Posted on April 17, 2010
Da den canadiske science fiction-forfatter Peter Watts’ bil blev gennemrodet ved den amerikansk-canadiske grænse, begik han den fejl at spørge hvorfor. Big mistake.
Så nogen lavede et skilt, som de kan sætte op ved de amerikanske grænseovergange for at advare besøgende om, hvad de kan forvente.
Cory Doctorow har historien på Boing Boing:
Kai was outraged by the conviction of Dr Peter Watts, the Canadian science fiction writer who got out of his vehicle while crossing back into Canada to ask a US border guard why his car was being searched, and was clubbed, gassed, charged with a felony, and left in wet clothes in an unheated cell overnight during a snow-storm. So Kai made this sign warning unwary travellers of what they might expect the next time they cross into Canada at Port Huron. I’ve checked with Peter (who is awaiting sentencing) and he’s OK with this being posted.
Jeg skimter en turistkampagne i horisonten: Kom til Sunny Florida og få tæsk af politiet. Eller ikke. Der er mere om historien her, Cory har også en del links efter opslaget på Boing Boing.
Link: Unprovoked beatings ahead
Posted on April 10, 2010
Jeg troede, jeg havde hørt det hele - jeg troede efterhånden, at regeringen og Dansk Folkeparti var færdige med at undergrave væsentlige retsprincipper og efterhånden havde nået mætningspunktet i deres paranoide bestræbelser på at holde fremmede vækster ude af vores efterhånden ret godt isolerede mosehul.
Men nej, de manglede stadig at finde på dette: Læger, der udfærdiger lægeerklæringer om asylsøgere, må, hvis udkastet til den nye udlændingelov bliver en realitet, ikke længere udtale sig til pressen, hvis ikke de vil have deres lægeerklæring kasseret.
Also sprach Politiken:
Integrationsminister Birthe Rønn Hornbech (V) vil lukke munden på læger, der offentligt kritiserer hende i udlændingesager.
Ministeren truer med at kassere lægeerklæringer fra læger eller psykiatere, der kritiserer ministeriet i sager, hvor asylansøgere beder om humanitær opholdstilladelse af helbredsmæssige årsager.
I bemærkningerne til en ny udlændingelov står der, at lægen vil blive betragtet som inhabil, hvis han eller hun »efter afgivelse af erklæringen eller udtalelsen henvender sig til pressen og kritiserer ministeriets sagsbehandling, samtidig med at lægen udtaler, at hans eller hendes patient bør meddeles opholdstilladelse«.
Læger og advokater raser:
»Det her er en begrænsning af vores ytringsfrihed, der kan give minder om politistatsmetoder. Lægen har pligt til at korrekse myndighederne, hvis de opdager, at noget er sundhedsfagligt uforsvarligt. Det er vagthunden i vores system«, siger Torben Ishøy fra Dansk Selskab til Sikring af Lægers Ytringsfrihed.
Både Advokatrådet og Retssikkerhedsfonden kalder den nye praksis i udlændingeloven »yderst betænkelig«.
»Selv om en psykiater eller læge udtaler sig til pressen om problemstillingen generelt eller om enkeltsager, så behøver det ikke at være ensbetydende med, at den pågældendes tidligere lægeerklæring er usaglig«, siger mangeårig udlændingeadvokat Gunnar Homann, der udtaler sig på vegne af Advokatrådet.
Så - det er da et nyt princip, der vil noget: Hvis du gerne vil tages alvorligt som læge, psykiater, advokat, biolog og sikkert også snart fysiker, matematiker og datalog, må du hellere lade være med at kritisere regeringen. I modsat fald er du nemlig “inhabil”. Og sikkert også snart et hoved job kortere.
Hvad var det i øvrigt lige med at “stå vagt om ytringsfriheden”?
Link: Rønn vil give læger mundkurv på
Posted on April 6, 2010
Set på Facebook:
Tak til Amila, som forklarer historien således:
This Croatian cameraman was fired because he wore this T-shirt to a government press conference. The T-shirt was subsequently auctioned off and the money donated to charity. A Facebook group with the same name currently has more than 43.000 members.
Posted on January 21, 2010
Forfatteren Erwin Neutzsky-Wulff sætter fokus på SFs vanvittige forslag om at kriminalisere “terrorsurf” i en veloplagt klumme i Dagbladet Arbejderen.
Hvis man undrer sig over et sådant forslag fra netop SF, skal man huske, at der er fortilfælde:
Det er sådan noget, der sker, når magten og indflydelsen bliver vigtigere end det, det oprindelig var meningen, den skulle bruges til.
Og ikke nok med det, vælgerne og de nye politiske sengekammerater må overbevises om, at man mener det alvorligt, hvilket ofte fører til en art ‘overkompensation’, hvor man i om muligt endnu højere grad spiller på befolkningens fordomme og hysteri. [...]
Ethvert totalitært styre må først skaffe sig af med ytringsfriheden. Det er ikke populært, hvorfor man som bekendt har søgt at føre krigen over i fjendens lejr ved at publicere nogle tegninger af omtrent samme lødighed som nazisternes jødekarikaturer, og som den minoritet, man ønskede at lægge for had, måtte reagere på.
Men her taler vi ikke om et par sindsforvirrede øksemænd, men om et internationalt komplot med det formål at bringe enhver kritik til tavshed. Vi ser det i skueprocessen imod Foreningen Oprør, der meget vel kan give os vores første - men næppe sidste - samvittighedsfange, og hvor det politiske formål kun har yderst lidt at gøre med indholdet af anklageskriftet.
Hvad det i sidste ende drejer sig om, er retten til i tale og på skrift at solidarisere sig med undertrykte grupper og folkeslag. Statsmagten og de kapitalinteresser, den repræsenterer, vil nemlig altid bruge vold for at nå sine mål.
Tilbage står blot at stemple enhver form for nødværge som ‘terror’. Det er da også det, det omtalte forslag går ud på, nemlig at gøre ikke blot formidlingen, men selve tilegnelsen af information til en forbrydelse.
Det svarer med andre ord til forbuddet mod at lytte til BBC under krigen. Værnemagten ønskede meget naturligt ikke, at befolkningen skulle kende sandheden om dens ’strategiske tilbagetog’, og på samme måde skal vi helst ikke få mistanke om, hvor hadede og foragtede som nation, vi er ved at blive.
Der er tale om ’sider, der opfordrer til vold’, og hvad er så det? Sider, der viderebringer en forståelse for mennesker, der desperat forsvarer sig mod regeringernes folkedrab, deres situation og dens baggrund?
Eller blot alt andet end DR`s politiserier og øvrige slet skjulte propaganda? Det er med fuldt overlæg vagt formuleret og indbyder til ‘agtpågivenhed’ og selvcensur.
Det var den samme taktik, man benyttede for at undgå pinlige demonstrationer i forbindelse med klimatopmødet. I stedet for at udstede et udgangsforbud gjorde man det ved massearrestationer af uskyldige mennesker klart, at enhver lovlydig borger ved blot at opholde sig på det forkerte sted på det forkerte tidspunkt risikerede mishandling og tortur - hvad enten man så kalder det for futtog eller papegøjepind.
Link: Ytringsfrihed
Posted on January 21, 2010
Informations Anton Geist har været i Irak og følge op på historien om de irakere, som efter mange år i danske asylcentre nu er blevet udvist til et krigshelvede, udenrigsministeriets egne delegationer ikke engang tør rejse ned til på fact-finding-mission.
Vi læser blandt andet om Arsad fra Kirkuk, som de danske myndigheder fik gennemtrumfet, ikke var fra Kirkuk - hvis han havde været det, skulle han nemlig have haft asyl:
»Jeg er ked af, det er gået sådan her. Jeg kunne have forsørget mig selv. Jeg kunne have betalt skat. Det havde været godt for både Danmark og mig,« siger Arsad.
Han er bitter.
»Jeg havde et liv. Det har jeg ikke mere. Efter otte år. Danmark har gjort mig til et nul,« siger han.
»Jeg er ingenting her. Jeg har ikke noget arbejde. Jeg er bange. Jeg tør ikke gå ud alene. Hvad har Danmark fået ud af at gøre det mod mig?«
Kirkuk er hårdt ramt af terror. Det er alle, Information taler med i provinsen, enige om. Og uden for provinsen har mange advaret os mod at tage dertil.
»Hvis det ikke var for jer, kunne jeg aldrig drømme om at tage dertil. Man ved aldrig, hvad der sker i Kirkuk,« som vores chauffør siger.
Men for et par år siden var situationen endnu mere kritisk i Kirkuk, er de fleste også enige om.
Netop dengang, da drabs- tallene toppede i provinsen, fik Arsad afslag fra Flygtningenævnet. Han havde søgt om genoptagelse af sin asylsag, blandt andet på baggrund af den seneste rapport fra FN’s flygtningeorganisation UNHCR, der slog fast, at den etniske og sekteriske vold i Kirkuk var så udbredt, at alle derfra havde krav på asyl - hvilket ifølge UNHCR stadig er tilfældet.
Nævnet mente ikke, at »de nye oplysninger om situationen i Irak, herunder i Kirkuk, er af en sådan karakter, at der er grundlag for at genoptage sagen«.
»De ved ikke, hvad de taler om. Hvis de var mig, ville de heller ikke kunne holde det ud,« siger Arsad.
Han flygtede i 2001 fra Irak, fordi repræsentanter fra Saddam Husseins Baath-parti flere gange havde opfordret ham til at melde sig til en af landets militsenheder. På det tidspunkt fik alle fra provinsen asyl i Danmark. Men Udlændingestyrelsen mente ikke, at han stammer fra Kirkuk.
Arsad besvarede ganske vist en lang række spørgsmål om Kirkuk korrekt og kunne tegne kort over byens gader og floder. Men et svensk firma foretog en analyse af hans dialekt og fandt frem til, at han brugte et for ‘kylling’, som man ikke bruger i Kirkuk, men lidt længere nordpå i den kurdiske by Sulaymaniyah.
Udlændingestyrelsen antog derfor, at Arsad stammede fra de kurdiske områder i det nordlige Irak, som ikke var under Saddam Husseins kontrol.
»Styrelsen finder, at det efter de foreliggende baggrundsoplysninger, herunder særlig UNHCR’s oplysninger vedrørende forholdende i det nordlige Irak, må lægges til grund, at du vil kunne vende tilbage til det nordlige Irak uden at risikere forfølgelse fra de irakiske myndigheders side,« skrev den ansvarlige embedsmand til Arsad.
Senere fastslog myndighederne i det nye demokratiske Irak, at Arsad rent faktisk stammer fra Kirkuk. Men på det tidspunkt var Saddam Hussein blevet væltet. Og de danske udlændingemyndigheder valgte ikke længere at lægge UNHCR’s anbefalinger til grund for deres beslutninger.
»Tænk at sådan noget kan ske i et civiliseret land,« siger Arsad. »Den slags beslutninger har ødelagt mit liv.«
Link: ‘Danmark har gjort mig til et nul’
Posted on January 15, 2010
… undtagen for dem, der har noget at sige, åbenbart.
Dette har Nastja Arcel en fremragende klumme om i dagens MetroXpress:
Hvornår mistede Danmark viljen og evnen til at kende forskel på en fredelig aktion og en voldelig terrorhandling?
De kongelige sikkerhedsfolk på den røde løber overfaldt Nora fra Greenpeace i samme sekund, hun, som den lille dreng i ‘Kejserens nye klæder’, sagde, hvad hun mente: »Politicians talk, leaders ACT,« stod der på det gule skilt, hun foldede ud. Rigets mænd handlede hurtigt - førte hende væk, og hun kiggede lidt forvirret rundt, inden hun forsvandt bag de kongelige fløjdøre.
Det var om aftenen den 7. december, og der var klima-gallamiddag på dronningens slot i riget, hvor ytringsfrihed har samme status som kronjuvelerne - dog særligt, når den nævnes i samme åndedrag som ‘flæskesteg’.
I ‘Kejserens nye klæder’ råbte drengen: »Han har jo ikke noget tøj på!« da den nøgne konge gik forbi, og folk råbte det samme i kor. Men ingen af gæsterne ved klima-middagen nåede at opdage eller støtte Nora - for hun og det gule skilt blev gemt væk, inden hun nåede at åbne munden.
Senere skete der det samme for hende, som for den unge mand med sandhedstalen i filmen ‘Festen’. Hun blev straffet. 20 dage i fængsel, med et enkelt besøg af sine to børn.
Hvordan kan vi fortælle verden om ytringsfrihed og demokrati i den ene tale og i den anden forsvare 20 dages fængsling af en fredelig aktivist?
Link: ‘Ytringsfrihed for alle’ (tak til Amila for tippet).
Posted on January 12, 2010
… som også beskrevet i danske aviser. Greenpeace opsummerer situationen på deres klimablog:
Did Danish authorities really hold our activists in prison for 20 days because they were diligently investigating how they got onto a red carpet at a state dinner during the Copenhagen climate conference? New evidence suggests not.
To non-violently paraphrase Michael Corleone, “If history teaches us anything, it’s that you can get past security anywhere.” But here’s a fact: it really, really, pisses them off.
And that, it would appear, is the real reason that our Red Carpet Four activists were held without a trial in Denmark. Let’s be clear: they had a message to deliver. It wasn’t their intent to make monkeys of a security force that was set up to protect the 120 most powerful people on the planet, along with the Queen of Denmark. But yes, they did that when, with a few smart-looking cars in a “motorcade” marked with the Greenpeace logo, a Tuxedo, an off-the-rack evening dress and a flashing blue light bought on the internet, they managed to get into the Parliament and deploy, in full view of the world’s leaders and the gathered press, banners demanding action on climate change.
Now the REASON the police claimed they needed to hold our activists, without visitation rights, for 20 days over Christmas and New Year’s, without trial, was that they were “investigating” the incident.
We offered to help early on. We provided full details and an open invitation to the police to ask us anything. Clearly, security could be better, and we don’t mind letting them know how they can improve it — we’re non-violent, but not everyone with an interest in getting to world leaders can make the same claim.
Yet we weren’t asked a single question until a couple days ago, when police asked for the names of those who were in the three cars in our “Motorcade.” (The individuals voluntarily came forward).
When we (and a judge) were told that the activists needed to be held until the ongoing investigation was complete, we presumed that meant there was an ongoing investigation. Surely the activists themselves were under daily interrogation behind bars.
But no. Nora, Juantxo, Christian, and Joris have just told us they were interviewed only twice: on their arrest and for 15 minutes a few days ago. The cars which were impounded were not even fingerprinted immediately; one car was returned with fingerprint powder on the 30th of December, another car was fingerprinted today, and the police have not started on the third.
One activist, Joris Thijssen, was not arrested on the red carpet, but picked up at a restaurant by police acting, we’re told, on information that Joris was an organiser of the action. What made them think that? It’s because they tapped his and two other Greenpeace phones. (Danish media are reporting that 15 other Greenpeace phones were tapped on the day of the action, and police lawyers were not even consulted on those.)
But what exactly did they do with all that information? If the phone taps had told them everything they needed to know, they would presumably have stopped the action. If the phone taps didn’t tell them everything they needed to know, why did they not ask Joris, who would have been happy to tell them? And if they weren’t going to ask him anything useful, then why on Earth did they put him behind bars for 20 days claiming he was being held while the investigation continued? (Asked on release if he would have done anything differently as a result of his prison experience, Joris replied “I would have brought a book.”)
Even more amazing, Danish newspaper Nyheder reports that the police’s own lawyers had recommended the immediate release of the four - a recommendation which the Chief of Police chose to ignore.
Greenpeace International Executive Director, Kumi Naidoo, said on their release that “When the history of climate change is written, the criminals will be exposed, and these four people are not the criminals.”
Our legal systems should not treat those who choose peaceful acts of civil disobedience over inaction as if they are terrorists or criminals. They are neither. They are the voices of society’s conscience. The longer the world defers delivering a fair, ambitious, legally binding treaty to stop global warming, the louder those voices will grow. (You can add yours here.)
There are not enough prisons in the world to hold us all.
It’s time to stop jailing us, and listen.
Posted on January 4, 2010
Det er Gary Younges konklusion i hans indlæg i dagens Guardian. “Bush’s anti-terror strategy was not about protecting people but about scaring them“:
When it actually came down to it, to forestall a near-calamitous terrorist atrocity in the US the authorities didn’t even have to go in search of information or informants. The alleged terrorist’s father came to the US embassy in Nigeria of his own free will and warned them that his son, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had disappeared and could be in the company of Yemeni terrorists.
Meanwhile the National Security Agency had heard that al-Qaida in Yemen was planning to use an unnamed Nigerian in an attack on the US. If that were not enough, then came Abdulmutallab himself, a 23-year-old Nigerian bound for Detroit who bought his ticket in cash, checked in no bags and left no contact information. For seven years the American state manipulated the public with its multicoloured terror alerts. But when all the warning lights were flashing red, it did nothing.
To brand this near miss a “systemic failure”, as Barack Obama has done, is both true and inadequate. It reduces the moral vacuity, political malevolence and enduring strategic recklessness that has been the enduring response to the 9/11 attacks to a question of managerial competence.
Hvis den manglende afsløring af den nigerianske bombemand in spe skulle betegnes som en “systemfejl”, ville det jo nemlig forudsætte, at hele terror- og advarsels- og sikkerhedssystemet ikke havde virket efter sin hensigt - men det er helt forkert.
“Krigen mod terror” har fungeret helt fejlfrit. Dens formål er bare ikke at fange terrorister, men at opskræmme befolkningen, så den bliver lettere at kontrollere og de bitre kontrol- og overvågningspiller bliver lettere at få til at gå ned. At sådan en Abdulmutallab kan slippe igennem, er vel nærmest at betragte som en ekstra bonus, der kan bruges som påskud for yderligere skærpelser og stramninger, så skruen kan drejes endnu en tand, mens vi venter på det næste påskud til at skære endnu en skive af vores frihed.
Link: The war on terror has been about scaring people, not protecting them
Posted on January 2, 2010
Fra Climate Justice Action - tak til Arash Sharifzadeh Abdi:
Copenhagen, January 1st 2010
Something is rotten (but not just) in Denmark. As a matter of fact, thousands of people have been considered, without any evidence, a threat to the society. Hundreds have been arrested and some are still under detention, waiting for judgement or under investigation. Among them, us, the undersigned.
We want to tell the story from the peculiar viewpoint of those that still see the sky from behind the bars.
A UN meeting of crucial importance has failed because of several contradictions and tensions that have shown up during the COP15. The primary concern of the powerfuls was the governance of the energy supply for neverending growth. This was the case whether they were from the overdeveloped world, like the EU countries or the US, or from the so-called developing countries, like China or Brazil.
At odds, hundreds of delegates and thousands of people in the streets have raised the issue that the rationale of life must be (and actually is) opposed to that of profit. we have strongly affirmed our will to stop anthropic pressure on the biosphere.
A crisis of the energy paradigm is coming soon. The mechanisms of global governance have proven to be overhelmingly precarious. The powerfuls failed not only in reaching an agreement on their internal equilibrium but also in keeping the formal control of the discussion.
Climate change is an extreme and ultimate consequence of the violence of the capitalistic growth paradigm. People globally are increasingly showing the willingness of taking the power to rebel against that violence. we have seen that in Copenhagen, as well as we have seen that same violence. Hundreds of people have been arrested without any reason or clear evidence, or for participating in peaceful and legitimate demonstrations. Even mild examples of civil disobedience have been considered as a serious threath to the social order.
In response we ask – What order do we threaten and who ordered it? Is it that order in which we do not anymore own our bodies? The order well beyond the terms of any reasonable “social contract” that we would ever sign, where our bodies can be taken, managed, constrained and imprisoned without any serious evidence of crime. Is it that order in which the decisions are more and more shielded from any social conflicts? Where the governance less and less belongs to people, not even through the parliament? As a matter of fact, non-democratic organisms like the WTO, the NB, the G-whatever rule beyond any control.
We are forced to notice that the theater of democracy is a broken one as soon as one approaches the core of the power. That is why we reclaim the power to the people. We reclaim the power over our own lives. Above all, we reclaim the power to counterpose the rationale of life and of the commons to the rationale of profit. It may have been declared illegal, but still we consider it fully legitimate.
Since no real space is left in the broken theater, we reclaimed our collective power – Actually we expected it – to speak about the climate and energy issues. Issues that, for us, involve critical nodes of global justice, survival of man and energy independence. We did marching with our bodies.
We prefer to enter the space where the power is locked dancing and singing. We would have liked to do this at the Bella center, to disrupt the session in accord with hundreds of delegates. But we were, as always, violently hampered by the police. They arrested our bodies in an attempt to arrest our ideas. we risked our bodies, trying to protect them just by staing close to each other. We value our bodies: We need them to make love, to stay together and to enjoy life. They hold our brains, with beautifull bright ideas and views. They hold our hearts filled with passion and joy. Nevertheless, we risked them. we risked our bodies getting locked in prisons.
In fact, what would be the worth of thinking and feeling if the bodies did not move? Doing nothing, letting-it-happen, would be the worst form of complicity with the business that wanted to hack the UN meeting. At the COP15 we moved, and we will keep moving.
Exactly like love, civil disobedience can not just be told. We must make it, with our bodies. Otherwise, we would not really think about what we love, and we would not really love what we think about. It’s as simple as that. It’s a matter of love, justice and dignity.
How the COP15 has ended proves that we were right. Many of us are paying what is mandatory for an obsessive, pervasive and total repression: To find a guilty party at the cost of inventing it (along with the crime perhaps).
We are detained with evidently absurd accusations about either violent actions that actually did not take place or conspiracies and organizing of law-breaking actions.
We do not feel guilty for having shown, together with thousands, the reclamation of the independence of our lives from profit’s rule. If the laws oppose this, it was legitimate to peacefully – but still conflictually – break them.
We are just temporarily docked, ready to sail again with a wind stronger than ever. It’s a matter of love, justice and dignity.
- Luca Tornatore, Italian social centres network “see you in Copenhagen”.
- Natasha Verco, Climate Justice Action
- Johannes Paul Schul Meyer
- Arvip Peschel
- Christian Becker
- Kharlanchuck Dzmitry
- Cristoph Lang
- Anthony Arrabal
Posted on December 17, 2009
Tag ikke mit ord for det, ordene står at læse i The Guardian:
The problem the Danish government faces gets bigger by the hour. Clearly the government is desperate for the UN climate summit in Copenhagen to be seen as a success, regardless of whether the deal done is capable of slowing down climate change in a just way. But it is faced with an ever-swelling army of critics who believe this issue is too important for a stitched-up compromise, negotiated late at night between corporate lobbyists and rich-country governments in conference hotel rooms.
For months the Danish government has been preparing to silence the critics – even approving new police powers to clamp down on protest. Last month we wrote to express our concern that these powers could easily be used to prevent those without a voice at the summit expressing themselves. The Danish government responded that “the new [police powers] will in no way affect peaceful demonstrators”.
The sight of 1,000 activists being held in freezing temperatures without basic rights for many hours clearly exposes the Danish authorities’ argument. So do reports of pepper spray being used on protesters held in cages, the constant raids on meetings and sleeping quarters, the arrest of a civil society spokesperson on the eve of yesterday’s demonstration and the many more stories of serious infringements of civil liberties. [...]
This reflects exactly what is happening inside the conference centre, where criticism or alternative voices have been ignored and are now being silenced. Developing countries have felt so marginalised by a process clearly under the control of rich countries that they staged a walk-out on Tuesday. The same day the Danish prime minister Rasmussen sought to impose an agreement from above, killing off the legitimate negotiations and the binding Kyoto agreements. Rich countries have been trying to wriggle out of their emission reduction commitments throughout Copenhagen, and developing countries are right to resist.
Today, many developing countries are leaving the centre again to join protesters outside. Also today, civil society organisations including Friends of the Earth, Avaaz and Tck Tck Tck have been thrown out of the conference. Incredibly, delegates and media have been told they will lose their accreditation if they talk to these banned NGOs. No credible justification has been given for this behaviour.
Hvad det så end er, så regn med at DF-regeringen nok skal forkludre det med deres noget specielle syn på borgerrettigheder og demokrati.
Link: Copenhagen: The sound of silence
Next Page »
