the church,” Ms Penches said. I won’t be back for mass if Father Despard isn’t here. The Bishop should be removed from the church, not Father Despard. I want to send an email to the highest office in the church. The church has caused more hurt than Father Despard’s book ever did."

    Angry scenes broke out among the congregation on Saturday when Bishop Toal informed them “a penal judicial process” had been instituted against Father Despard as a result of his book Crisis in the Priesthood.

    In April Jospeh Devine, the previous Bishop of Motherwell, said no action would be taken against Father Despard. The move by Bishop Jospeh Toal is being taken under canon law.

    A member of the church for 13 years, Josephine Greenhorn said she had spoken to the Bishop before the service yesterday and implored him to rethink. "I also asked why, if Bishop Devine said there would be no sanctions against Matthew Despard, had he decided to act now?

    “He said it was his decision. I said, are you saying Bishop Devine was wrong? And he said no but I’m making the decision now and this has to happen.”

    She said the congregation had no option but to walk out and thought it was wrong for the Bishop to try to silence them by attempting to continue with the mass.

    “I found that shocking, he was taking that disorder into the mass. What happened on Saturday was an affront to the mass and to the eucharist. The publicity surrounding this is going to hurt us all over again. Have an investigation, but don’t destroy a man.”

    She urged the Bishop to agree to meet a group from the parish to discuss the deadlock. Parishioner Patrick Stirling said: “This is not about what Father Despard is or is not guilty of - it’s the way the church went about it.”

    Hugh Neilson, a lawyer representing Father Despard, said people are shocked and angered at the treatment of Father Despard.

    “He is aware the world church is listening to the people under the guidance of Pope Francis and his hope is the hierarchy of the church in Scotland will start listening to the people and engaging with him, even if he has things to say some in the church don’t want to hear,” he said. “He is praying for the people of his congregation and others affected. He will be seeking to have Bishop Toal reconsider this unnecessary decision.”

    Father Nolan of Our Lady of Lourdes in East Kilbride has been appointed parish administrator at St John Ogilvie’s.

    A spokesman for Bishop Toal said: “Since there is a canonical case in progress at the present time, Bishop Toal felt it was appropriate to remove Fr Matthew Despard from Parish Ministry, until the judicial process has run its course. This action does not prejudge the case in any way.”

  • Qatar’s construction labourers face abuse: Amnesty International | GulfNews.com
    http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/qatar-s-construction-labourers-face-abuse-amnesty-international-1.1255916

    Qatar’s construction labourers face abuse: Amnesty International

    Report urges government to act and end these practices

    By Jumana Al Tamimi, Associate Editor
    Published: 01:01 November 18, 2013
    Gulf News

    Be the first to comment
    Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 15

    Image Credit: AFP
    Migrant labourers at a construction site in Doha. The world’s spotlight will continue to shine on Qatar’s commitment to human rights in the run-up to the 2022 World Cup. Picture used for illustrative purposes.

    Dubai: Migrant construction workers are facing widespread abuse at the hands of their employers in Qatar’s construction sector, a report by Amnesty International concluded recently.

    The human rights watchdog has urged the government to end these practices by taking a series of actions.

    The report titled “The Dark Side of Migration: Spotlight on Qatar’s construction sector ahead of the World Cup,” released during a press conference in Doha last Sunday in the presence of senior officials from the watchdog, reveals widespread and routine abuse of migrant workers — in some cases amounting to “forced labour”.

    “It is simply inexcusable in one of the richest countries in the world, that so many migrant workers are being ruthlessly exploited, deprived of their pay and left struggling to survive,” Salil Shetty, Secretary-General of Amnesty International, said in a press statement, a copy of which was received by Gulf News.

    The 169-page report was based on interviews with workers, employers and government officials. The documented abuses include “non-payment of wages, harsh and dangerous working conditions, and shocking standards of accommodation”.

    Among the interviewed workers were Nepalese employed by a company that delivers “critical” supplies to a project associated with the planned Fifa headquarters for the 2022 World Cup spoke of labour abuses.
    Related Links

    Ambassador who called Qatar ‘open jail’ recalled
    Qatar ‘to act on World Cup labour violations’
    Qatar forum stresses foreign workers’ rights
    Rights watchdog flags workers’ issues in Qatar

    They said they were “treated like cattle”. Employees were working up to 12 hours a day and seven days a week, including during Qatar’s very hot summer months.

    Amnesty also interviewed “dozens of construction workers who were prevented from leaving the country for many months — leaving them trapped in Qatar with no way out”.

    “Construction companies and the Qatari authorities alike are failing migrant workers. Employers have displayed an appalling disregard for the basic human rights of migrant workers. Many are taking advantage of a permissive environment and lax enforcement of labour protections to exploit construction workers,” said Shetty.

    As Fifa World Cup 2022 stadia are being constructed, “the world’s spotlight will continue to shine on Qatar in the run-up to the 2022 World Cup offering the government a unique chance to demonstrate on a global stage that they are serious about their commitment to human rights and can act as a role model to the rest of the region,” added the head of Amnesty.

    The workers, many of whom come from South or Southeast Asia, are recruited at a “remarkable rate” to support the construction boom, and Qatar’s population is increasing at 20 people an hour, the official said. But many migrants “arrive in Qatar full of hopes, only to have these crushed soon after they arrive. There’s no time to delay — the government must act now to end this abuse”.

    The watchdog urges the government to enforce labour protections — which many employers flout routinely. It also called for an overhaul of the ‘sponsorship’ system, which leaves migrant workers unable to leave the country or change jobs without their employers’ permission.

    “Please tell me - is there any way to get out of here? ... We are going totally mad,” one Nepalese construction worker, unpaid for seven months and prevented from leaving Qatar for three months, told Amnesty officials.

    Amnesty contacted several major companies with regard to cases it had documented. It said “many expressed serious concerns about Amnesty International’s findings and some said that they had carried out investigations. One company said it had upgraded its inspection regime as a result”.

  • Same-sex marriage set to be legalised in Scotland as majority of MSPs say they will back Bill despite massive public opposition | Mail Online
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508611/Same-sex-marriage-set-legalised-Scotland-majority-MSPs-say-Bill-despite

    Same-sex marriage set to be legalised in Scotland as majority of MSPs say they will back Bill despite massive public opposition

    86 out of 127 politicians in Holyrood say they will vote to pass legislation
    Ten said they remained undecided and 20 refused to reveal their opinion
    Consultation revealed two-thirds of respondents were against plans

    By Michael Blackley and Stephen Johns

    PUBLISHED: 00:45 GMT, 17 November 2013 | UPDATED: 00:45 GMT, 17 November 2013

    25 shares

    1

    View
    comments

    Scotland is to join the rest of the UK by agreeing to legalise gay marriage later this week.

    The Scottish Parliament’s 128 MSPs will disregard massive opposition to the radical plan by voting on Wednesday to allow same-sex couples to marry.

    The issue has already humiliated David Cameron, with 133 of his Tory MPs trying voting against the proposals in the House of Commons earlier this year.
    Controversial: Politicians in Scotland are disregarding public opposition by backing same-sex marriage

    Controversial: Politicians in Scotland are disregarding public opposition by backing same-sex marriage

    Now Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond – a passionate champion of same-sex marriage - will also face a rebellion on the issue, with one of his Ministers revealing he will vote against the plans, as well as a clutch of SNP backbenchers.

    But a survey of all MSPs by the Mail on Sunday has revealed that an overwhelming majority of MSPs will back the proposals when they vote on the issue for the first time on Wednesday evening.

    More...

    Eating horsemeat? Leave that to the French, says PM as he dismisses suggestion by Princess Anne
    David Cameron is told he is a god: PM mobbed by 200 Tamil protesters as he travels to meet victims of Sri Lanka’s civil war

    Although the Bill will then be subject to additional revision by a parliamentary committee before a final vote at some point next year, securing approval ‘in principle’ is likely to end any doubts about the legislation being passed.

    Opponents of the legislation will then start to focus on campaigning for appropriate safeguards to be put in place to protect the rights of people who refuse to promote same-sex marriage and ensure that no individual celebrant is forced to hold gay ceremonies against their will.

    Our survey reveals that 86 MSPs have confirmed they will vote for same-sex marriage, while 11 plan to vote against.

    However, the rebellion against the move could grow in the coming days, as ten MSPs say they remain undecided and a further 20 have refused to reveal how they will vote on the issue.
    Leader: First Minister Alex Salmond is one of the MSPs said to be voting in favour of gay marriage

    Leader: First Minister Alex Salmond is one of the MSPs said to be voting in favour of gay marriage

    The decision to press ahead with the move comes despite the Scottish Government’s biggest ever public consultation revealing that more than two-thirds of respondents opposed the plan.

    The issue has led to considerable tension within the SNP. Four Nationalist MSPs say they will definitely vote against the move – including Alasdair Allan, the Minister for Learning, Sciences and Scotland’s Languages, as well as backbenchers Richard Lyle, John Mason and Dave Thompson.

    Mr Allan, who represents the Western Isles and is a former senior media relations officer at the Church of Scotland, said hundreds of his constituents have been in touch to urge him to back the ‘traditional definition of marriage’.

    He said: ‘In responding to people, I have pointed out that I am supportive of the existing rights of same-sex couples to civil partnerships, and that I welcome the belated respect which society rightly gives gay people, but that I believe difficult issues are raised around the specific question of marriage. This view has also been informed by the strength of feeling which exists among many people in the islands.

    ‘Among all these different views, the view which so many of my constituents have expressed to me has a right to be recorded, and for that reason it is my intention to vote against the Bill.’

    The Scottish Mail on Sunday survey is the most detailed research ever carried out into the views of Scotland’s MSPs on same-sex marriage.

    As all MSPs will be allowed to vote on the issue as a ‘matter of conscience’ – without being told how to vote by party whips – the result is less predictable than on most issues in the Scottish parliament, where the SNP has a majority and is normally able to confidently press through its opposition.
    Split: The Scottish Conservatives were the only party to have more MSPs opposed to the legislation, which is embarrassing to Ruth Davidson, the party’s openly gay leader who has been a prominent supporter

    Split: The Scottish Conservatives were the only party to have more MSPs opposed to the legislation, which is embarrassing to Ruth Davidson, the party’s openly gay leader who has been a prominent supporter

    The Scottish Conservatives were the only party to have more MSPs opposed to the legislation than supportive of it – with six saying they will vote against the Bill and just four saying they will vote for it.

    That is embarrassing for Ruth Davidson, the party’s leader, who has been one of the most prominent supporters of the legislation at Holyrood.

    The Scottish Government is committed to a Scotland that is fair and equal and that is why we believe that same sex couples who wish should be allowed to marry as soon as possible

    Scottish Government Spokesman

    But Miss Davidson said: ‘I believe the forthcoming bill on same sex marriage is an issue of conscience, which is why I have given Conservative MSPs a free vote on the issue.

    ‘I support same sex marriage and will be voting to pass this bill.’

    The four SNP members who have said they will vote against the plans are expected to be joined by more rebels on Wednesday, with four nationalist MSPs saying they remain undecided and a further ten saying they won’t reveal their view before voting later this week.

    Former SNP leader Gordon Wilson believes that pressing ahead with the legislation will cost the party votes in future elections – and urged MSPs to ensure they get proper protection for religious groups who don’t want to hold same-sex marriages. He said: ‘Bland assurances will not necessarily deal with the realities of supervision of the legislation by the courts.

    ‘There’s a majority for it but once you get the principle what then happens is it’s about “on what terms”? Like any insurance policy, it’s about the small print – look at what the small print says. That’s my advice to MSPs – even if you’re in favour, look at the small print and what might happen because the courts are outwith your control.’

    Following Wednesday’s vote, the Bill will then return to Holyrood’s equal opportunities committee, which will consider any amendments which need to be made.

    It remains on track to be passed in time to allow the first gay weddings to take place in 2015.

    Opponents of same-sex marriage want more to be done to ensure that those who continue to believe in traditional marriage do not suffer discrimination in their career or have freedom of speech restricted.

    They fear that some professionals, such as teachers, could be sacked if they fail to promote gay marriage.
    Freedom: MSPs will be allowed to vote as a ’matter of conscience’ when they cast their ballots at Holyrood

    Freedom: MSPs will be allowed to vote as a ’matter of conscience’ when they cast their ballots at Holyrood

    A spokesman for the Scotland For Marriage pressure group, which includes representatives of the Catholic Church in Scotland and The Christian Institute, said: ‘The Scottish Government’s promise of sufficient safeguards have been shown to be hollow. Real safeguards set out in amendments to the legislation are required to protect the rights and civil liberties of the majority of Scots who don’t support this law.’

    Among those set to vote against the Bill is Tory MSP Alex Johnstone, a member of the Scottish parliament’s equal opportunities committee. He said: ‘There’s been a substantial trend in recent years away from supporting traditional marriage as a basis for the raising of children and providing the cornerstone for society as a whole.

    ‘At a time when we should have been looking for ways to underpin and reinforce marriage on that basis we seem to be obsessed with pursuing what I believe is an unjustified desire to provide same-sex marriage, so I think it is a step in the wrong direction as far as the support of marriage in society is concerned.’

    However, Scottish Tory deputy leader Jackson Carlaw said he would support the Bill – while ensuring that any amendments can provide full protection to religions, faiths and congregations which don’t want to take part.

    Colin Beattie, Nationalist MSP for Midlothian North and Musselburgh, said: ‘I don’t think the case for making it different for gay people holds much water: everyone should be equal.

    ‘I’m concerned about the people who are against but if you are a parliamentarian you have to deal with hard facts and logic on whether something should become law and it is hard to take into account religious views on that basis.’

    A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘The Scottish Government is committed to a Scotland that is fair and equal and that is why we believe that same sex couples who wish should be allowed to marry as soon as possible.’

  • The Top 10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage: All Receive Failing Grades! | MasterAdrian’s Weblog
    http://masteradrian.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/the-top-10-arguments-against-gay-marriage-all-receive-failin

    The Top 10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage: All Receive Failing Grades!
    Posted on November 16, 2013
    The Top 10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage: All Receive Failing Grades!
    Posted: 05/28/2013 1:38 PM 2013-05-25-marriagehearts200.jpgBoth in the U.S.A. And internationally the marriage equality movement is gaining momentum. Accordingly, more and more people are starting to acknowledge the flawed nature of all arguments which oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. This article discusses 10 of the most common positions presented by opponents of marriage equality and outlines why each deserves a failing grade.

    1. Nature: “It’s Not Natural” (FAIL)

    The most basic argument presented by gay marriage opponents purports that marriage between two people of the same sex is “not natural” and is in violation of the “natural order.” At this level of the debate there is very little exploration of the inherent validity (or otherwise) of same-sex marriage but rather a fixation on the notion that homosexuality is unnatural: “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” the opponents quip. In reality, marriage is a societal institution. The natural world didn’t create marriage, humans did. Nature-themed arguments against gay marriage say little about the societal institution of marriage but reveal a lot about the homophobia and heterosexism of those who present such arguments. In this regard, the disapproval isn’t about gay marriage per se — it’s more about discomfort with homosexuality, period.

    2. Procreation: “Marriage is for Procreation” (FAIL)

    With the procreation argument, opponents of equality argue that the institution of marriage is essentially in place to assist with procreation and the raising of children. They reason that because two people of the same sex cannot procreate that they should not be allowed to marry. While the production of children may indeed be a feature of many heterosexual marriages the capacity to procreate does not determine the legal validity of such marriages. There are many married straight couples who cannot biologically have children or who choose not to. The procreation argument ignores the fact that people marry for a wide range of reasons unrelated to procreation including love, friendship and companionship.

    3. Religion: “It’s Against My Religion” (FAIL)

    Christianity-based arguments lead the way in efforts to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage in America. References to the Bible, the “sinful” nature of homosexuality, and “religious beliefs” are regularly made by those who seek to rationalize their support of discrimination via religion. Marriage is a religious institution, they argue, and not one for society to tamper with. Given that the U.S.A. Is a secular nation, religion should play no role in any discussion about civil and societal laws. In order to legally marry there is absolutely no requirement for a religious ceremony to be held. In this sense, marriage is not a religious institution but a socio-legal one governed by the state. Religious beliefs about marriage should never be enshrined in laws in ways that restrict the freedom of others who do not share those beliefs.

    4. Redefinition: “You’re Trying to Redefine the Institution” (FAIL)

    Opponents argue that marriage has always been between a man and a woman and that it should stay that way. They say that efforts to legalize same-sex marriage will fundamentally alter the institution for the worse. History reveals, however, that marriage laws in the U.S.A. And in countries across the globe have been modified repeatedly in response to evolving cultural norms. There was a time when women were the legal property of their husbands. There was a time when a man and a woman of different races couldn’t marry each other. There was even a time when not one country in the world had legalized same-sex marriage! Removing discrimination from the institution of marriage does not redefine “marriage” — it simply makes the institution more accessible and reflects the evolution of society.

    5. Sanctity: “It’s a Threat to the Sanctity of (Opposite-Sex) Marriage” (FAIL)

    With roots in religion, the sanctity argument posits that marriage is a “sacred” institution that only heterosexual couples should have access to. Allowing same-sex couples to marry apparently poses a “threat” to “traditional marriage” as though somehow heterosexual married couples will all be at risk of divorcing when two people of the same sex marry each other. If those who use the “sanctity” argument were genuinely concerned about the institution of marriage they’d focus their efforts on helping those straight married couples who are at risk of divorcing. If marriage was so “sacred” they’d also be pursuing the outlawing of heterosexual divorce. They do neither of these things. The only married straight couples impacted by the legalization of gay marriage are those in which one of the parties is a closet-case gay person who dreams of coming out and marrying someone of the same sex!

    6. Children: “It Will Harm the Children” (FAIL)

    Opponents of equality frequently make use of flawed research studies to insinuate that allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow harm children. They argue that children need a “mom and a dad” in order to flourish in life and that legalizing same-sex marriage denies children this opportunity of “normalcy.” Multiple studies across the social sciences have repeatedly demonstrated that there is no difference in psychosocial outcomes between children raised by opposite-sex couples and those raised by same-sex couples. There is no evidence that children are psychologically harmed by having two dads or two moms. The American Psychological Association (APA), the American Sociological Association (ASA), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has each endorsed the legalization of same-sex marriage and its capacity to provide a stable familial framework for children.

    7. Reverse Discrimination: “Religious People Will Be Discriminated Against” (FAIL)

    Some opponents of marriage equality describe a future in which religious people become the new “victims” of oppression. They talk of charity-based religious organizations being “forced out of business” for “sticking to their beliefs” about marriage. In this reverse scenario, gay people are apparently “hateful” for wanting to be treated equally in society. How dare we demand equal rights and criticize those who discriminate against us! In no state of the U.S.A. in which gay marriage is legal is a church legally required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Religious groups and churches are still free to pick and choose who they will and won’t marry. Organizations that receive public money, however, and which must adhere to anti-discrimination laws, should rightly be challenged if they engage in discrimination against a protected class of people.

    8. Slippery Slope: “It Will Lead to Marriage Involving Animals, Siblings, Children, or Groups of People!” (FAIL)

    Slippery slopes arguments suggest that legalizing gay marriage will serve as a “gateway” for the legalization of marriage involving animals, siblings, children, or groups of people. People who present these scenarios portray a catastrophic future with society crumbling under the weight of rampant immorality and social discord. Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, however, simply aim to provide same-sex couples with equal access to marriage laws — there is no intention to change the fundamental definition of marriage as the legal union between two adult human beings who have no direct biological connection with each other. Facts are useful in this regard: of the fifteen countries and 12 U.S. states that have legalized same-sex marriage, none of them has subsequently legalized marriage involving animals, children, siblings, or groups of people.

    9. Civil Unions: “Civil Unions Are Good Enough” (FAIL)

    Some opponents of same-sex marriage support the creation of a “separate but equal” platform in which straight couples and gay couples receive the same relationship rights and benefits, but from within different institutional frameworks. They argue that “marriage” should be left exclusively for opposite-sex couples and that same-sex couples should be granted “civil unions.” History has demonstrated that this “separate but equal” approach doesn’t work. Various countries and American states which initially permitted “civil unions” for same-sex couples have subsequently enacted marriage equality legislation. These jurisdictions have pursued such changes because civil union legislation, no matter how valiant the effort, is not able to provide the same rights and benefits as legal marriage. In essence, having a two-class system continues to maintain the erroneous notion that one group (straight people) is more superior to another group (LGBT people).

    10. States’ Rights: “States Have the Right to Oppose It” (FAIL)

    This position stresses that states have a constitutional right to make their own decisions about the legalization of same-sex marriage which may include banning it. Ironically, most advocates of this argument also support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law which allows the federal government to deny more than one thousand federal rights and benefits to same-sex couples legally married at the state level. The maintenance of a system which allows some states to recognize same-sex marriage and others not to, and which allows the federal government to ignore legal same-sex marriages performed at the state level, sets up a cumbersome and extremely complicated national map of unequal rights and legal nightmares. Those who support a “states’ rights” approach to same-sex marriage should at least be consistent and drop their support of a federal government act (DOMA) which essentially tramples states’ rights.

    Conclusion: Marriage Equality is the Future — Embrace it!

    2013-05-25-wethepeople200.jpgThere is no logical or reasonable basis for denying same-sex couples access to secular marriage laws. Opposing the inevitable (marriage equality) is a waste of time, money and energy. I urge all of those who oppose gay marriage to start focusing on their own lives, to accept that they don’t need to marry a person of the same sex, and to recognize the right of all Americans to be treated equally under the law: “liberty and justice for all” should not come with a disclaimer.

  • BBC News - Top EU court ruling backs gay African asylum bids
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24848887

    Top EU court ruling backs gay African asylum bids
    African gay rights campaigner in US, 8 Jun 13 Even when living abroad some gay Africans fear being named and targeted back home
    Continue reading the main story
    Related Stories

    Gay rights: Africa, the new frontier
    Inside Nigeria’s secret gay club
    Obama in Africa gay rights appeal

    The EU’s top court has ruled that homosexuals from Sierra Leone, Uganda and Senegal who fear imprisonment in their home country have grounds for asylum in EU member states.

    The Netherlands had asked the court for advice about three gay citizens of those countries seeking asylum.

    The European Court of Justice (ECJ) says asylum can be granted in cases where people are actually jailed for homosexuality in their home country.

    ECJ rulings apply to all EU members.

    Homosexual acts are illegal in most African countries, including key Western allies such as Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya and Botswana.

    In June a report by Amnesty International said homophobic attacks had reached dangerous levels in sub-Saharan Africa and must stop.

    The ECJ judgment on Thursday was a response to the Dutch Council of State, a top advisory body, which had asked whether homosexuals could be considered a “particular social group” and whether criminalisation and possible imprisonment amounted to persecution.

    The ECJ, based in Luxembourg, says laws specifically targeting homosexuals do make them a separate group.

    But it is up to the national authorities - in this case the Netherlands - to determine “whether, in the applicant’s country of origin, the term of imprisonment... is applied in practice”.

    The mere existence of a ban on homosexuality is not grounds in itself for approving an asylum request, the ECJ ruled.

    Under international law a particular social group with a well-founded fear of persecution can claim refugee status if the persecution amounts to a severe violation of human rights.

  • RDFRS: First interactive map of galaxy’s habitable planets
    http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/10/21/first-interactive-map-of-galaxy-s-habitable-planets#

    First interactive map of galaxy’s habitable planets

    by Adam Becker and Peter Aldhous posted on October 21, 2013 12:34AM GMT

    You might have wondered, looking up at the night sky, how many other beings are out there looking back at us. Help is at hand. Using data from NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope, New Scientist has made an interactive map illustrating the stars that we might expect to host roughly Earth-sized, potentially habitable planets.
    Large_dn24269-2_300 Kepler’s patch

    The grid of squares to the right represents the patch of sky that Kepler stared at for nearly four years. So far, the space telescope – nicknamed the Planet Hunter – has confirmed the existence of 151 exoplanets and identified more than 3500 strong candidates.

    Now, using what we know from Kepler, and simulations from its data by Courtney Dressing and David Charbonneau of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, New Scientist has estimated and mapped the density of habitable worlds across the whole sky. Given that the Milky Way is thought to contain between 100 and 200 billion stars, our best estimate of the total number of such planets in our galaxy is 15 to 30 billion.
    continue to source article at newscientist.com

  • freedetainees.org – Can Guantanamo detainees challenge confinement conditions ?
    http://www.freedetainees.org/2013/10/19/can-guantanamo-detainees-challenge-confinement-conditions

    Can Guantanamo detainees challenge confinement conditions?
    October 19, 2013 - By: LGHR - Forced Feedings, Hunger Strike - No Comment // 98 Views

    WASHINGTON — Force-feeding of Guantanamo Bay detainees confronted federal judges Friday with complicated questions including how far judicial review can stretch for hunger strikers.

    In a case closely watched by inmate advocates nationwide, a three-judge appellate panel pushed back against an Obama administration claim that courts are powerless to review the complaints of Guantanamo detainees who refuse to eat as a form of protest. But the judges also puzzled over whether they have the legal authority to consider such cases.“This is a unique situation,” Judge Thomas Griffith said, adding that “Guantanamo is a different sort of prison.”

    The 45-minute oral argument Friday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit marked the latest, and potentially most significant, in a series of legal challenges to force-feeding. Prison authorities in California and other states, as well as the federal authorities at Guantanamo, support the tactic when faced with inmates on extended hunger strikes.

    In August, a San Francisco-based federal judge approved plans to force-feed California inmates, if necessary, who were taking part in a long hunger strike to protest solitary confinement conditions. The appellate judges on Friday cited the California developments several times, though the Guantanamo circumstances aren’t strictly comparable.

    Guantanamo “is a facility in which even more deference should be accorded (the government), given the nature of the detainees,” Justice Department attorney Daniel J. Lenerz told the court Friday.

    Guantanamo is also a facility that Congress has tried, in several ways, to put beyond the traditional reach of U.S. courts. During Friday’s oral arguments, held before a standing-room-only audience, judges seemed at least a little uncomfortable with that legal isolation.

    “Does the government always prevail . . . by saying, ‘It’s obvious to us that hunger strikes have a corrosive effect on inmate morale?’” a skeptical-sounding Griffith asked, further questioning whether the government’s assertion is really “the end of the inquiry.”

    In a prior case, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees enjoy the constitutionally protected right to file a habeas corpus petition challenging their detention. On Friday, Judge David Tatel noted that the high court left open the scope of that right. In particular, the question is whether it entails an ability to challenge the conditions of confinement.

    “Isn’t the core question whether the condition that’s being complained of is unconstitutional?” Tatel added.

    The court spent almost no time Friday discussing an auxiliary argument that the force-feeding – blandly called “enteral feeding” by Lenerz – violated the detainees’ religious rights. Judges also avoided the details of the painful feeding process, as they focused on the technical but essential gateway question of whether the case can be heard.

    The Military Commissions Act of 2006 says “no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction” to consider legal actions concerning the treatment or “conditions of confinement” of those who “have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.” Two federal judges in July said the law prevented them from issuing preliminary injunctions to stop the Guantanamo force-feeding.

    At the same time, one of the judges – U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler – used her July 8 decision to denounce the practice she said she was powerless to stop.

    “It is perfectly clear . . . that force-feeding is a painful, humiliating and degrading process,” Kessler wrote, adding that the detainees “set out in great details in (their) papers what appears to be a consensus that force-feeding of prisoners violates Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits torture or cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.”

    Guantanamo detainees began a broad-based hunger strike in about March, protesting conditions that included intrusive searches and indefinite detention. At the hunger strike’s peak earlier this year, U.S. military authorities declared that 106 of Guantanamo’s detainees were participating, with 46 designated for force-feeding. There are currently 164 detainees, and the number of those on a hunger strike has sharply fallen.

    During force-feeding, the detainee is restrained while a two-foot long feeding tube is passed via the nasal passage into the stomach. The tube is secured to the nose with tape, and liquid nutrients are pumped in over a period of about 20 to 30 minutes.

    The specific challenge considered Thursday is being pressed by three detainees, each of whom has been cleared for release but nonetheless remain confined.

    “Force-feeding is unethical, it’s inhumane (and) it’s a violation of international law,” Oakland, Calif.-based attorney Jon B. Eisenberg, representing the detainees, told the court. He added that “these are unlawful conditions of confinement, these are unlawful restraints . . . (but) the threshold question is, does this court have jurisdiction?”

    Source

  • NSA leaks: Years of spying on Mexico govt gave US investment benefits « Aletho News
    http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/nsa-leaks-years-of-spying-on-mexico-govt-gave-us-investment-benefits/#comment-50798

    NSA leaks: Years of spying on Mexico govt gave US investment benefits

    RT | October 20, 2013

    US electronic surveillance in Mexico reportedly targeted top officials, including both current and previous presidents. Intelligence produced by the NSA helped Americans get an upper hand in diplomatic talks and find good investment opportunities.

    The US National Security Agency was apparently very happy with its successes in America’s southern neighbor, according to classified documents leaked by Edwards Snowden and analyzed by the German magazine, Der Spiegel. It reports on new details of the spying on the Mexican government, which dates back at least several years.

    The fact that Mexican President Peña Nieto is of interest to the NSA was revealed earlier by Brazilian TV Globo, which also had access to the documents provided by Snowden. Spiegel says his predecessor Felipe Calderon was a target too, and the Americans hacked into his public email back in May 2010.

    The access to Calderon electronic exchanges gave the US spies “diplomatic, economic and leadership communications which continue to provide insight into Mexico’s political system and internal stability,” the magazine cites an NSA top secret internal report as saying. The operation to hack into the presidential email account was dubbed “Flatliquid” by the American e-spooks.

    The bitter irony of the situation is that Calderon during his term in office worked more closely with Washington than any other Mexican president before him. In 2007 he even authorized the creation of a secret facility for electronic surveillance, according to a July publication in the Mexican newspaper, Excelsior.

    The surveillance on President Nieto started when he was campaigning for office in the early summer of 2012, the report goes on. The NSA targeted his phone and the phones of nine of his close associates to build a map of their regular contacts. From then it closely monitored those individuals’ phones as well, intercepting 85,489 text messages, including those sent by Nieto.

    After the Globo TV report, which mentioned spying on Mexico only in passing, Nieto stated that US President Barack Obama had promised him that he would investigate the accusations and punish those responsible of any misconduct. The reaction was far milder than that from Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff, another target of NSA’s intensive interest, who has since canceled a planned trip to the US and delivered a withering speech at the UN General Assembly, which condemned American electronic surveillance.

    Another NSA operation in Mexico dubbed “Whitetamale” allowed the agency to gain access to emails of high-ranking officials in country’s Public Security Secretariat, a law enforcement body that combats drug cartels and human trafficking rings. The hacking, which happened in August 2009, gave the US information about Mexican crime fighting, but also provided access to “diplomatic talking-points,” an internal NSA document says.

    In a single year, this operation produced 260 classified reports that facilitated talks on political issues and helped the Americans plan international investments.

    “These TAO [Tailored Access Operations – an NSA division that handles missions like hacking presidential emails] accesses into several Mexican government agencies are just the beginning – we intend to go much further against this important target,” the document reads. It praises the operation as a “tremendous success” and states that the divisions responsible for this surveillance are “poised for future successes.”

    Economic espionage is a motive for NSA spying, which the agency vocally denied, but which appears in the previous leaks. The agency had spied on the Brazilian oil giant, Petrobras, according to earlier revelations. This combined with reports that the NSA hacked into the email of Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff, triggered a serious deterioration of relations between the two countries.

    While the NSA declined comment to the German magazine, the Mexican Foreign Ministry replied with an email, which condemned any form of espionage on Mexican citizens. The NSA presumably could read that email at the same time as the journalists, Der Spiegel joked.