REFUGEES IN BORDERLAND/DECEMBER 2021 NIGHT OF HORROR, NIGHT OF HOPE
In this Night they leave, in search for a Safe Place,not knowing where the journey ends.For they are threathened by death by a merciless dictator,while they only wanted to spread Love and Peace.Which dictators don’t like.
The journey is heavy, through cold and heat, with only a donkey toaccompany them and to ride onWith a precious Newborn Child and another on the way. They are lucky to find a Safe Place.And when the Danger is over, they return to their country, in safety……It was heavy, but they are Safe. And in the Horror, they discovered, how strong they were They were lucky, it all went well
But not everybody is so lucky…… We saw it, this year.Caught between the sick Games of politicians, a group ofpeople ended up in the borderland between Belarus [White Russia]and Poland, and neither Belarus, nor Poland-EU did care a damnedthing about those people, using them for Power Games. Some of them got sick, many died.Yet the Belarus dictator Loeasjenko showed more humanitythen Poland/EU. offering them some warm shelter for whoeverwanted to make use of it. The only thing Poland and EU offered was more military, pushbacks,fences and laws that made it easy for Poland to refuse asylum…. BUT THERE WAS A LIGHT!NOT from politicians, but common people People like you and me….. They kept it out of the news, but there were common Polish people,who wanted to help! So there was an old Polish woman, who made soup for the refugees!And unknown Polish people, who put a candle for their window to showthe refugees a Light in the Darkness. Those people are not mentioned by the media, but they exist!They are not mentioned by history, but I know them.THE REFUGEES know them! I don’t know how the refugees fare now, in this Christmas Night, but thisNight I think of them!
While centuries ago, Jozef and Maria, were helped byhospitable Egyptians, when a cruel king dictator wanted to kill the Child, those refugees get a Sign of Hope and Light fromcommon Polish people, people like you and me, who have no Powerin this World, but do something which is worth more than allthe screaming and criminal politicians, who treat the refugees like Dirt
They give Hope to people in need!
HOW FARE THOSE TRAPPED REFUGEES NOW, IN THE BITTER COLD?I don’t know. I can’t do anything for them, but I can think of them and write about them.It will not reach them, but I believe that everything that is written, and every thought comes somewhere.Meets someone. If there is only ONE PERSON, who, by reading this, thinks of those people,then I have reached my goal. Let’s realize that Christmas is not the Feast of Eating and presents[however jolly that is, I enjoy it too], but to give Light in the Darkness By thinking of those refugees and all the refugees in this world,you give them Hope. Thank you I wish you a Very Happy and Blessed Christmas and Health and Happiness in 2022!
ASTRID ESSED
ASTRID ESSED
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Refugees in Borderland/December 2021
JULIAN ASSANGE ARRESTED/ATTACK ON THE FREEDOM OF PRESS WIKILEAKS HOPE FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE POWER POLICY OF SUPERPOWER USA AND THEIR ALLIES
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS/ FIRST AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. – Wikipedia
In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win”
Rupert Murdoch
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell
This world is full of injustice. Julian Assange is in jail, while top American and allies war-criminals are free to go
Wise woman
What was feared by many adherents of whistleblower site Wikileaks has come to reality.
Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has been arrested by the British police, after he voluntarily surrendered [1]
O fficially this arrest was on behalf of the Swedish Justice, which had issued an European Arrest Warrant agianst him with charges of alleged rape and molestation of two Swedish women[2]
On request of the Swedish police Interpol also issued an International Arrest Warrant against him [3]
However it is clear, that this arrest is motivated by the political interests of the USA and their allies, considering the spectacular revealings of Wikileaks and the American political hysteria, from extreme right wing death treaths and hunting Assange down ”like a terrorist”, [4] till governmental plans to prosecute him [5]
Also State Secretary of Defense mr Gates called the arrest of Assange ”good news” [6]
Releasement on bail :
Initially it seemed, that Swedish Justice appealed against the decision of the UK Court [dd 14th december] to grant bail to Assange. [7]
Mr Stephens, solicitor of Assange, spoke of the ”continuing vendetta by the Swedes” [8]
Later however rumour spread, that the British prosecution had appealed However, Assange is released on bail now [9]
IN DEFENSE OF THE POWERLESS :
Wikileaks, which has been founded by Assange, is an international new media with a whistlerblower function, revealing otherwise unavailable documents and thus exposing injustice, committed by States, especially Superpower the USA and their allies [10]
As a new medium, Wikileaks has won several prices, as in 2009, Amnesty International’s UK Media Award [in the category ”New Media”] for the 2008 publication of “Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances” [11]
RELEASED DOCUMENTS
What has infuriated the US and allies are the released documents about US and alles warcrimes and scandals about secret diplomacy This happened in close cooperation with The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, which publicized them
And although Assange has been arrested, the releasements go on
An overview:
Video in US killings in Iraq:
”Exposing warcrimes is not a crime!” Bradley Manning Support Network
In April 2010, Wikileaks posted video from an American airstrike on Badghdad [2007] [12] in which Iraqi civilians and journalists were killed by US forces, including a Reuters journalist and his driver, on a website called Collateral Murder [13]
A courageous American soldier with a conscience, Sgt Bradley Manning, is supposed to have leaked it
He now possibly faces a trial and a yearlong prison sentence [14]
Afghan war-logs
In July the same year, Wikileaks released Afghan War Diary , a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan [15], not previously available for public review.
Iraq war-logs
In October, Wikileaks released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War [16] in coordination with major commercial media organisations [17]
As well as the Afghan as Iraq war-logs documents showed shocking details about American and allied warcrimes as torture practices
The moat horrifying however is the total American indifference for Afghan and Iraqi civilian lives
US Embassy Cables
In November, Wikileaks began releasing US State Department diplomatic cables [18]
Those are the most important revelations, internationally known
However, already in 2007 Wikileaks disclosed the ”Standard Operation Procedure for Camp Delta”, a guideline for the American military, how to handle prisoners in Guantanamo Bay [19]
Shocking details were the detention [by arrival] of prisoners in an isolation cell [in the Manual called ” the’Brhaviour Managment Plan”] ’to make them more ”cooperative” for interrigations
Placing in isolation was litterary meant to ”ENHANCE AND EXPLOIT THE DISORIENTATION AND DISORGANISATION BY A NEWLY ARRIVED DETAINEE” [20] In other words: Cruel and inhumane treatment
Lack of access to the Red Cross:
The manual also revealed, that some of the prisoners were denied access to the Red Cross
Also on arrival, the prisoners were denied basics and access to a Qu’ran [21]
CREDIBILITY: REACTIONS OF STATES AND HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Although it is impossible for the common civilian to control the hundred and thousands of document on their credibility, a clear confirmation is been showed in the website ”Collateral Murder, where the video proof of the US attack in Iraq, where 13 civiilians were killed, is clear [22] Besides, this Iraq document and thousands of others have been controlled by a team of journalists, who work with Wikileaks
Also the close cooperation with quality papers like the New York Times, Der Spiegel and The Guardian, which have their own investigative journalists, confirms the credibility
The Guardian has since then published all Wikileaks documents in her paper [23]
Credibility is also shown by the aggressive and hostile reactiions of several States, especially the USA, which seek to prosecute Assange on the ground of an old ”Espionage Act” , which is ridiculous, since a native Australian and not in American government service, he can’t be a ”spy”
This American use of the Espionage Act to silence critics is not new: Many critical intellectuals, journalists, film producers and pacifist religious figures were prosecuted. [24]
Human Rights Watch has emphasized her concern about the planned US prosecution in a letter to president Obama, that prosecitung Assange is a violation of the freedom of press and expression [25] But despite the furious reactions of governing States, no charge on the ground of defamatiion or slander [the socalled libel suit] has followed
THE ”RAPE” CASE
”There’s something rotten in the State of Denmark” Hamlet, Shakespeare
Let’s make this clear: Nobody is above the Law
When there is really substantial and hard evidence, that Assange should have raped this women, he should be prosecuted and, by enough proof, condemned after a fair trial
However, there are clear indications, that this whole case is politically motivated
That would not be the first or the last time:
Using rape and sexual contact as a political or personal means is as old as Mankind
In the Old Testimony the wife of Potiphar accused Joseph, son of Patriarch Jacob, than slave in Egypt, of rape, when he refused to be intimate with her [26]
Whistleblower Vanunu, who exposed Israel’s nuclear power, was trapped by a gallgirl and so was abducted by Israel, which led to a yearlong imprisonment [27]
From the very start, this real or alleged ”rape case” had some strange and clumsy aspects, which make the whole case look fishy
After two Swedish women, in press called ”Miss A” and ”Miss W” went to the police with accusations about rape and molestation, at 21 august Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange [28] Within hours, Stockholm’s chief prosecutor Eva Finne, reviewed the case and dropped the rape investigation, saying there was insufficient evidence to suggest rape [the charge on molestation, a far lesser crime, had been maintained] [29]
However, despite the dropping of the case, at 1 september, Swedish Justice reopened the rape case again [30] At least that sounds very strange
But there were more fishy elements on this case
Accompanied with the European Arrest Warrant, Interpol issued an International Arrest Warrant against Assange [30 november], which is highly out of proportion, seen the charges against him Then, on request of the British Serious and Organised Crime Agency, Sweden issued a new Arrest Warrant because of incorrectness of the earlier one [31]
Allegations of the women:
Without going into details, at least some of the allegations of the women were dubious
For example:”Miss A”
Despite her accusations ”Miss A” organised a party for the same man whe accused of rape and molestation
And moreover: Even after her alleged ”rape” or ”molestation” she let him stay in her appartment [32]
Timing
Not long after the revelations of Wikileaks Afghan war logs, the rape accusations of Miss A and W followed
What is a better moment for slander against Wikileaks and his founder, seen American hysterical reactions?
Assange himself commented on Twitter ”The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing.” [33]
Of course there is no proof for a political set-up, but overviewing the strang behaviour of Swedish Justice, the out of propiortion Interpol Arrest Warrant, the initially ”wrong” Swedish Arrest Warrant, the contradictional story of the women involved and the ”timing” of the charges, raise a serious doubt and show political intrigue.
OPERATION PAYBACK CYBERATTACKS ON LARGE CORPORATIONS, CUTTING OFF WIKILEAKS OF FINANCIAL MEANS
PAMPHLET OF ANONYMOUS
WE ARE ANONYMOUS. WE ARE LEGION
Several corporations now have been involved in the censoring of Wikileaks
The censoring of free speech and free information
The censoring of a free world
Amongst these corporatiions are MasterCard, VISA, PayPal, Amazon- some of the largest corporations in the world
We, the people, will make a stand, no matter how large these corporations are
We, the people, won’t budge for government pressure We, the people, won’t fall for bribery and corruption We, the people, won’t submit to this attempt by our so-called leaders to protect their own interests and power
We, the people, will fight back. We will not forgive. We will not forget Expect us
Apparently due to American political pressure, large corporations like Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, Amazon and the Swiss Bank cutt of the financial means of Wikileaks [34]
Later the Bank of America joined [35]
Due to this cutting off of financial means, Assange was obliged to sell the rights of his autobiography for his legal fight in Sweden and to keep the website afloat [36]
As a reaction, a group of hackers [socalled ”hacktivists”] of the Group ”Anonymous” systematically attacked and attacks large corporations like Mastercard, Visa, Paypal and Swiss Bank,to protect the right to free information [37]
Also the office of Mr Borgstrom, the laywer of the two women who accused Assange of socalled ”rape” has been under attack [38]
Dutch authorities arrested and later released a Dutch 16 year old, in connection with the Cyberattacks Also a Dutch man [19 year old] had been arrested [and later released] in connection with an attack on the Dutch public prosecution office, in connection with the arrest of the 16 year old [39]
Cyberattacks:
Attacks on the laywer of the two Swedish women are unacceptable, since any person has a right to a laywer, however controversial his or her case
However, although somewhat extreme, the Cyberattacks on the financial corporations which cut off Wikileaks, are legitimate resistance, since Mastercard and co are supporting American government policy against Wikileaks, violating freedom of press
In this respect and given the American hatred policy against Wikileaks, also attacks on American governmental organisations is legitimate.
Anonymous is an important weapon in the struggle for Wikileaks freedom of press
Also the Also UN Commissioner of Human Rights, mrs Pilay, has criticized websites, that have refused to host Wikileaks, as an attack on the freedom of expression of Wikileaks [40]
EPILOGUE
The arrest of Assange is directly connected with the American political interest to stop the revelations of Wikileaks at all costs
Therefore it is an attack on the freedom of press and the freedom of expression
Journalism feels that, by working together with Wikileaks and saving material, as The Guardian and other papers do
But there’s more at stake:
Whole Internetjournalism may be treathed
When Assange is to be extradited to Sweden and in the horrorscenario, that Sweden extradites him to the USA [41], after British consent [42], there is more to it than a probably unfair US trial
From that moment all critical Internetjournalists, who write unpleasant truths about the US and human rights violating allies, can be prosecuted, persecuted and intimidated
The freedom of press and speech, consolidated in the first Amendment of the American Constitution, will be a dead letter.
However, most bizarre point: Real or alleged American warcriminals are free to go, while the messengers are shooted at [42]
BUT US AND ALLIES, MAKE NO MISTAKE
Their dirty secrets will always be unmasked and Wikileaks, or a successor, will go on
To defend the victims of US power policy
Astrid Essed Amsterdam The Netherlands
NOTES
[1]
ARTICLE JULIAN ASSANGE THE AUSTRALIAN DON’T SHOOT THE MESSENGER FOR REVEALING UNCONFORTABLE TRUTHS 8 DECEMBER 2010
”At 9.15am last Tuesday a thin, white-haired figure left the Frontline Club, the west London establishment dedicated to preserving freedom of speech, and voluntarily surrendered to police.”
Source:
THE GUARDIAN WIKILEAKS BACKLASH: THE FIRST GLOBAL CYBER WAR HAS BEGUN 11 DECEMBER 2010
”Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, had earlier handed himself in to British police after Sweden had issued a European Arrest Warrant for him. Assange, who denies the allegations, will remain behind bars until a fresh hearing on December 14.”
Source:
REUTERS WIKILEAKS FOUNDER ASSANGE REFUSED BAIL BY UK COURT 7 DECEMBER 2010
” US At torney General Er ic Holder said officials were pursuing a “very serious criminal investigation” into the matter. Yet while Mr Assange has widely acknowledged his role in disseminating classified documents, legal experts say US criminal statutes and case law do not cleanly apply to his case. US espionage law has been used to prosecute US officials who provided secrets to foreign governments or foreign spies who pursued US secrets. But Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, former computer hacker and self-described journalist, did not work for the US government, has no known links to foreign governments, and operates on the internet, by all accounts far from US soil”
SOURCE:
BBC NEWS BARRIERS TO POSSIBLE US ASSANGE PROSECUTION 8 DECEMBER 2010
” US Attorn ey General Eric Holder said officials were pursuing a “very serious criminal investigation” into the matter. Yet while Mr Assange has widely acknowledged his role in disseminating classified documents, legal experts say US criminal statutes and case law do not cleanly apply to his case. US espionage law has been used to prosecute US officials who provided secrets to foreign governments or foreign spies who pursued US secrets. But Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, former computer hacker and self-described journalist, did not work for the US government, has no known links to foreign governments, and operates on the internet, by all accounts far from US soil”
SOURCE:
BBC NEWS BARRIERS TO POSSIBLE US ASSANGE PROSECUTION 8 DECEMBER 2010
” There is a Sweden-US extradition treaty, signed in 1961, which provides a legal foundation for extraditions between the countries. But there is still discretion for Sweden to refuse extraditions for “political offences” or where the suspect has reason to fear persecution on account of their membership of a social group or political beliefs. The treaty also specifies the offences which qualify for extradition, and espionage is not one of them. If the treaty doesn’t apply, there would still be scope for the country to agree to his extradition to the US – Swedish law permits extradition more generally to countries outside Europe, but this could only take place after the current rape proceedings were concluded.”
SOURCE:
THE GUARDIAN JULIAN ASSANGE’S EXTRADITION WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? 8 DECEMBER 2010
” 4.1 8pm: Speaking outside the court, Ken Loach said it was “good news” that Assange had been granted bail.
Clearly, if the Swedish government opposes bail it will show there is some vindictiveness beyond this case. It will show there is some political element that goes beyond the case.”
Source:
THE GUARDIAN JULIAN ASSANGE GRANTED BAIL/LIVE UPDATES 14TH DECEMBER 2010
”WikiLeaks has won a number of awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award.[10] In June 2009, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange won Amnesty International’s UK Media Award (in the category “New Media”) for the 2008 publication of “Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances”,[11] a report by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.[12] ”
”David Schlesinger, Reuters editor in chief, said Tuesday that the video was disturbing to watch “but also important to watch.” He said he hoped to meet with the Pentagon “to press the need to learn lessons from this tragedy.”
Source:
THE NEW YORK TIMES AIRSTRIKE VIDEO BRINGS NOTICE TO A WEBSITE 6TH APRIL 2010
”David Schlesinger, Reuters editor in chief, said Tuesday that the video was disturbing to watch “but also important to watch.” He said he hoped to meet with the Pentagon “to press the need to learn lessons from this tragedy.”
Source:
THE NEW YORK TIMES AIRSTRIKE VIDEO BRINGS NOTICE TO A WEBSITE 6TH APRIL 2010
” US Attorn ey General Eric Holder said officials were pursuing a “very serious criminal investigation” into the matter. Yet while Mr Assange has widely acknowledged his role in disseminating classified documents, legal experts say US criminal statutes and case law do not cleanly apply to his case. US espionage law has been used to prosecute US officials who provided secrets to foreign governments or foreign spies who pursued US secrets. But Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, former computer hacker and self-described journalist, did not work for the US government, has no known links to foreign governments, and operates on the internet, by all accounts far from US soil”
SOURCE:
BBC NEWS BARRIERS TO POSSIBLE US ASSANGE PROSECUTION 8 DECEMBER 2010
””The fact that one prosecutor dismissed the charges against Assange and another picked them up afterwards, makes the case look fishy. The prosecuting authorities should have acted more expeditiously and speedily.”
Source:
THE GUARDIAN JULIAN ASSANGE FURORE DEEPENS AS NEW DETAILS EMERGE OF SEX CRIME ALLEGATIONS 18 DECEMBER 2010
”Assange’s supporters point out that, despite her complaints against him, Miss A held a party for him on that evening and continued to allow him to stay in her flat.
Source:
THE GUARDIAN 10 DAYS IN SWEDEN: THE FULL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE 17 DECEMBER 2010
MAIL ONLINE SUPPORTERS DISMISSED RAPE ACCUSATION AGAINST WIKILEAKS FOUNDER JULIAN ASSANGE…BUT THE TWO WOMEN INVOLVED TELL A DIFFERENT STORY 29 AUGUST 2010
Een Koerdische familie uit Irak wacht met zestien leden uit drie generaties op de grenswachten. Al acht keer werden ze teruggestuurd naar Wit-Rusland, waarbij ze klappen kregen en door honden gebeten werden. Foto Wojtek Radwanski / AFP
Voertuigen die zich nabij de grens begeven worden streng gecontroleerd. Foto Marko Djurica / Reuters
Achtergebleven spullen van migranten in de bossen. Velen van hen krijgen met geweld en intimidatie te maken. Foto Marko Djurica / Reuters
Ondertussen proberen hulporganisaties de migranten waar mogelijk te helpen. Hier sorteert een Poolse vrijwilligster gedoneerde kleding in een brandweerkazerne. Foto Kacper Pempel / Reuters
Activisten van de Poolse ngo Grupa Granica houden foto’s omhoog van gestrande migranten, met de oproep hen hulp te bieden. Foto Marko Djurica / Reuters
Oekraïense nationalisten houden borden en flares omhoog in protest tegen de komst van migranten voor de Poolse ambassade in Kiev. Foto Sergei Supinsky / AFP
Medici verzorgen een gewonde migrant, terwijl anderen verderop door de Poolse politie worden ingerekend. De Poolse premier Mateusz sprak onlangs van „een brute schending van onze oostelijke grens (…) de ergste in dertig jaar”. Foto Woitek Radwanski / AFP
Migranten drommen samen om noodpakketten te ontvangen van de Wit-Russische krijgsmacht. Foto Stringer / EPA
Een migrant draagt zijn ontvangen noodrantsoen weg van het uitdeelpunt van het Wit-Russische leger. Veel migranten verblijven in het grensgebied onder erbarmelijke omstandigheden. Foto Stringer / EPA
Poolse militairen en politieagenten staan rechts paraat langs de grens met Wit-Rusland, terwijl links migranten te zien zijn in hun geïmproviseerde kampementen.
POLAND-BELARUS BORDER CRISIS/LETTER TO THE EU/”EU’S HUMAN OBLIGATIONS AGAINST THE REFUGEES, WHO ARE TRAPPED BETWEENTHE POLAND-BELARUS BORDER”
TO MRS Y JOHANSSONEU COMMISSIONER FOR HOME AFFAIRSRelating her responsibility for Migration and Asylum Subject:The Poland Belarus crisis on migrants:Eu’s obligations regarding universal human rights
Dear Mrs Johansson,[When you are pressed with time, just read the last piece”EU’s obligations”]
I am greatly concerned about EU’s recent attitude against refugees, who are trapped in the border between Poland and BelarusFirstly the EU waited months after months and allowing Poland to close andmilitarize its borders against those refugees, thus violating their right on asylum,violating their universal human rights by letting them try to survive in the freezingcold and, to add insult to injury, pushing them back from the border, fully knowing that push-backs are against International Law. [1]As a consequence, at least thirteen refugees died. [2]Instead of immediately demanding of Poland, to refrain from violatinghuman rights and giving those refugees entrance to Poland, all the EUdid was express solidarity with Poland and also denying the refugees their right to asylum:I quote from the statement from EU president, mrs von der Leyen, from 8th november 2021:”Finally, the Commission will explore with the UN and its specialised agencies how to prevent a humanitarian crisis from unfolding and to ensure that migrants can be safely returned to their country of origin, with the support of their national authorities.” [3] That’s inhuman. In her report ”Die Here or Go to Poland”, Human Rights Watch wrote among else:”Polish authorities should immediately halt all summary returns and collective expulsions to Belarus and stop all abuse by Polish officials of migrants. The government of Poland should also immediately allow humanitarian and other civil society organizations access to the area currently restricted under the state of emergency order for the purposes of saving lives. Journalists and other monitors should also be permitted access.” [4]Poland is a EU member and should apply toEU rules, among else consolidated in the Charter’for Fundamental Rights of the EU Union [5],in which the right to asylum is granted [article 18] [6] and pushbacks are forbidden [article 18, article 19,EU Charter of Fundamental Rights] [7] As long as Poland is an EU member, Poland has to conduct according toEU rules!And it is the EU task to remember Poland of its obligations. PROPOSAL OF THE EU COMMISSION FROM1 DECEMBER 2021 Not only that has not happened, now the EU Commission did proposals in the favour of Poland.Latva and Lithuania taking ”exceptional measures”I refer to the recent Statement from 1 december 2021, calling for measures of an ”of an extraordinary and exceptional nature” [8] According to my information from Amnesty International,EU Commission proposals ”normalize dehumanisationof asylum seekers” [9] Amnesty International writes among else: ”“The arrival of people at the EU’s borders with Belarus is entirely manageable with the rules as they stand. Today’s proposals will further punish people for political gain, weaken asylum protections, and undermine the EU’s standing at home and abroad. If the EU can allow a minority of member states to throw out the rule book due to the presence of a few thousand people at its border, it throws out any authority it has on human rights and the rule of law.
“The current situation at the EU’s borders with Belarus is being used by some countries as an excuse to weaken protections of asylum-seekers and push their anti-migrant agenda. Holding asylum seekers in detention for four months, without the protection standards required by international law, is normalising de facto unlawful detention at the EU’s external borders.” [10]
That’s clear language and I have nothing to add to this
EU’S OBLIGATION
Summarizing:
During the Poland-Belarus crisis on migrants,
all the EU really did was to express solidarity
with Poland, thus encouraging Poland in it’s
unlawful policy of denying the right to asylum and
practising illegal pushbacks and, to add insult
to injury, letting vulnerable refugee freezing in the cold,
without adequate provisions.
With this the EU has violated her own rules of
humanity, right to asylum and the prohibition
of pushbacks.
So it’s time, the EU acts again in accordance with it’s own Charter and Laws and not proposing ”extraordinary
measures” [11] which violate it’s own rules.
So I call the EU to require from Poland to admit the
refugees and give them a proper asylum procedure,
according to human rights and stop pushing them back.
Of course Belarus bears responsibility too for the
existing situation [12], but that doesn’t excuse
the EU from practising their own rules of
humanitarian protection of refugees, which is formally established in the EU Law.
Return to your own Laws and Charters, EU and stop
dehumanizing refugees.
That’s all I ask.
Kind regards
Astrid Essed
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
NOTES[1]
HUMAN RIGHTSHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH REPORT”DIE HERE OR GO TO POLAND”BELARUS’ AND POLAND’S SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FORBORDER ABUSES
”I have spoken to Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė and Latvian Prime Minister Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš to express the EU’s solidarity and discuss with them the measures the EU can take to support them in their efforts to deal with this crisis.”
”’Finally, the Commission will explore with the UN and its specialised agencies how to prevent a humanitarian crisis from unfolding and to ensure that migrants can be safely returned to their country of origin, with the support of their national authorities.”
The instrumentalisation of migrants for political purposes by Belarus is unacceptable.
The Belarusian authorities must understand that pressuring the European Union in this way through a cynical instrumentalisation of migrants will not help them succeed in their purposes.
I have spoken to Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė and Latvian Prime Minister Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš to express the EU’s solidarity and discuss with them the measures the EU can take to support them in their efforts to deal with this crisis.
I am calling on Member States to finally approve the extended sanctions regime on the Belarusian authorities responsible for this hybrid attack.
Vice-President Schinas, in coordination with High Representative/Vice-President Borrell, will travel in the coming days to the main countries of origin and of transit to ensure that they act to prevent their own nationals from falling into the trap set by the Belarusian authorities.
The EU will in particular explore how to sanction, including through blacklisting, third country airlines that are active in human trafficking.
Finally, the Commission will explore with the UN and its specialised agencies how to prevent a humanitarian crisis from unfolding and to ensure that migrants can be safely returned to their country of origin, with the support of their national authorities.
[4]HUMAN RIGHTSHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH REPORTSUMMARY”DIE HERE OR GO TO POLAND”BELARUS’ AND POLAND’S SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FORBORDER ABUSES
Article 18 Right to asylum The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community. CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
[7] Article 18 Right to asylum The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community. CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
Article 19 Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition 1. Collective expulsions are prohibited. 2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
”Notwithstanding any changes to Polish law, Poland’s pushbacks without due process violate EU law including the Charter of Fundamental Rights.[25] The Charter guarantees the right to asylum and standard international refugee law practice, under which any expression of intent to seek asylum should promptly be forwarded to the competent authorities for assessment based on the person’s individual grounds for seeking asylum.[26]”
Polish pushback practices are also in violation of article 19 of the Charter and Protocol 4 of the ECHR, which both state unequivocally that collective or mass expulsions of aliens are prohibited.[28]
The Commission is today putting forward a set of temporary asylum and return measures to assist Latvia, Lithuania and Poland in addressing the emergency situation at the EU’s external border with Belarus. The measures will allow these Member States to set up swift and orderly processes to manage the situation, in full respect of fundamental rights and international obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement. The proposal follows the invitation by the European Council for the Commission to propose any necessary changes to the EU’s legal framework and concrete measures underpinned by adequate financial support to ensure an immediate and appropriate response in line with EU law and international obligations, including the respect of fundamental rights. The measures, based on Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, will enter into force after their adoption by the Council. The European Parliament will be consulted. The measures will remain in force for a period of 6 months.
Vice-President for Promoting our European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas, said: “In the past weeks, we have managed to bring the EU’s collective weight to bear in face of the hybrid attack directed at our Union. Collectively, the EU made clear that attempts to undermine our Union will only solidify our solidarity with one another. Today we are giving living manifestation to that solidarity: in the form of a set of temporary and exceptional measures that will equip Latvia, Lithuania and Poland with the means needed to respond to these extraordinary circumstances in a controlled and swift manner and to operate in conditions of legal certainty.”
Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, said: “Although the EU’s intense efforts have brought rapid results, the situation remains delicate. Today, to protect our borders, and to protect people, we are giving flexibility and support to Member States to manage this emergency situation, without compromising on human rights. This should allow the Member States in question to fully uphold the right to asylum and align legislation with EU acquis. It’s also time limited and targeted. To make our response to hybrid threats future-proof, we activate the EU’s formidable diplomatic and legal capacity, to apply sanctions and persuade third countries to stop flights. We will soon propose a reform of the Schengen rules. Making progress now on the Pact on Migration and Asylum is essential.”
Provisional measures proposed
The measures included in this proposal are of an extraordinary and exceptional nature. They will apply for a period of 6 months, unless extended or repealed, and will apply to non-EU nationals who have irregularly entered the EU from Belarus and are at the vicinity of the border or those who present themselves at border crossing points. The main elements of the proposal are:
Emergency migration and asylum management procedure at the external borders:
The 3 Member States will have the possibility to extend the registration period for asylum applications to 4 weeks, instead of the current 3 to 10 days. The Member States may also apply the asylum procedure at the border to process all asylum claims, including the appeal, within a maximum of 16 weeks – except where adequate support for applicants with particular health issues cannot be provided. In doing so, well-founded claims and those of families and children should be prioritised.
Material reception conditions: Member States focus reception conditions on the covering of basic needs, including temporary shelter adapted to the seasonal weather conditions, food, water, clothing, adequate medical care, and assistance to vulnerable persons, in full respect of human dignity. It is important that Member States ensure close cooperation with UNHCR and relevant partner organisations to support individuals in this emergency situation.
Return procedure: Member States concerned will be able to apply simplified and quicker national procedures including for the return of people whose applications for international protection have been rejected in this context.
All procedures carried out in line with this proposal must respect fundamental rights and specific guarantees provided for by EU law, including the best interests of the child, emergency health care and needs of vulnerable people, the use of coercive measures and detention conditions.
Practical support and cooperation:
Support from EU agencies: EU agencies stand ready to help the Member States on request. The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) can help register and process applications, ensure screening of vulnerable people and support the management, design and putting in place of adequate reception. Further Frontex support is available for border control activities, including screening and return operations. Support from Europol is also available to provide intelligence to counter smuggling.
Continued cooperation: The Commission, the Member States and EU Agencies will continue their cooperation, including an obligation on the Member States to continue reporting relevant data and statistics via the EU Migration Preparedness and Crisis Management Network.
The Commission will regularly reassess the situation and may propose to the Council to prolong or repeal these provisional measures.
Next steps
Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU states that after consulting the European Parliament, the Council may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member States concerned. This happens by qualified majority vote. Once agreed by the Council, in view of the urgency of the situation, this Decision should enter into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU.
Background
Since the summer, the Lukashenko regime and its supporters have initiated a hybrid attack on the EU, especially Lithuania, Poland and Latvia, which have experienced an insidious new threat in the form of the instrumentalisation of desperate people.
In October 2021, the European Council invited the Commission to propose any necessary changes to the EU’s legal framework to respond to the state-sponsored instrumentalisation of people at the EU’s external border with Belarus. Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for the adoption of provisional measures in emergency migratory situations at the EU’s external borders.
Today’s proposal is the latest in a series of coordinated EU actions that include: targeted measures for transport operators that facilitate or engage in smuggling; diplomatic and external action; stepping up humanitarian assistance and support for border and migration management.
This proposal is in line with the comprehensive approach set out in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. It complements the Schengen Borders Code and the upcoming Schengen reform, in which the Commission intends to propose a permanent framework for addressing possible situations of instrumentalisation that may still confront the Union in the future.
Financing of this proposal will be accommodated within the budget of the existing EU funding instruments under the period 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 in the field of migration, asylum and border management. Where exceptionally necessary, if the situation aggravates further, the flexibility mechanisms within the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 could be used.
In response to today’s proposals from the European Commission which would allow Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to derogate from EU rules, including by holding asylum-seekers and migrants at the border for 16 weeks with minimal safeguards, Eve Geddie, Director of Amnesty International’s European Office said:
“The arrival of people at the EU’s borders with Belarus is entirely manageable with the rules as they stand. Today’s proposals will further punish people for political gain, weaken asylum protections, and undermine the EU’s standing at home and abroad. If the EU can allow a minority of member states to throw out the rule book due to the presence of a few thousand people at its border, it throws out any authority it has on human rights and the rule of law.
“The current situation at the EU’s borders with Belarus is being used by some countries as an excuse to weaken protections of asylum-seekers and push their anti-migrant agenda. Holding asylum seekers in detention for four months, without the protection standards required by international law, is normalising de facto unlawful detention at the EU’s external borders.
“Asylum rules should be upheld, not allowed to be side-stepped by countries via so-called exceptional measures. Amnesty International is alarmed that the proposal will violate people’s rights, and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis at borders while continuing to expose the EU to further internal and external manipulation and blackmailing.
“While Lukashenka’s mistreatment and instrumentalization of migrants and asylum seekers is deplorable, he is exploiting the EU’s own tendency to treat people at their borders as a threat.
“At least 10 people, including a one-year-old child, have died at the EU’s Eastern borders in recent weeks. Today the European Commission is bringing in measures which undermine rights and normalize the dehumanization and suffering of people at the EU’s borders.”
Kathryn Warner is a Medieval historian whom I value very much.Hereby I post oneof her excellent articles she wrote on her Blogspot, where are to be found hundreds of very, veryvaluable articles about events, issues and personalities about the period of the reign of kingEdward II, 1307-1327Karthyn Warner is a great expert on the reign of king Edward II and wrotealso agreat number of books about that period. See her Blogspot http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/
This article is about Sir Robert Holland, a close friend and ally ofking Edward II’s cousin, Earl Thomas of Lancaster.Earl Thomas of Lancaster was a very interesting historical person,who, after an initial good relationship with his cousin king Edward II,fell out with him and eventually came into open rebellion againsthim, which ended with his execution in march 1321.Interesting fact:After his death he was venerated as a Saint for more then200 years!If you want to know, how a warlord became a Saint, read my articleabout Earl Thomas of Lancaster! IN CHAPTERS https://www.astridessed.nl/my-earl-thomas-of-lancaster-article-in-chapters/
I’ve previously written a post about the murder of Sir Robert Holland in October 1328, and another about his daughter Isabelle, mistress of John de Warenne, earl of Surrey (d. 1347). Here’s one about Robert himself, a knight of Lancashire whose grandchildren were the older half-siblings of King Richard II.
Robert’s family came originally from the village of Upholland in Lancashire, and in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the name was spelt Holand, Holande, Holond, Holaund(e), Hoyland, Hoylaund, etc. Robert’s father was also called Sir Robert Holland, and the older Robert was the eldest of the six sons of Thurstan Holland, who was himself the son of yet another Robert Holland. [1] This Robert and his son Thurstan, our Robert’s great-grandfather and grandfather, were imprisoned in 1241 after setting fire to a house belonging to the rector of Wigan.
Our Robert’s mother, Elizabeth, was the third and youngest daughter, and co-heir, of Sir William Samlesbury, who married Avina Notton and died in c. 1256, leaving their three daughters Margery, Cecily and Elizabeth as his heirs. Elizabeth and Sir Robert Holland Senior were certainly already married by September 1276 and probably a good few years before that. Robert Senior is assumed to have died c. 1304, while Elizabeth was still alive in 1313/14. The date of birth of Robert and Elizabeth’s eldest son and heir, our Robert, is not recorded but was probably sometime near the start of the 1270s; his father settled a tenement on him in Pemberton and Orrell in 1292, suggesting he was at least twenty-one then and may have recently turned twenty-one. In the late 1310s and early 1320s, a ‘Simon de Holand’ (d. 1325) was associated with Robert, who gave him a plot of land in Lancashire, and there was also a ‘Richard de Holand, knight’ who joined the Contrariant rebellion of 1321/22 with Robert. There’s an entry in the Final Concords for Lancashire in October 1321 regarding ‘Richard son of Robert de Holand, plaintiff’. [2] As the sons of our Robert Holland were still children in 1321, this would appear to mean that Richard was a son of Robert Holland Sr (d. c. 1304) and therefore our Robert’s brother. Robert certainly had a younger brother named William, who died in the late 1310s or early 1320s and whose son and heir was named Robert, and there are also references in the chancery rolls in the 1330s and 1340s to another son of William’s called Thurstan.
J.R. Maddicott has pointed out that Robert Holland’s origins were not quite as humble as some fourteenth-century chroniclers, notably the Brut and Henry Knighton – who wrote that the earl of Lancaster raised Robert ‘from nothing’ – claimed. [3] C. Moor’s Knights of Edward I (vol. 2, p. 233) states that our Robert was active as a knight and a keeper of the peace in Lancashire as early as 1287, but surely that’s his father of the same name. As so often happens when father and son had the same name, it’s difficult, or even impossible, to distingush between them, especially when the son reached an age where he became active as a knight and soldier. It was possibly the younger Robert, rather than his father, who was appointed to ‘choose 2,000 footmen’ in Lancashire in June 1300, and who was appointed as a commissioner also in Lancashire in May 1303. [4]
As early as September 1300, the younger Robert Holland was already associated with Edward I’s nephew Thomas of Lancaster, earl of Lancaster and Leicester, who was then in his early twenties (my belief is that Thomas was born on or around 29 December 1277). On 18 September 1300, Edward I ordered his escheator beyond Trent ‘not to intermeddle further with the lands that Robert de Holand had of the gift of Thomas, earl of Lancaster, tenant in chief, in Beltesford, which the escheator has taken into the king’s hands because Robert entered them without his licence.’ [5] This is an early indication of Robert’s close relationship with Thomas of Lancaster, which lasted for over twenty years. In March 1316, Thomas founded a chantry in Worcester to pray for the souls of his royal parents Edmund of Lancaster, earl of Lancaster and Leicester (d. 1296) and Blanche of Artois, dowager queen of Navarre (d. 1302), on the anniversaries of their deaths. The monks were also to pray on the anniversaries of two people currently still alive, after their deaths: Thomas himself, and Sir Robert Holland. Thomas didn’t ask for prayers for his wife Alice de Lacy or his younger brother Henry or Henry’s children or anyone else, just Robert Holland, an indication of Robert’s importance in his life. J.R. Maddicott has called Robert Thomas of Lancaster’s ‘companion and friend, estate steward, political agent, and general factotum’, and states that their ‘close friendship…ran at a deeper level than that of a mere business partnership’. [6] There are numerous instances in the chancery rolls of Earl Thomas granting manors to Robert and his wife Maud, and their heirs.
Edward II appointed Robert Holland to the important position of justice of Chester on 28 August 1307, at the beginning of his reign. Robert held the office until late 1311, was replaced, but then re-appointed a few weeks later. [7] At the beginning of the reign, and until c. late 1308 or early 1309, Thomas of Lancaster was closely associated with his cousin the king, and the two men were on excellent terms. Things went badly wrong, however, and for reasons that are unclear, Thomas began to move into opposition to his cousin. The two royal men came to detest and fear each other, especially after Thomas’s involvement in the death of Piers Gaveston in June 1312. A jousting tournament was held in Dunstable, Bedfordshire in the spring of 1309, which a large number of the English earls and barons used as a cover to meet and express their disgruntlement with Edward II’s governance. Thomas, earl of Lancaster, and Sir Robert Holland were among those present. [8] Edward replaced Robert as justice of Chester with Payn Tibetot in late 1311, but in January 1312 spoke of Robert’s ‘good service’ to him and re-appointed him as justice of Chester, being aggrieved with Tibetot, who had ’treated with contempt the king’s mandate directed to him’. [9]
The king sent a letter to Sir Robert Holland on 20 November 1311, stating that ‘we are very joyous and pleased about the good news we have heard concerning the improvement in our dear cousin and faithful subject Thomas, earl of Lancaster, that he will soon be able to ride in comfort. And we send you word and dearly pray that, as soon as he is comfortable and able to ride without hurt to his body, you should ask him to be so good as to hasten to us at our parliament’. [10] It was as though Robert was the earl’s deputy and spokesman, and sometime between 1319 and early 1322, Robert and Earl Thomas sent virtually identical letters to Edward II regarding the manor of Farnley in Yorkshire (the only real difference I can see between the two letters is that Robert’s opening salutation to Edward was far more deferential). [11] Sometime before 13 May 1306, Robert Holland married Maud la Zouche, co-heir to her father Alan (d. 1314) with her older sister Ellen or Elena. [12] Maud brought Robert a good few manors in several counties in the Midlands and south of England, and it’s surely reasonable to assume that Thomas of Lancaster had something to do with arranging such a favourable marriage for his most trusted adherent and associate.
During the Contrariant rebellion of 1321/22, however, Robert abandoned Thomas of Lancaster, and on 4 March 1322 was ordered to ‘come to the king with all speed with horses and arms, in order to set out with the king against his contrariants’. On the same day, Edward II granted Robert a safe-conduct for ‘coming to the king by his command and about to go against the contrariants’. Robert Holland’s switching sides was surely connected to the fact that one of his and Maud la Zouche’s daughters, unnamed, had been taken into captivity in the Tower of London on 26 February 1322, along with Aline de Braose and John Mowbray (b. 1310), wife and son of John, Lord Mowbray (b. 1286): ‘…conducting by the king’s command to the Tower of London Aline, the wife of John de Moubray, and the son of the said John, also the daughter of Robert de Holand…’. [13] According to the very pro-Lancastrian author of the Brut chronicle, when Thomas of Lancaster heard about Robert’s defection, he groaned ‘how might Robert Holonde fynde in his hert me to bitraye, sithens that y have lovede him so miche?’ Thomas supposedly went on to say that he had ‘made [Robert] hie fram lowe’, i.e. high from low. [14]
Despite his taking armed men to the king, on 12 March 1322 Edward had all of Robert’s goods and his lands in Lancashire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Yorkshire, Northumberland, Shropshire and Staffordshire taken into his own hands. Robert also owned ‘houses called the houses of Viene in the city of London’ which were confiscated, and were possibly the same dwellings which in 1325 were called the ‘king’s houses in the parish of St Nicholas in the Shambles of London, sometime of Robert de Holand’. On 23 June 1322, Edward stated that Robert was ‘charged with being an adherent of Thomas, sometime earl of Lancaster’ – Thomas had been executed at his own castle of Pontefract in Yorkshire three months earlier, on 22 March – and had ‘surrendered to the king’s will’. [15] After Robert’s and Thomas of Lancaster’s downfall, one William de Leveseye petitioned the king, stating that the earl and Robert (‘Sire Rob’t de Holande’) had imprisoned him in Pontefract Castle in Yorkshire for over a year ‘because he was in the company of Sir…’, then the petition is sadly torn and the name is missing. [16]
During the Contrariant rebellion, Robert had sacked several Leicestershire towns including Loughborough which belonged to Hugh Despenser the Elder, in the company of, among others, William Trussell, who in October and November 1326 would pronounce the death sentence on both Hugh Despensers. According to a petition, Robert and his associates chased the ‘poor people’ of Loughborough out of their homes and they did not dare to return for three months. On 1 October 1323, Edward II ordered the sheriff of Leicestershire not to outlaw Robert for his failure to appear in court to answer for the sacking of Loughborough, because he was in prison at the king’s order and was therefore unable to attend. [17] Robert was originally imprisoned in Warwick Castle in 1322, and on 23 July 1326 was moved from there to Northampton Castle. A few months later, early in Edward III’s reign, he was pardoned for escaping from prison in Northampton ‘when confined there by the late king’s order’, though his lands were then still officially in the king’s hands, and on 12 June 1327 his manors in Yorkshire were given into the custody of one Thomas Deyvill. While he was imprisoned in Warwick Castle, shortly after 4 November 1325, royal officials questioned Robert regarding the assignment of dower to his brother William’s widow Joan. [18] The date of Robert’s escape from Northampton Castle was not recorded, though the window of opportunity for him to do so was only quite small given that he was moved there after 23 July 1326 and that Queen Isabella and her invasion force, who freed the imprisoned Contrariants, arrived in England on 24 September 1326.Isabella officially pardoned Robert Holland and restored him to his lands and goods on 24 December 1327, a few days after the deposed Edward II’s funeral. The queen ignored the protestations of her uncle Henry of Lancaster, earl of Lancaster and Leicester, Thomas of Lancaster’s brother and heir, supposedly because she loved Robert ‘wonder miche’. [19] Both Henry himself and a number of his adherents were furious at what they saw as Robert’s betrayal of Earl Thomas, the man who had given him so much. As I’ve pointed out in my previous post about Robert’s murder, linked in the first paragraph above, on 15 October 1328 he was waylaid in a wood in Essex by a group of loyal Lancastrian knights, and beheaded. On 20 October, the lands of ‘Robert de Holand, deceased, tenant in chief’ were taken into the king’s hands. [20]
In my post about Robert Holland and Maud la Zouche’s daughter Isabelle, also linked above, I listed their other children; they had at least four sons and five daughters. Their first son and heir was another Robert (d. 1373), who was said to be sixteen on 1 December 1328 and seventeen or ‘seventeen and more’ in early January 1329, placing his date of birth around 1311/12 (sadly, there is no extant proof of age confirming the exact date). [21] Their second son Thomas, whose name probably indicates that Thomas, earl of Lancaster, was his godfather, raised the Holland family high when he married Edward I’s granddaughter Joan of Kent, later countess of Kent and Lady Wake in her own right (though when Thomas married her, her younger brother John, earl of Kent, was still alive). Thomas Holland died in late December 1360, and a few months later his widow married Edward III’s eldest son the prince of Wales and became the mother of Richard II in January 1367. Thomas Holland’s children were, therefore, the older half-siblings of the king of England. Robert Holland’s grandson John Holland (c. 1353-1400) married Edward III’s granddaughter Elizabeth of Lancaster and was later made earl of Huntingdon and duke of Exeter by Richard II, while John’s older brother Thomas Holland (1350/51-1397), earl of Kent, married the earl of Arundel’s daughter Alice and their children included the duchesses of York and Clarence and the countesses of March and Salisbury. In just a couple of generations, the Holland family rose from comparative obscurity in the north to become one of the foremost families in the land.
Sources
1) J.R. Maddicott, ‘Thomas of Lancaster and Sir Robert Holland: A Study in Noble Patronage’, English Historical Review, 86 (1971), p. 450.
2) Complete Peerage, vol. 6, pp. 528-31; Maddicott, ‘Thomas of Lancaster and Sir Robert Holland’, pp. 450-51; CCR 1318-23, pp. 210, 571; CFR 1319-27, p. 168; Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous 1308-48, no. 735; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem 1317-27, nos. 497, 567, 707; A History of the County of Lancaster, vol. 3, pp. 394-5; Final Concords for Lancashire, part 2, 1307-1377, no. 127.
3) Maddicott, ‘Thomas of Lancaster and Sir Robert Holland’, p. 450.
4) CCR 1296-1302, p. 401; CPR 1301-7, p. 191.
5) CCR 1296-1302, p. 365.
6) CPR 1313-17, p. 441; Maddicott, ‘Thomas of Lancaster and Sir Robert Holland’, p. 462.
7) CFR 1307-19, pp. 2, 5, 10; CPR 1307-13, pp. 38, 411, 427.
8) Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, ed. F. Madden, B. Bandinel and J.G. Nichols, vol. 4, p. 67.
9) CPR 1307-13, pp. 411-12, 427; CCR 1307-13, p. 396.
10) Cited in G.O. Sayles, The Functions of the Medieval Parliament of England, vol. 1, p. 302; The National Archives SC 1/45/221.
11) TNA SC 8/234/11687 and 11689.
12) Feet of Fines, Berkshire, CP 25/1/9/38, no. 10, dated 13 May 1306, talks of ‘Robert de Holond and Maud his wife’ when the manor of Denford was given to them with remainder to Maud’s father Alan la Zouche.
13) CCR 1318-23, p. 525; CPR 1321-24, pp. 75, 77.
14) The Brut or the Chronicles of England, ed. F.W.D. Brie, part 1, pp. 216-17.
15) CFR 1319-27, p. 109; CPR 1321-24, pp. 137, 337; CPR 1324-27, p. 158.
16) The National Archives SC 8/58/2872.
17) CPR 1321-24, pp. 167, 309, 387; CCR 1323-27, p. 24.
18) CCR 1323-27, p. 592; CPR 1327-30, p. 17; CFR 1327-27, p. 46; CIPM 1317-27, no. 707.
19) TNA SC 8/57/2806; SC 8/57/2807A and 2807B; Brut, ed. Brie, p. 257.
WEARING OF THE GREEN/LONG LIVE A UNITED IRELAND/DOWN WITH BRITISH COLONIALISM!
Dear Readers Here you can hear and read the beautiful Irish Resistance Song againstthe century long brutal British oppression and colonialism, which not onlyoppressed and humiliated the Irish people, but also tried to destroy theirlanguage and culture!It makes me furious to watch, that till nowadays Northern Ireland, which is the rightful part of Ireland and an invention of British colonialism, is still oneof the last remnants of the British colonial Empire.
FINAL And let’s not forget this.When speaking about British colonialism, always the oppressed colonies in Africa and Asia were centres of the attention and with right, but much less Ireland.Never forget that the British colonialism started just there. SO: DOWN WITH THE PRO COLONIAL GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND!NORTHERN IRELAND MUST BE PART OF IRELAND AGAIN!THE IRA [1] WAS RIGHT ABOUT THAT!And for me:I support any progressive Irish movement, which wants to fight for aUnited Ireland! I hope to see the Day, that Northern Ireland is united with the rest ofIreland againIt’s a question of Justice! ASTRID ESSED [1] WIKIPEDIAIRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY
The following is the celebrated song which created such intense excitement throughout Great Britain, and for the incorporation of which in his piece, Mr. Bourcicault’ play of “Arrah na Pogue,” had to be withdrawn from the London stage.
I.
Oh, Paddy, dear, an’did you hear the news thats goin round?
The shamrock is forbid by law to grow on Irish ground.
No more St. Patrick’s day well keep, his color cant be seen,
For there’s a bloody law agin the wearin of the green.
I met with Napper Tandy, and he tuk me by the hand,
And he said, how’s poor ould Ireland, and how does she stand?
“She’s the most distressful country that ever you have seen,
They’re hangin men and women there for wearin of the green.”
II.
Then since the color we must wear is England’s cruel red,
Sure Ireland’s sons will neer forget the blood that they have shed.
You may take the shamrock from your hat and cast it on the sod,
It will take root and flourish there, though under foot ’tis trod.
When the law can stop the blades of grass from growing as they grow,
And when the leaves in summer time their verdure dare not show,
Then I will change the color I wear in my corbeen,
But till that day, plaze God, I’ll stick to wearin of the green.
III.
But if at last our color should be torn from Ireland’s heart,
Her sons with shame and sorrow from the dear ould soil will part.
I’ve heard whisper of a country that lies far beyant the say,
Where rich and poor stand equal in the light of freedom’s day.
Oh, Erin, must we lave you, driven by the tyrant’s hand,
Must we ask a mother—s welcome from a strange but happier land,
Where the cruel cross of England’s thraldom never shall be seen,
And where, thank God, we’ll live and die, still wearin of the green.
END OF THE SONG
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Wearing of the Green/Long live a United Ireland!/Down with British colonialism!
INTRODUCTION READERSIsn’t it interesting, when roaming the Internet, to find an old article ofyourself, that you almost forgot!It goes about a Letter to the Editor I wrote in the past [2004] to the webzine”The Pravda” and that they apparently published.Not only is that interesting, but more interesting is the fact, that I wrote about averdict of the Israeli High Court about the building of the Israeli Apartheid Wall [1]You all know, of course, the more known verdict of the International Court ofJustice, declaring the Wall illegal for once and for all [2] but few people[I almost forgot!] will remember, that the Israeli High Court gave also its opinion,in fact supporting the building of the Wall, except for some minor point of criticism [3]And here it is, this voice of the past from Astrid Essed, protesting against theverdict of the Israeli High Court!See directly below And see for the notes, under my almost forgotten Letter to the Editor! ENJOY IT! ASTRID ESSED
ASTRID ESSED: THE VERDICT OF ISRAELI HIGH COURT REGARDING THE WALL6 JULY 2004
The recent verdict of the Israeli High Court, which states that the building of the Israeli Wall at the West Bank must be adjusted with 30 kilometers because of the violations of human rights is not only a partial fullfilling of the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population, but is also in contarily with International Law.
In the first place the motivation for the verdict is being based on the fact that because of the building of the Wall the inhabitants of the Beit Surik community had no entrance to their agricultural grounds and schools, but in the named verdict the Court doesn’t refer to the other Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank [85.000 people], who are likewise excluded from their agricultural grounds.
In the second place the Israeli building of the Wall is as such a violation of International Law, because it cuts deeply in the occupied Palestinian areas which is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 dd 1967 by which Israel was summoned to withdraw from the in the june-war occupied Palestinian areas.
Further the building of the Wall is being made possible by hugh Palestinian landownings which is yet apart from the flagrant injustice a violation of International Law [the 4th Geneva Convention] which forbids land and house-ownings of ”protected people” [people who are living under an occupation] It is therefore highly recommendable, that the Israeli High Court adjusts its vedict according to the principles of International Law.
”While Israel is heading for de jure annexation, the Wall is an important tool of Israel’s illegal and ongoing de facto annexation. The Wall’s path and its associated regime are planned to de facto annex some 46% of the West Bank, isolating communities into Bantustans, ghettos and “military zones.” STOP THE WALL.ORG https://stopthewall.org/the-wall/
[2]
”In December 2003, Resolution ES-10/14 was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in an emergency special session.[111] 90 states voted for, 8 against, 74 abstained.[111] The resolution included a request to the International Court of Justice to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question.[111]
“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”[111]
The court concluded that the barrier violated international law”
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTLEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE INSTRUCTION OF A WALL INTHE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORYOVERVIEW OF THE CASE https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
By resolution ES-10/14, adopted on 8 December 2003 at its Tenth Emergency Special Session, the General Assembly decided to request the Court for an advisory opinion on the following question :
“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the Report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions ?”
The resolution requested the Court to render its opinion “urgently”. The Court decided that all States entitled to appear before it, as well as Palestine, the United Nations and subsequently, at their request, the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, were likely to be able to furnish information on the question in accordance with Article 66, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Statute. Written statements were submitted by 45 States and four international organizations, including the European Union. At the oral proceedings, which were held from 23 to 25 February 2004, 12 States, Palestine and two international organizations made oral submissions. The Court rendered its Advisory Opinion on 9 July 2004.
The Court began by finding that the General Assembly, which had requested the advisory opinion, was authorized to do so under Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter. It further found that the question asked of it fell within the competence of the General Assembly pursuant to Articles 10, paragraph 2, and 11 of the Charter. Moreover, in requesting an opinion of the Court, the General Assembly had not exceeded its competence, as qualified by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides that while the Security Council is exercising its functions in respect of any dispute or situation the Assembly must not make any recommendation with regard thereto unless the Security Council so requests. The Court further observed that the General Assembly had adopted resolution ES-10/14 during its Tenth Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377 A (V), whereby, in the event that the Security Council has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States. Rejecting a number of procedural objections, the Court found that the conditions laid down by that resolution had been met when the Tenth Emergency Special Session was convened, and in particular when the General Assembly decided to request the opinion, as the Security Council had at that time been unable to adopt a resolution concerning the construction of the wall as a result of the negative vote of a permanent member. Lastly, the Court rejected the argument that an opinion could not be given in the present case on the ground that the question posed was not a legal one, or that it was of an abstract or political nature.
Having established its jurisdiction, the Court then considered the propriety of giving the requested opinion. It recalled that lack of consent by a State to its contentious jurisdiction had no bearing on its advisory jurisdiction, and that the giving of an opinion in the present case would not have the effect of circumventing the principle of consent to judicial settlement, since the subject-matter of the request was located in a much broader frame of reference than that of the bilateral dispute between Israel and Palestine, and was of direct concern to the United Nations. Nor did the Court accept the contention that it should decline to give the advisory opinion requested because its opinion could impede a political, negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It further found that it had before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to give its opinion, and empha- sized that it was for the General Assembly to assess the opinion’s usefulness. The Court accordingly concluded that there was no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion.
Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right.
The Court then went on to consider the impact of the construction of the wall on the daily life of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, finding that the construction of the wall and its associated régime were contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that they impeded the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as their exercise of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Court further found that, coupled with the establishment of settlements, the construction of the wall and its associated régime were tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, thereby contravening the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions. The Court then considered the qualifying clauses or provisions for derogation contained in certain humanitarian law and human rights instruments, which might be invoked inter alia where military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so required. The Court found that such clauses were not applicable in the present case, stating that it was not convinced that the specific course Israel had chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives, and that accordingly the construction of the wall constituted a breach by Israel of certain of its obligations under humanitarian and human rights law. Lastly, the Court concluded that Israel could not rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall, and that such construction and its associated régime were accordingly contrary to international law.
The Court went on to consider the consequences of these violations, recalling Israel’s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under humanitarian and human rights law. The Court stated that Israel must put an immediate end to the violation of its international obligations by ceasing the works of construction of the wall and dismantling those parts of that structure situated within Occupied Palestinian Territory and repealing or rendering ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated régime. The Court further made it clear that Israel must make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction. As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court held that all States were under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It further stated that it was for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination be brought to an end. In addition, the Court pointed out that all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention were under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention. Finally, in regard to the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Court indicated that they should consider what further action was required to bring to an end the illegal situation in question, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.
The Court concluded by observing that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context, noting the obligation on Israel and Palestine to comply with international humanitarian law, as well as the need for implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, and drawing the attention of the General Assembly to the need for efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems on the basis of international law and the establishment of a Palestinian State.[3]
”Of course this is not to say that that the Israeli ruling is a good one. For example, like many Israeli rulings there are political points that are treated as legal ones, such as the false characterization of all Palestinian resistance as “terrorism” [8]. Further the HCJ does justify the Wall in principle though the projected segments reviewed were deemed to be illegal because of the humanitarian impact of the suggested route [9]” ELECTRONIC INTIFADATHE ISRAELI HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE APARTHEID WALL15 JULY 2004 https://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-high-court-justice-and-apartheid-wall/5156
With the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion regarding the consequences of the Apartheid Wall, the legality of this enterprise has been much discussed in almost all circles related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. On the Zionist side, aside from the usual canard about the “anti-Semitism” of the United Nations and the like, many commentaries have pointed to the recent Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) ruling about the wall and declared, in so many words, that this is the only legal ruling that matters. For example, in the recent diatribe against the ICJ by Alan Dershowitz [1] he writes: “The Israeli government has both a legal and a moral obligation to comply with the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision regarding the security fence.”
The interesting thing about this is that if one actually reads the HCJ decision [2], it in fact makes a very strong case against the Wall in general though its ruling only regarded only one small 40 km stretch of the Wall. Unlike the ICJ Opinion which was, as per its mandate, primarily focused on existing international treaties and conventions and Israel’s obligations stemming from them; the HCJ decision was based more on general legal principle.
The Israeli case – Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank – was a petition against eight separate land confiscation orders for the building of the Wall. The net result was that seven of these eight confiscation orders were deemed illegal and the one that was upheld was only upheld because the petitioners didn’t really argue against it [4].
Key point that resulted in the declaration that these confiscation orders were illegal was the principle of “proportionality” that was very succinctly defined in the ruling itself. [5] The actual factors taken into account were essentially the same that served as the basis of the ICJ Advisory Opinion, specifically the human impact that the Wall had on the resident Palestinian population [6]. The question and standard, treated as the third element of proportionality, deserves to be recalled in full (citations removed):
“The third subtest examines whether the injury caused to the local inhabitants by the construction of the separation fence stands in proper proportion to the security benefit from the the [sic] security fence in its chosen route. This is the proportionate means test (or proportionality “in the narrow sense”). Concerning this topic, Professor Y. Zamir wrote:
“The third element is proportionality itself. According to this element, it is insufficient that the administrative authority chose the proper and most moderate means for achieving the objective; it must also weigh the benefit reaped by the public against the damage that will be caused to the citizen by this means under the circumstances of the case at hand. It must ask itself if, under these circumstances, there is a proper proportion between the benefit to the public and the damage to the citizen. The proportion between the benefit and the damage – and it is also possible to say the proportion between means and objective – must be proportionate.
“This subtest weighs the costs against the benefits. According to this subtest, a decision of an administrative authority must reach a reasonable balance between communal needs and the damage done to the individual. The objective of the examination is to determine whether the severity of the damage to the individual and the reasons brought to justify it stand in proper proportion to each other. This judgment is made against the background of the general normative structure of the legal system, which recognizes human rights and the necessity of ensuring the provision of the needs and welfare of the local inhabitants, and which preserves “family honour and rights” (Regulation 46 of the Hague Regulations). All these are protected in the framework of the humanitarian provisions of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention. The question before us is: does the severity of the injury to local inhabitants, by the construction of the separation fence along the route determine d by the military commander, stand in reasonable (proper) proportion to the security benefit from the construction of the fence along that route?” [7]
It was on this basis that the HCJ ruled seven of the eight confiscation orders under review to be illegal. Were this same principle to be applied to most of the Wall as it exists today, especially in cases like that of the Qalqilya ghetto, it is pretty reasonable to assume that most, if not all, the Wall would be deemed illegal. Better yet, the proportionality argument is generally accepted in all modern legal systems, unlike the more specific treaty/convention law that the ICJ was forced to focus on.
Of course this is not to say that that the Israeli ruling is a good one. For example, like many Israeli rulings there are political points that are treated as legal ones, such as the false characterization of all Palestinian resistance as “terrorism” [8]. Further the HCJ does justify the Wall in principle though the projected segments reviewed were deemed to be illegal because of the humanitarian impact of the suggested route [9].
Further, citing the usual excuse used by the HCJ in regard to IDF decisions, it seeks merely to review military actions for their illegality, not to actually impose its judgment on the IDF [10]. This is, along with the IDF option of utilizing the Emergency Regulations, one of the methods allowed to the IDF to freely disregard the High Court of Justice when so inclined. As was the case in the famous court ruling against torture, that in fact merely amounted to a slight change in the phrasing of the IDF terminology, i.e. “ticking bomb” justification, the court’s ruling can be safely ignored if the government chooses – for whatever reason – not to enforce it. This is one of the luxuries of being a non-constitutional state; the political executive is under no actual obligation to enforce any law or legal ruling. In the ruling itself, the IDF freely concedes that should some portion of the fence that is already constructed be deemed illegal, they will pay compensation, but there is no mention – much less compulsion – to reverse illegal sections or the Wall or to in fact stop committing the construction even if deemed illegal. [11]
Nevertheless, in order to portray itself as being a state that respects the rule of law, High Court of Justice rulings are usually afforded at least some general consideration. Thus the HCJ ruling in Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, is in fact a rather grave embarrassment since the projected Wall cannot be constructed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories at all without inflicting the same disproportionate – and hence illegal – circumstances on other local Palestinians. So how do they intend to reconcile this ruling with the Wall?
The Jerusalem Post provided the answer to this question on July 14: “A petition against the appropriation of land for construction of the security fence near the Kissufim road in the Gaza Strip was turned down Tuesday by the High Court of Justice. The petition was submitted by Palestinian residents of the al-Karara village in the Gaza Strip. According to IBA news, the ruling also cancels a freeze order on construction in the area.” [12] Since the HCJ ruling only related to one small segment of the Wall, and the determination has already been made, the HCJ can now simply refuse to accept further petitions, based on the argument that the IDF should be assumed to be taking the same proportionality concerns into account in other areas. That is, in so many words, it seems unlikely that there will be an option of legal appeal to any other segments of the Wall, based on the assumption that the IDF will act in “good faith” taking the previous ruling into consideration. Thus, yet agai n, we have another High Court of Justice ruling that can be safely ignored.
Make no mistake about it, the Israeli High Court of Justice is no friend to Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Nevertheless, when Zionists and others choose to counter the ICJ Advisory Opinion citing the HCJ ruling, one can – in all honesty – point out that if the HCJ ruling was in fact applied to the entire Wall, most of it would be illegal even under Israeli law. Of course this won’t happen, and even if it did the IDF is under no obligation to comply anyway, nevertheless, for the scoundrels out to justify the legality of the Wall, the High Court of Justice ruling is certainly no help. END OF THE ARTICLE
END OF THE NOTES
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Voice from the Past!/Letter to the Editor, sent and published by Pravda/”The verdict of the Israeli High Court regarding the Wall”
YOUTUBE.COMGAME OF THRONESA LANNISTER ALWAYS PAYS HIS DEBTS4.16-4.18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUg2Q4A13Ss
CHAPTERS RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS
THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!
RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE
STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEEN
WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE
DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE
SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!
ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM
MARCH UNTIL AUGUST
FINAL
[END OF THE CHAPTERS, NOW READ MY ARTICLE!]
[Written between 10 March and 7 August 2021!]
Readers!At 10 March anno Domini 2021 I did a promise to you, that I wouldcomment on the Sensational Oprah Winfrey interview with PrinceHarry and his wife Meghan Markle [1], who both had finally decided not to return to their royal roles and duties [2]However,according to my information, Prince Harry is stillin the line for the throne [3],which I applaud, since as you’ll know, I cheered theroyal couple on from the beginning! [4]Why?Because Cheddar Man finally won. [5]HAHAHA/NO, That’s a half joke!I think one of the reasons is, that here I saw a Couple, that chose foreach other, despite the racist backlash Meghan Markle had from the beginning [6]and the courageous and honourable defense from Prince Harry on her behalf [7].Seems like a modern fairy Tale and Why not?People are allowed to dream, to juice the very life! That was the Fairy Tale side of it.But like a bad dream in ”Alice in Wonderland” [8], it was not a”and they lived happily ever after” Story, not only because ofthe backlash at first [9], but because apparently there was an evil partyspoiler within the Royal Family.I’ll deal with that later. But meanwhile the disturbing backlash continued [10], even a nasty petition to strip Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle from theirroyal titles ”The Duke and Duchess of Sussex” [11]The petitioner considered the titles as ” ‘morally wrong’ and ‘disrespectful’and considered them as ” ‘entirely non-democratic’ and a ‘symbol of oppression by the wealthy elite’. [12]Be that as it may [indeed, in 21st century monarchs and royal titles are a thing apart], but is this just an outburst of republicanism [13]or…it is more?Because, when it were just them ”holding royal titles”, then why especially directed against Prince Harry and his wife and not against the rest of the royal family, like Prince Harry’s elder brother, Prince William, heir to the throne after their father the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles?[Prince Willam is the Duke of Cambridge] [14]Seems suspicious to me! Because the whole case felt unfair to me, I send an email letter to the Council of Brighton, in which I wrote among else: ”Although I am not a British national, yet I take the liberty to write you about your debating the petition of stripping Prince Harry and his wife Ms Meghan Markle from the royal titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which were given to them by Queen Elisabeth at the occasion of their wedding. [1]Shortly said:I think this petition is an outrage, a sign of disrespect against the Queen and especially Prince Harry and Ms Meghan Markle and I urgently request to you NOT to grant this nonsense petition;” [15] I was pleased to receive the following letter from Mr R. Watson, Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council” ””Dear Astrid Essed,
Many thanks for your email. While we are obliged to debate any petition with more than 1,250 signatures at Full Council, the issue raised is a matter for the Crown rather than local authorities. We do not have the power to remove titles and, therefore, the council voted to simply ‘note’ the petition. No further action is being taken.
Best regards,
Richard Watson | Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council”
[16]
The haters did not win! [17]
RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
But like Prince Harry rightly stated in his declaration to defend his then
fiancee Meghan Marke [18], there has been a nasty, racist smear campaign against Meghan Markle from nearly the beginning the press [and others]
knew, that she had a love relation with Prince Harry. [19]
Of course it were not all journalists and the whole press:
Espexially low class ”journalist” Piers Morgan [20] led the smear campaign for resaons he knows best, followed by other journalistic
nobodies [21]
By the way:
This Piers Morgan journalist is so obsessed by his vendetta against
Meghan Markle, that he recently [march 2021] left the ITV Good Morning Britain show program because of his [again] hateful remarks about Meghan Markle, even though she and her husband left the country for a time already [22]
The reason for his nasty remarks led in the Oprah Winfrey interview [23]
and the remarks Meghan Markle made about her mental state of health
[suicide thoughts] [24]
I refer to that later.
But of course not the whole press was led by either racist or hateful
[or a combination of the two] moties against Meghan Markle:
For example journalist Zoe Williams did a good job with her
article in the Guardian ”Whatever Meghan does, she’s damned. Let’s not
repeat history.”, fighting the nasty villification of Meghan Markle. [25]
Am I saying now, that Meghan Markle is a Saint?
Of course not!
Everybody makes mistakes and she will have made hers:
But here I am fighting the abnormal negative attention, with often
racist undertones Meghan Markle got [26] and I am glad that there were
journalists, who played fair play!
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
Anyway, partly because of that continuing smear campaign against
Meghan Markle [27], Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, who became happy parents of a son, Lord Archie, on 6 may 2019 [28], decided
to step back as senior royals, splitting their time between the UK and
North-America. [29]
That was in january 2020. [30]
The MEGXIT, as sensational tabloids called it [31], as if Meghan Markle
made that decision alone…..!
Cherchez la Femme…../HAHAHAHA
First the Royal Couple went to Canada, later they moved to L.A. [Los Angeles] [32]
According to my information, they now live in Montecito [33], where Meghan Markle expects their second child [34], a daughter, as they revealed
in the Oprah Winfrey interview. [35]
A special Blessing after the miscarriage Meghan suffered last year! [36]
By the way, I forgot to mention, that after leaving England, Prince
Harry and Meghan Markle signed contracts with Netflix and Spotify [37]
A Shrewd Couple!
GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS
As I wrote before, in the beginning of this year, Prince Harry and
Meghan made up their mind, not to return to their royal tasks and
duties. [38]
Also we have seen Prince Harry and his son Lord Archie’s right on
succession to the throne remains the same. [39]
But [and that’s understandable, since they don’t do the
Royal Job anymore] that they lose their royal patronages. [40]
Prince Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, issued a declaration,
stating, confirming this grand step of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan,
stating ”While all are saddened by their decision, The Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family” [41]
The Statement of the Queen also referred to the fact, that
the royal patronages were withdrawn:
”Following conversations with The Duke, The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service. The honorary military appointments and Royal patronages held by The Duke and Duchess will therefore be returned to Her Majesty, before being redistributed among working members of The Royal Family.'[42]
THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!
RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE
So far, so good.
Now the interview with Oprah Winfrey
That D….mnd interview. [43]
Now assuming, that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle spoke the truth
with Oprah Winfrey, did it shocked me?
For a part, yes.
For a part, no, since I already learnt [and wrote about] the racist smearcampaign against Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, by the press. [44]
But now the Royal Family was involved, at least one [or more?] members,
uttering racist remarks. [45]
And not the least!
I quote from the interview:
”Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.” [46]
AND THAT’S SOMETHING!
OR ISN’T IT?
Before going deeper into this, there were twelve higlights in the notorious
[or famous] interview, which BBC clarified for us [47]:
I mention them for you, one by one:
1 Discussions about how dark Meghan’s baby might be
2 Kate ”made Meghan cry”, not the other way around
3 Meghan said she was on the verge of suicide but was refused help
4 Meghan spoke to one of Diana’s friends
5 Harry feels ”let down” by Charles
6 But the couple’s relationship with the Queen is good
7 Harry ”cut out financially”
8 The truth behind a photograph
9 Meghan ”didn’t do any research” on the Royal Family
10 They exchanged vowed three days before their wedding
11 Archie’s favourite phrase is ”drive safe”
12 And….it’s a girl!
[48]
Now I don’t comment on all the twelve highlights [the Megan-Katie thing [49] I consider as less important, I can’t judge who is right, I was not there], I only mention those things
which I think are really important.
To begin with:
THE FIRM, THAT MYSTERIOUS FIRM
During the interview with Oprah Winfrey, several times Meghan Markle
refers to an institution within the British Royal Family, ”The Firm” and she is very vague about the person or persons who back[s] this:
I quote from the interview:
”Oprah: So, are you saying you did not feel supported by the powers that be, be that The Firm, the monar-chy, all of them?
Meghan: It’s hard for people to distinguish the two because there’s . . . it’s a family business, right? [50]
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things” [51]
ANOTHER QUOTE ABOUT ”THE FIRM”/THE PRESSURE
” And I . . . and I remember so often people within The Firm would say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it’ll look like that. You can’t’. So, even, ‘Can I go and have lunch with my friends?’ ‘No, no, no, you’re oversaturated, you’re every-where, it would be best for you to not go out to lunch with your friends’. I go, ‘Well, I haven’t . . . I haven’t left the house in months’.” [52]
THE FIRM, AGAIN/IT’S WAY OF ACTING
[Quote]
”Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?
Meghan: No, it’s a person.
Oprah: It’s a person.
Meghan: It’s several people” [53]
THE FIRM/RACIST REMARKS
I must confess readers, that I don’t get grip on this, no persons
mentioned, no facts to check, no names
”It” or ” those people” can be anyone in the Royal Family, but, assuming that
Meghan Markle speaks the truth about some damaging sides of ”The Firm” [like having trouble with the skin colour of her and Prince Harry’s first child, Archie, a horror story, which was confirmed by Prince Harry, as denying Meghan a form of help, when she was depressed] [54], that Firm must be some important members of the Royal Family.
I puzzled and puzzled, but without more information I can’t make sense
of this.
Only of course, that assuming Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the truth, there must be a racist cuckoo in the British Royal Family, which is
no suprise to me, after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,
in time of slavery and colonialism. [55]
Would have been strange if it had not affected the Royal Family.
So ”The Firm” is a vague Institution of a series of people [who, is the big question] in the Royal Family with some power and some of them
have uttered very painful, racist things against Prince Harry about
the possible skin colour of the baby [who turned to be ”Lord Archie] [56]
I’ve puzzled and puzzled, like as I’m sure most people, who
saw or read the interview [I did noth], who that mysterious person or
persons might be, who made those nasty remarks about the skin colour
of Lord Archie, the great grandson of reigning Queen Elizabeth II!
If the whole thing is true-if Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the
truth and for now I have no reason to doubt that-it is a nasty business, but, again, not the whole amazing, that racism also exists between the British
Royal Family after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,
in time of slavery and colonialism! [57]
STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS
More important is the Statement of the Queen, who spoke out concerns
about those racist remarks after the Oprah Winfrey interview. [58]
Quoting the message of Buckingham Palace:
”The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
“Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.” [59]
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEENThat’s clear talk and as Meghan Markle remarked in the famous Oprah Winfreyinterview about the Queen:”So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things. And it’s important to be able to compartmentalise that, because the Queen, for example, has always been wonderful to me. I mean, we had one of our first joint engagements together. She asked me to join her, and I . . .
Oprah: Was this on the train?
Meghan: Yeah, on the train.”
AND
”Right. Just moments of . . . and it made me think of my grand-mother, where she’s always been warm and inviting and . . . and really welcoming.
Oprah: So, OK, so she made you feel welcomed?
Meghan: Yes.” [60]
Prince Harry also commented:
” I’ve spoken more to my grandmother in the last year than I have done for many, many years.
ALSO
”My grandmother and I have a really good relationship . . .And an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She’s my Colonel-In-Chief, right? She always will be. ” [61]
[HAHAHA, THE MILITARY WAY……]
WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE
DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE
As I said before, I don’t comment on all the topics of that famous
Oprah Winfrey Interview
I leave the Meghan/Katie thing [62] for what it is, that Meghan didn’t do research on the Royal Family [63] etcetera.
Also I don’t comment on Prince Harry’s relationship between his father
and brother [64], because fathers and sons often have their issues, like brothers.
After all, fathers and sons are fathers and sons and brothers will
be brothers and in most cases, everything will be allright and they”
ll end as one big, happy fami!y!
And I do believe, that a Royal Life can be a golden harnass [as Prince Harry commented, that his father and brother are ”trapped” [64], but that’s the price you pay for your privilege, isn’t it?
As Prince Harry said himself ”It’s part of the job” [65]
Also Prince Harry’s remarks, that he was ”cut out financially” [66],
didn’t impress me.
When you are the grandson of the Queen, one of the richest women in
the world [67] and you have been raised with all kinds of privileges
and financial advantages, than ”cut out financially” means a totally
different story than when it happens to the common man.
Besides, the first task of any man and father, royalty or not, is
to provide for his family on his own force.
So that’s for the royal privileges
But of course that all changes , when you are twelve [two weeks after his mother’s death, Prince Harry became thirteen years old] and fifteen years old
when you loses your mother far too early by a car crashincident, pushed
by the tabloids and you have to walk behind her coffin for the eyes
of the whole world to see [68]
I felt really sorry for Prince Harry and his brother Prince William at that moment.
Too young, far too young to lose one;s mother [although it is never the right time]
That also changes when you feel that depressed, like Meghan Markle stated in the Oprah interview, that you want to take your own life…..[69]
SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!
Even about that statement boulevard hater Piers Morgan made a nasty remark, so he had to leave Good Morning Britain after more than 40.000 complaints! [70]
GOOD RIDDANCE TOO!
So therefore I wanted to comment that depression of Meghan Markle,
nearly ruining her life and that of her family.
And if it’s really true, that Meghan knocked on the door of
”the Firm” and they didn’t open it, when she was in need [refused to give
the necessary help] [71], that that’s more than scandalous.
ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM
MARCH UNTIL AUGUST
Since I began to comment the famous Oprah Interview [in March] until now [August], much has happened in the British Royal Family, so including in the lives of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Prince Harry’s grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, died [72]
Prince Harry and his brother Prince William unveil a statue in the honour of their mother, Princess Diana [73] and of course the happy arrival of
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s daughter, Lady Lilibeth, the eleventh grandchild of Queen Elizabeth and named after her greatgrandmother Queen Elizabeth [Lilibet was the name the Queen’s family called her] and her grandmother Princess Diana [74]
[They listened to me:
I always said, that when Harry and Meghan became parents of a daughter,
they had to name her after her greatgrandmother the Queen/HAHAHA]
Also Prince Harry revealed some issues he had with his father concerning
the way he was raised [75], but I consider that as personal and I am sure
they will work that out.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have their own life now, far from any
racist smearcampaign [76] and I wish them, with their children, a happy life!
FINAL
So as I promised at 10 march this anno Domini [77], I would comment on
the famous Oprah Winfrey interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Now I did.
And you readers probably will ask yourself:
Why she is bothering with an interview from march, we living in august?
Normally indeed I would not bother, but now it is important, because racism is there, that greeneyed monster [78] that can ruin lives.
But happily not the life of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who choose the
right way to leave this mess behind them.
But this is racism in the highest circles, the British Royal Family and you
would think, that somebody who is that priviliged as the Duchess of Sussex, should not be subject of it.
Yet it happened, but luckily she has a true husband, Prince Harry, who supports her no matter what, as he has proved. [79]
That made it worth to write about this, although it was months ago, that
the interview was taken.
As I wrote in this article, I could not track down, who is the racist cuckoo
in the British Royal Family, but that matters not.
Fact is, that racism is appartently also the issue in those circles.
And alas, racism is with us for a long time yet, perhaps until
we are attacked by aliens and together we are defending our Mother Earth
[HAHAHA]
But fighting against racism and prejudice, wherever you find it, was worth
to write this article.
And the fact that I completed this article five months after the famous Oprah Winfrey interview [80], adds the worth of fighting for equality.
/s3/static.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2021/11/1211inbmigrantenpowr27.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2021/11/1211inbmigrantenpowr16.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2021/11/1211inbmigrantenpowr18.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2021/11/1211inbmigrantenpowr11.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2021/11/1211inbmigrantenpowr.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2021/11/1211inbmigrantenpowr26.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2021/11/1211inbmigrantenpowr9.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2021/11/1211inbmigrantenpowr28.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2021/11/1211inbmigrantenpowr3.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2021/11/1211inbmigrantenpowr29.jpg)
![The Israeli separation barrier divides East Jerusalem and the Palestinian West Bank town of Qalandia. [File: Thomas Coex/AFP]](https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/TafQOExghNFA53NWHdh6penouZCvg70GtnbRrSB5al6iUqhN5NMC9AiFHgZa_PRE2xa2RV-0Paw3fM1ydDP59Mr06NcHTpZBuORzLshWkqgtvJh8D5hMeaUsOtT29XSiwRSpnn96EVKsSb41qtVJ7lnSCpyVg226VF1yyQlH=s0-d-e1-ft#https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/4805b373bf0949d0a31e6b7a375a0128_8.jpeg?fit=1170%2C696)
