Tag Archives: internet

WikiLeaks – sau mica lectie despre cat de sclavi sunt cei ce ne reprezinta prin guverne si parlamente nationale

ceea ce este mai jos este pornit de la un mesaj pe care l-am postat aici plus diverse completari.

Idiot sau nu, Julian Asange este arestat pentru cu totul altceva decat WikiLeaks. Acuzatia nu este pentru viol ci pentru „sex by surprise” ,  pentru ca a cedat prezervativul. :)) , pentru ca cele doua femei si-au dat seama ca au fost ‘incurcate’ cu acelasi barbat  si-au propus si reusit sa starneasca scandal in mass media, desi la politie nu au facut nici o plangere ci au cerut un sfat! In acelasi articol apare intrebarea „de ce Interpolul a acceptat urmarirea lui Assange”, in conditiile in care „crima” de care se facea vinovat are o pedeapsa maxima de 715 dolari SUA ca amenda penala si nu se exista pedeapsa cu inchisoarea?  Cu atat mai mult cu cat la momentul respectiv, august 2010, Assange a dat declaratii la politia suedeza si permisiunea de a parasi Suedia a fost acordata de procuror, nu exista mandat de arestare in Suedia, iar JA s-a declarat disponibil pentru noi declaratii in UK, la ambasada Suediei in UK.

So why exactly is there a red notice lodged with Interpol over this? In the 188 countries that are part of Interpol, there are a bit over five thousand notices given each year for murderers, fraudsters, actual rapists, and other serious crimes. A crime that has a maximum penalty of USD715 and no potential jail time is a minor offense, and appears to be more a case of social ineptitude on both sides than anything else.

Why did Interpol accept it? There isn’t even an arrest warrant against Assange in Sweden. Apparently because Sweden’s director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny claimed that Julian Assange had ‘fled’ to avoid answering questions. However  the facts that have not been disputed by the Swedish prosecutor or her staff is that Julian Assange has made statements to both the police and the prosecutors after staying in Sweden to do so, was given permission to leave the country by the prosecutors, and has offered to answer questions in Britian including at the Swedish embassy.

Partea cea mai interesanta este cea care apare in conditiile atasate la „notificarea rosie” trimisa Interpolului si anume: Julian Assange sa fie prins fara sa comunice, fara acces la avocati, vizitatori sau alti prizonieri

Of even more concern is the conditions attached to the red notice. When it was issued on November 18th it requested that Assange would be

…held incommunicado without access to lawyers, visitors or other prisoners..

Quite simply this looks like a politically motivated legal move to grab Julian Assange on a legal pretext, to shut him up, and to get moved to a country with a sympathetic prosecutor for extradition. I’d be extremely interested in finding out what communication has been going on between theconservative government in Sweden  before and after the election on September 19th with the government in the US.

But it is pretty clear that Marianne Ny is not acting for the law in Sweden – she is using the law and the Interpol process on the flimsiest pretext. It is clear that you can’t call this rape despite what the prosecutors in Sweden say and has been blasted all over the US media.

Unde am mai vazut asta? In legile UE care permit asa ceva! Pentru simplul motiv ca pentru UE si guvernele sale, articolul 11 din Declaratia Universala A Drepturilor Omului NU CONTEAZA! Pentru cine nu a priceput, repetam: drepturile omului nu sunt considerate importante in legislatia si procedurile UE.

Inchiderea WikiLeaks s-a facut prin presiuni  si NU legal! In SUA nici macar nu aveau cum sa o inchida, pentru ca sunt sub legea whistleblowers.

Problema care se pune cred ca tine de alt aspect: daca Wikileaks ca miscare este invinsa / inchisa / dispare, atunci inchiderea /filtrarea la sange a internetului este doar o problema de cateva luni, pana voteaza parlamentele “nationale” sau “comunitare” sau “federale” legislatia necesara.

In cinismul ei, SUA isi pregateste deja iesirea din aceasta situatie; in 2011 va gazdui manifestarile legate de … libertatea presei! Ironie, cinism sau …?

Daca WikiLeaks ramane in picioare, indiferent cum (fie si prin mirroring ) si-si continua activitatea peste toate aceste abuzuri asupra lui J.A. (momentan sunt doar abuzuri, omul a fost acuzat de ceva dar nu si condamnat; cel putin in teorie exista INCA prezumtia de nevinovatie), atunci se va schimba ceva esential in mintea oamenilor: guvernele, parlamentele cu toti servitorii lor pot fi invinse daca oamenii sunt uniti si tin cu dintii de libertatea lor, de accesul la informatie si de libertatea de exprimare.

Existenta evenimentului prin care oamenii si-au aparat libertatea de exprimare si accesul la informatii si au resusit, in ciuda presiunii guvernelor, va fi ACEL CEVA care va declansa un nou nivel de constientizare in randul masei largi de populatie. Si cei care lucreaza la strategiile ce implica masa de populatie sunt constienti de acest aspect.

Problema nu este legata de continutul documentelor in sine ci de ceea ce reprezinta Wikileaks si anume libertatea de exprimare, accesul la informatii si dezvaluirea abuzurilor indivizilor ajunsi in functii de conducere in diverse structuri, abuzuri comise in numele unui popor. WikiLeaks NU este Julian Assange ci o intreaga echipa cu N conexiuni. Nu statea Assange sa puna pe net

Daca Libertatea de Exprimare dispare pentru ca indivizi ajunsi la putere in USA, Franta,  Suedia etc nu vor sa se stie despre manarelile pe care le fac IN NUMELE popoarelor lor, un regim a la Coreea de Nord ni se va parea raiul pe pamant.

Oricum, merita mentionat faptul ca Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, banca elvetiana nu s-au sinchisit si nu au nici o greata sa permita accesul la serviciile lor pentru organizatii de genul KKK , site-urile de pornografie etc si nici nu au blocat conturile si cardurile  violatorilor dovediti din lume, nici macar ale preotilor Vaticanului dovediti molestatori. Dar s-au unit toti impotriva unei persoane care inca beneficiaza de prezumtia de nevinovatie ( nu ca ar conta prea mult asta pentru MasterCard, Visa, PayPal .. dupa cum s-a vazut) si impotriva unui web site care mai aduce ceva transparenta si care a aratat chestii interesante chiar si pentru cei care mai stiu cate ceva.

Un ziar australian “zice” ca au aparut chestii foarte interesante in “docomentele” cu pricina:

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.

► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran’s nuclear program stopped by any means available.

► Britain’s Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect “US interests”.

► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”. The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.

Nu poti sa nu te intrebi cum de au fost americanii atat de eficienti in a (incerca) sa blocheze WikiLeaks, sa-l prinda pe Assange si sa-i blocheze banii, dar nu-i nimeresc pe cei din Al-Queda nici dupa un deceniu, desi au strambat legislatia in fel si chip.

Sarah Palin cerea ca Assange sa fie vanat precum Osama bin Laden; hmm… asta ar  insemna ca Assange ar trebui sa mai fie liber un deceniu 🙂 Dar deja senatorul Mitch McConnell a anuntat ca daca se constata ca Assange nu a incalcat legea cu documentele vestite, atunci legea va trebui schimbata (NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday)

Este interesant si faptul ca o banca elvetiana a facut sluj imediat in fata americanilor, in conditiile in care abia ieri procurorul general american anunta ca a autorizat “significant” actions ca sa opreasca scurgerea de informatii. Procurorul a spus frumos povestea despre vietile americanilor puse in pericol ( nu ca vietile civililor din alte tari ar conta fata de cele ale americanilor, ne aducem aminte povestile de la noi ) apoi declara senin ca nu vrea sa intre in detalii legat de ceea ce sunt ei [americanii] capabili:

He refused to say whether the Obama administration would try to shut down WikiLeaks. “I don’t want to get into what our capabilities are,” Holder said. “We are looking at all the things we can do to try to stem the flow of this information.”

Well, doamnelor si domnilor, taman ce avem o proba la ce inseamna aceste “capabilities”, aka nici un stat nu misca in fata SUA si nici un om nu poate vorbi daca asta expune aberatiile guvernelor. Nu ca ar fi fost o noutate in sine, dar sa constati ca indivizii ajunsi in guvernele si parlamentele nationale actioneaza sa-si acopere interesele personale mari si grase si deghizeaza totul ca fiind arestarea celui mai periculos violator din lume, fiind siguri ca nimeni nu va misca in front si nu va indrazni sa le dea una peste bot, ei bine, asta este de speriat! Adica se bazeaza pe o pasivitate a populatiei care, DACA este atat de mare precum considera ei, inseamna ca ca avem o foarte mare problema: am murit demult dar inca nu ne-am dat seama.

Ar mai fi interesant de mentionat ca arestarea (predarea) si refuzul de bail-out s-au petrecut azi, 7 dec, adica ziua atacului de la Pearl Harbor, daca nu ma insel.

Poate ca al treilea razboi mondial nu va fi intre tari pentru ca, asa cum arata situatia acum (inclusiv cu WikiLeaks), nici nu poate fi vorba de asta; guvernantii se inteleg intre ei si-si apara jocurile lor. Se mai zgandare precum tzancii si fiecare se da mai mare si mai fioros si vrea mai multi bani si mai multa putere.

Poate ca al treilea razboi va fi  SAU ESTE DEJA doar intre guverne si populatie. Si probabil ca a inceput deja si suntem la runda 2. Ar fi tragic sa pierdem pentru ca ne este lene sa ne aparam propriile drepturi si propria libertate. Si probabil ca ar fi hilar sa pierdem un razboi despre care nu ne-a anuntat nimeni, asa ca nu ne-am prezentat pe campul de lupta, asa ca … o venit dusmanul si o luat TOT: libertatea, informatiile, sanatatea etc. Dar stati .. a lasat ceva: telenovelele. Wow .. deci putem putrezi fericiti :) )

inca ceva: in orice joc sau lupta exista momente in care poti sa intorci situatia la 180 de grade, chiar daca totul a pornit cu o diversiune. Oricate conexiuni  ar exista sau sunt presupuse intre Julian Assange si N bosorogi gen Rockefeller &compania, despartirea problemei WikiLeaks de J.A. si apararea WikiLeaks ca miscarea sa continue (implicit mentinerea publicarii si accesibilitatii documentelor) ar aduce o sansa de a dejuca (din nou ?!) planurile bosorogilor. Tot ce este necesar este despartirea WikiLeaks de JA si tranformarea WL “in steag” ce trece de la unul la altul.

Daca s-ar aborda problema asa, atunci este posibil ca perceptia la nivel de masa sa se schimbe si sa treaca de la “ce mari si puternici sunt ei si ce mici , nenorociti si neputinciosi suntem noi” ( adica perceptia soldatilor ce nu aveau curaj sa lupte cu Goliat) la perceptia pe care a avut-o David despre Goliat.  Si da, atunci Rockfeller & compania plus planurile lor se vor narui. Tot ce ne trebuie este prastia si sufletul lui David, cu tot cu Dumnezeu din el :)

Daca nu … runda 2 devine pierduta deja ( cred ca prima runda s-a vrut a fi povestea cu pandemia AH1N1). Sa speram ca nu este si ultima. Si ce bine ca suntem multi in lumea asta mare si poate unii au deja perceptia si curajul lui David.

Mai bine am face concurs de inventat prastii anti-Rockfeller si pro-WikiLeaks, poate rezolvam problema mai repede :D Unii lucreaza deja, ii cheama Anonymous. Si lucreaza bine; in cateva ore azi, au ajuns de la 508 mirror sites in jurul orei 19.00 la 1008 site-uri acum.

„As an organisation we have always taken a strong stance on censorship and freedom of expression on the internet and come out against those who seek to destroy it by any means.”

„We feel that Wikileaks has become more than just about leaking of documents, it has become a war ground, the people vs. the government,” he said.

Alte surse:


The idea that this is the first real battleground between the political establishment and the open web is very arresting. It also forces journalists and news organisations to demonstrate to what extent they are now part of an establishment it is their duty to report. Some like the Guardian, which has a long tradition of free speech attached to it, has been at the heart of disseminating Wikileaks cablegate information.

WikiLeaks: World Leaders Are Real People, Too

Arabia Saudita spune SUA pe cine anume sa atace in lumea araba?

Saudi Arabia proposed creating an Arab force backed by US and Nato air and sea power to intervene in Lebanon two years ago and destroy Iranian-backed Hezbollah, according to a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.

Parerea unor fosti ofiteri de informatiiEx-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures

WASHINGTON – December 7 – The following statement was released today, signed by Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, David MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray, Coleen Rowley and Larry Wilkerson; all are associated with Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

WikiLeaks has teased the genie of transparency out of a very opaque bottle, and powerful forces in America, who thrive on secrecy, are trying desperately to stuff the genie back in. The people listed below this release would be pleased to shed light on these exciting new developments.

How far down the U.S. has slid can be seen, ironically enough, in a recent commentary in Pravda (that’s right, Russia’s Pravda): „What WikiLeaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic … After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating, and the sense of powerlessness that erupts can be paralyzing, especially when … government evildoers almost always get away with their crimes. …” […]

Odd, isn’t it, that it takes a Pravda commentator to drive home the point that the Obama administration is on the wrong side of history. Most of our own media are demanding that WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange be hunted down – with some of the more bloodthirsty politicians calling for his murder. The corporate-and-government dominated media are apprehensive over the challenge that WikiLeaks presents. Perhaps deep down they know, as Dickens put it, „There is nothing so strong … as the simple truth.”

Wikileaks: Power shifts from secrecy to transparency

Government should be transparent by default, secret by necessity. Of course, it is not. Too much of government is secret. Why? Because those who hold secrets hold power.

Now Wikileaks has punctured that power. Whether or not it ever reveals another document—and we can be certain that it will—Wikileaks has made us all aware that no secret is safe. If something is known by one person, it can be known by the world.

But that has always been the case. The internet did not kill secrecy. It only makes copying and spreading information easier and faster. It weakens secrecy. Or as a friend of mine says, the internet democratizes leaking. It used to be, only the powerful could hold and uncover knowledge. Now many can.

UE si pedeapsa cu moartea in caz de revolta a populatiei

A incercat un cercetator francez sa ne convinga cat de democratica este UE ca institutie. Il ascultam si ma gandeam cat de orb e; dupa 30 de minute m-am plictisit . Am realizat ca el este si platit pentru ceea ce spune, dar eu ca sa stau sa-l si ascult o fac pe banii si timpul meu. Asa ca l-am intrebat care este argumentul in baza caruia UE considera pedeapsa cu moartea ca un exercitiu democratic  in cazul unei revolte a populatiei nemultumite de guvernanti ? Si francezul a dat din colt in colt, apoi a inceput sa spuna ca nu exista asa ceva. I-am citit ce spun altii despre asta, i-am pus hartiile in fata si m-am carat. Si  nu singur 🙂 , au plecat majoritatea din sala.

Interesant de citit; dupa 15 iunie cand revin o sa-l si traduc.

Sursa: Current Concerns

Reintroduction of Death Penalty Possible Due to Lisbon Treaty

by Dr Titine Kriesi, Switzerland

Following a ruling of the Federal Constitution Court of Karlsruhe, democracy in general, states under the rule of law and welfare states remain at the mercy of the Brussels dictate. The supranationality of the EU is hardly debilitated. Not much change can be expected in terms of depriving national states of their power and nations of their rights. Yet only nations have the legitimate right to exercise legal power. Large or small scale politics requires a plebiscite free from manipulation. The Lisbon Treaty is a decision from the “top”, and not based on the knowledge of free people of their rights. So called “guarantees” and “side laws” do not help get over this fact. Similarly, the possibility of reintroducing death penalty on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty requires objective discussion and a plebiscite.  Whoever wants to build a European Europe can still leave the Union (Art. a (50) EUC in order to force a treaty that is in the interest of nations and citizens and that takes the freedom of citizens and peoples into serious consideration.

Ireland is the only one out of 27 EU states that allows its citizens to vote on constitutional issues. On 2nd October the Irish people will be asked a second time to go to the polls for that same treaty, because those in power in the EU did not like the ‘No’ with which the treaty was rejected in a clear and well-founded fashion back in 2008. The remaining almost 500 million EU citizens will not even be asked! This starkly contradicts the ideal of democracy where, as the Greek suggests, it is the people that hold sway over the land, and not the governments.

Citizens not treated as citizens, but as immature beings

Which government has honestly informed its people of the contents of this treaty so that each citizen can form his or her own opionion? If anyone today does not know which fatal consequences, including long-term restrictions of citizen rights, the treaty entails, it is not because he or she does not understand it. The reason is rather that party deputies just follow their party heads without having read the treaty for themselves. Ireland’s Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, is said to have bragged on television about not having read the treaty.1 Is the treaty hushed up because they know exactly that the nations would reject it if they knew how many citizen rights it deprives them of?

No law of citizen rights and freedom

Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be aware of this in saying that if there were a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, in every country where such a referendum would take place, it would be lost. Sarkozy added: “There is a cleavage between people and governments. A referendum now would bring [our] Europe into danger.”2 Similarly the conservative British Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague: “Opinion polls carried out in 16 EU member states show that almost all persons entitled to vote would have rejected the Lisbon Treaty, had they had a chance to go to the polls.”3 The Irish EU commissioner for the home market, Charley McCreevy even thinks all political leaders are aware of the fact “that in case of a referendum 95% of the population of their respective countries would probably have said no as well.”4 “We [in Ireland] do it by referendum. That’s democracy.”5 However referendums do not take place in 26 EU states, including the UK, where “in breach of an election manifesto promise, the Labour government has denied British voters any say on the Lisbon Treaty at all, either in a referendum or at a general election.”6 In fact, no discussion whatsoever, or at least no honest discussion is taking place on part of the government in any of the 27 EU member states. How sheep-like are millions of people considered by them? In the case of treaties of such far-reaching consequences as the one in question, citizens surely expect politicians to enter into honest dialogue. Since this is not happening, everybody is asking rightfully: “How good can a treaty be if, after months of national debate, its merits cannot be comprehensibly explained?”7

Duty to arm and fight terrorism

The Irish government has expressed doubts about the Lisbon Treaty concerning, among other things, its neutrality. In response to the Irish misgivings, Brussels answered in sheer contradiction of the truth that the treaty had never foreseen any restriction on neutrality.8
Any doubts were said to have been “abated once and for all”9 thanks to the “warranties” granted by the EU especially for Ireland. “The Lisbon treaty does not affect in any way Ireland’s traditional politics of military neutrality. [Neither is the Treaty said to pose any basis] for creating European armed forces or compulsory military service for any military formation.”10
Yet in the Lisbon Treaty it says that the member states of the Union (Par. 42, subpar. 3 2 TEU) not only commit themselves to “improve step by step their military abilities”, i.e. to arm, but the treaty assumes in Art. 43 Par. l TEU a right to wage war (ius ad bellum). And particularly so with the end of fighting global terrorism, including in one’s own country. Thus the explicit ban on wars of aggression is played down (art. 26 par. l GG), i.e. wars of aggression are tolerated even though they contravene the German Constitution (commitment to peace). Are we in for more wars because of the Lisbon treaty? The nations do not want that.

Evidence of EU collusion and confusion tactic

True, in the Treaty on the EU it says: “No person shall be sentenced to death, nobody should be executed.” (Art. 11-62 VV) But this is not the whole truth. For the Lisbon treaty also states that any explanations on the Charter of Fundamental Rights (ECHR) of the European Union which have been adopted from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms “have the same liability as the basic text itself”11 (ECHR). What does this mean?
Evidently the plain truth is only seen in the explanations given on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and not in the Charter itself, claims Professor of law K. A. Schachtschneider: “The Charter of Fundamental Rights is based, at least as far as classical fundamental rights are concerned, on the ECHR of 1950. At that time it seemed inevitable to leave the numerous member states of the European Council the possibility of the death penalty. Germany had only just abolished the death penalty in 1949, but France, Great Britain and many other states still had it. And a declaration of human rights would never have been reached had there been a general demand to abolish the death penalty.”12
This explanation dating back to 1950 was reintroduced deliberately in December 2007 as a binding explanation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It was not an accident. We should be able to read and understand this explanation, says Schachtschneider.13

Death penalty in times of war and perils of war and …

The fact that, besides the duty of the member states to arm, it says in a comment on a footnote that the death penalty will be feasible again – and not just in times of war and perils of war (Germany and Austria are at war), but also in times of insurrection and upheaval, is a blatant scandal.
Brussels says: „Nothing in the EU Treaty of Lisbon (…) affects in any way the need for protecting the right to live (…) as foreseen in the Irish Constitution.”14
Yet in the Lisbon Treaty it says: Contrary to the right to live (Art. II-62 VV) the death penalty, killing and execution in the event of war or imminent threat of war in accordance with the detailed provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is to be introduced by Council decisions on the general rules of missions (Article 43 paragraph 2 P. l TEU. 43 Abs. 2  S. l EUV).15 In the explanation on Fundamental Rights it says: “A state may forsee the death penalty in its rule of law for deeds that are committed in times of war or imminent threat of war. This penalty may only be applied in those cases which are foreseen in the rule of law and are in accordance with its regulations.”16 In other words, the death penalty is possible in times of war or imminent threat of war, without there remaining any protection by Fundamental Rights. It is true that the death penalty is not listed in any law as yet, at least in Germany. But if the EU issues detailed rules for missions (Article 43 paragraph 2 P. l TEU) i.e. if it takes military action (war) as a reaction to some crisis and issues legal regulations for such an event of war which facilitate the death penalty, then any contradicting fundamental right in the EU Constitution or any national set of fundamental rights will be to no avail. But, as stated before, the actual explanation on the Fundamental Rights would apply, and not the Right itself!17

… Death penalty in times of riot and insurrection

In the notes on explanations it states: “3. a) Art. 2 para 2 of the ECHR: A killing is not considered a violation of this article when it results from the use of force which has been absolutely necessary to a) protect any person from unlawful violence; b) lawfully arrest or prevent the escape of someone who is lawfully deprived of liberty, or c) to lawfully fight a riot or insurrection.”18 So even in case of revolt or rebellion the death penalty would be possible if it accurately reflects the explanation. And because it is a European act of law it cannot be measured against either the Irish, German or any other national constitution, even if it states that the death penalty has been abolished. Since European law overrules national law, the death penatly would be possible.19 Well, somebody will ask: Who defines what is an insurrection or a riot? The EU is entitled to interpret ad libitum what and how it deems. Could this apply to situations as we used to have in Leipzig (the Monday demonstrations) or riots like we had recently in Latvia etc.? I.e. demonstrations accompanied by violence which could be interpreted as insurrection? Or when people gather because they do not agree with something and then some “black bloc” is smuggled in from somewhere? Will Brussels interpret the social disturbances expected even by Germany on the grounds of the economic crisis as upheavels or riots? And who, in that event, will be responsible for measuring the extent of violence?

Citizen right to live not secured

Since in the Lisbon Treaty the death penalty is again permitted under certain circumstances, the right to live is not secured. This is a crime, all the more so because this is just mentioned in the footnote of a footnote and can thus be reintroduced through the backdoor. Which politician has explained this clearly to his or her voters?
The Irish Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy, Anthony Coughlan expresses his outrage at the reintroduction of the death penalty in the the Lisbon Treaty, too, saying that “most people in Ireland and Britain have never heard of it.” 20 (!)
Both the German Constitution (Art. 102 GG) and the principle of human dignity of the UN Human Rights Charter command the abolition of the death penalty. The peoples of Europe have fought hard for this principle after the two horrible world wars in which 55 million people were slaughtered and which paralized the countries involved for decades. Reintroducing the death penalty would mean a step backward, falling behind the Enlightenment principle of “freedom, equality and fraternity”, the Human Rights Declaration of 1948, any right to justice and the hard-fought-for freedom of our nations.
The EU would do well to cooperate with its citizens in a mutual effort to fashion our society reasonably and to aim at living and working together in dignity and equality based on human standards. Anything else is mere striving for power which the peoples of Europe do not want.

1     Cf. Eberhard Bort, Mit ihrem Nein stürzen die Iren die EU in eine tiefe Krise. In: News aus Irland. Deutsch-Irischer Freundeskreis, 14.6.2008; Premier Brian Cowen, Spiegel online, 19.6.2009, p. l.
2     Nicolas Sarkozy, November 2007. In: Euro-med, March 7, 2008.
3    William Hague, Irish Times, July 26, 2008.
4    Propagandaschock, Nein zur EU-Diktatur, 2.7.2009.
5    Charly McCtreevy, Irish Independent, 29 June 2009.
6    William Hague, Irish Times, 26 July 2008.
7    Irish Times, 26 July 2008.
8    Focus Online, 16.6.09, Erklärung zum EU-Reformvertrag soll Weg für zweites Referendum ebnen, p. l.
9    Ibid.
10    Ibid.
11    Ibid.
12    Ibid.
13    Cf. Ibid.
14    Focus Online, 16.6.2009, Erklärung zum EU-Reformvertrag soll Weg für zweites Referendum ebnen, p. l.
15    Prof. Dr. iur. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider: Der Vertrag  von Lissabon ist ein Grundgesetz des ungebremsten Kapitalismus. Zeit-Fragen Nr. 14/15 vom 6.4.2009.
16    Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider: Europa nicht als Grossstaat, sondern als “Republik der Republiken” organisieren. BüSo, Juni 2005,  S. 5.
17    Cf. ibid.
18    K. A. Schachtschneider: Argumente gegen die Zustimmung zum  Vertrag über eine Verfassung für Europa, Kurzfassung, S. 3 f.
19    Cf. ibid.
20    What Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen should now do on Lisbon. In:  Point 12, p. 4/PANA Peace and Neutrality Alliance by Anthony Coughlan, 25 September 2008.

Fabrica de Sclavi: Radiografie si intrebari

AngelA a postat urmatorul mesaj:

Apropos de sclavii zilelor noastre, adica eu si tu si mai bine de 90% din co-planetarii nostri,
iata un film documentar din 2009 despre conditia omului modern ca sclav.

Filmul se numeste:
“De la servitude moderne”

Filmul a fost realizat de Jean-François Brient si Victor L Fuentes.

Puteti descarca filmul de la adresa (copy-left!, adica FREE, fara copyright):

Alte info: http://www.delaservitudemoderne.org/

Traducerea im lb. romana o gasiti pe http://www.titrari.ro, mai precis la


Vizionare placuta tuturor!

Am vazut filmul si este o radiografie extrem de interesanta si relativ completa a sclaviei moderne si merita vazut. Dar mai ales merita meditat asupra caii de eliberare. Evident, intai este necesar ca fiecare sa aleaga in deplina cunostinta de cauza: sclav sau om liber. Si nu este nimic rau in a alege sa fii sclav; dar este necesar sa fii constient ce anume ai ales. Un sclav constient de faptul ca a ales sa fie sclav are o viata linistita, suporta tot ce are de suportat si nu isi mai bate capul cu diversele probleme. Pur si simplu face ceea ce decid „Lorzii sistemului” 😀

Un sclav care nu este constient ca este sclav ci se pretinde liber este un adevarat teren de lupta” el cu el. E clar cine pierde, nu?

Descrierea filmului „Despre sclavia moderna” este disponibila aici, impreuna cu alte informatii:

Modern servitude is voluntary, consented to by the mass of slaves who trudge along the face of the Earth. They themselves buy the commodities that enslave them every day more. Slaves procure alienating jobs that are bestowed upon the tamed. They, themselves, choose the masters whom they will obey. For this absurd tragedy to play-out, it has been necessary to breed in them the ignorance of their own exploitation and alienation. Behold the bizarre modernity of our time. As with the slaves of antiquity, serfs of the Middle Ages or the working-class of the first industrial revolutions, today we bear witness to an emerging class of the totally enslaved. The difference being that they don’t know it or better yet choose to ignore it. They fail to recognize the one weapon available to the enslaved: rebellion. Slaves accept without question the pitiful life that was manufactured on their behalf. Apathy and resignation are the sources of their misfortune.

Behold the nightmare of the modern-day slave; whose sole aspiration is to be swept away by the macabre dance of the machine of alienation.

Oppression becomes modern spreading out everywhere mystifications that hide our slave condition.
Reveal reality as it is and not as power represents it, is indeed the most genuine subversion.
Only truth is revolutionary.

Rupert Murdoch: „The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

News Corp will charge for newspaper websites, says Rupert Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch expects to start charging for access to News Corporation‘s newspaper websites within a year as he strives to fix a ­”malfunctioning” business model.

Encouraged by booming online subscription revenues at the Wall Street Journal, the billionaire media mogul last night said that papers were going through an „epochal” debate over whether to charge. „That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Wall Street Journal’s experience,” he said.

Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, he replied: „We’re absolutely looking at that.” Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin „within the next 12 months‚” adding: „The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

Deci zilele internetului actual sunt numarate.  .. accesul la informatii va fi cu abonament 🙂

Dileme si Trileme: “Mama” UE rontaie nestingherita libertati fundamentale

si pedepseste dupa chef. Deh .. cu ochelarii aberatiei pe nas, totul se vede altfel.

La nivel declarativ, de ochii lumii,  e totul frumos si roz: Parlamentul European sustine drepturile fundamentale pe Internet

Dar .. Directiva UE ce obliga ISP-urile sa retina informatii despre utilizatori a intrat in vigoare fara dezbatere parlamentara.

 Using Europe to erode our privacy    ( autor  Henry Porter  – guardian.co.uk )

As the row over MPs’ living expenses has developed, several have expressed the fear that the reputation for parliament and the public’s respect for politicians would be irreversibly affected.

They are right to be worried but it is the spectacle of common abuse of housing allowances combined with the failure to defend Britain’s liberties from our civil servants and European bureaucrats that is so damaging. MPs’ ideas of a sovereign parliament appear to be limited to the retention of their own personal information and the abuse of taxpayers’ trust. Forget any notion of MPs standing up to Europe or reigning in an increasingly autonomous civil service.

Today, an EU directive comes into force which will compel all internet service providers to retain information from all emails and website visits.Data from phone calls and text messages will also be stored and made available to the government, its agencies and local authorities. Having seen how local officials have abused anti-terrorist laws, it’s not hard to imagine the damage to privacy that will ensure.

These powers were brought in by a statutory instrument and so were not debated by either house. The accepted view is that the Home Office now bypasses parliament by lobbying Europe directly in the knowledge that the measures they desire will go undebated and unscrutinised, then be smuggled into British law as a European directive.

It is difficult to think of anything that makes the House of Commons look more feckless or more redundant.

The Conservatives believe that the law may enable the creation of a massive communications data silo that will store the content of every email and phone call. This has been long desired by the Home Office and GCHQ but the government has failed to bring the interception modernisation programme before parliament, perhaps because the penny is beginning to drop about privacy. And the costs are estimated to be as much as £12bn.

Baroness Neville-Jones said last week in the House of Lords „The government has not been able to satisfy these benches that last week’s statutory instrument did not create a vehicle through which the interception modernisation programme could be carried into practice without further primary legislation.”

It seems amazing that parliament, now on another long break,  is not able to establish whether this statutory instrument allows the home secretary, one of the ministers accused of fiddling their housing allowances, to create the data silo without primary legislation and the full debate that the British public must surely require from its elected representatives on such a vital issue.

As of this morning, essential information about your internet activity and phone calls has passed into the hands of government and its agencies and every local government gauleiter who suspects you of challenging his or her authority.

Monday 6 April may be seen as milestone on the way to a police state and the „the hell house” of personal information about which the former DPP Sir Ken Macdonald warned last year. It is certainly a date to remember in the long slide of the standing of MPs, who I very much doubt were even aware of this directive.

Pescari arestati pentru ca au incalcat cota UE la peste ( sursa: Open Europe newsletter   )

In Sunday Telegraph Christopher Booker relateaza ca 2 pescari din nordul Irlandei au fost incarcerati la Liverpool pentru ca au gresit la identificarea capturilor de peste pentru care nu aveau alocata o cota UE. In loc sa le dea doar o amenda, Agentia de Pescuit Marin (MFA) a aplicat o sanctiune severa ce a implicat Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA  – Agentia impotriva Crimelor Organizate Grave)  sa foloseasca procedurile pentru acte criminale. Aceste proceduri sunt folosite in cazul criminalilor inraiti implicati in activitati precum traficul de droguri si spalarea de bani. 

In acelasi timp, stimabilii parlamentari si comisari UE s-or suparat ca un ThinkTank ca Open Europe si-a permis sa-si bage nasul in veniturile  lor imense platite din bani publici, in legile speciale pentru pensii uriase sau in cheltuielile lor imense pentru „relaxare” si „confort”. Hmm … parca Banca Mondiala spunea ca ar trebui sa iesim la pensie pe la 70 de ani ? Probabil ca asa ar trebui sa fie, avand in vedere ca parerea lor despre ei este ca merita milioanele de euro / lire sterline. 

In an interview with Focus Information AgencyEU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has responded to research published by Open Europe which found that Commissioners leaving office this year will earn over £1 million in pensions and payoffs, claiming the figures are „twisted and exaggerated”.         

Wallstrom said, „I’d like to thank for the possibility to respond to the series of ‘clever’ press releases by ‘Open Europe’ – a British NGO, advertising itself as a think-tank – which has been regularly publishing articles against the club of 27, containing deliberately twisted and exaggerated data. Stepping in office within the European Commission (EC) does not include talks about salaries, allowances and retirement payments. It’s the Council of the European Union that decided in the matter and therefore all changes are up to it. The current rules have been around since 1967 and are open to the public. Actually, all international organisations are governed by similar rules. EU Commissioners are entitled to receive pensions but only when they turn 65. Besides, they get temporary 3-year payments once they leave the EC. And they pay taxes on both the 3-year payments and the pensions.”

Comment:  Commissioner Wallstrom’s claims contradict the Commission’s official response to the findings so far.  Previously, Commission spokesperson Valerie Rampi and others have justified the payouts saying, „Open Europe didn’t discover anything new, it’s all public and online… Everyone who has worked as a commissioner is entitled to pension rights, like you and me”.  She said the money was to help Commissioners with their „re-entry” into the non-EU world.   

Likewise, after initially saying he didn’t believe the figures and adding „if that’s true, I’ll retire immediately”, Belgian Commissioner Louis Michel was forced to justify the findings after he discovered they were accurate.  Belgian newspaper De Standaard reported: „After consulting an assistant, the report seems to be accurate. This was followed by Louis Michel suddenly changing his tune, saying the compensation is completely justified. ‘We are being well paid, that is. But every morning getting up at 5 o’clock, lots of travelling, heavy files… This is a parachute, but not a golden one'”.  Similarly, Danish Commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boel told newspaper Politiken, „I’m worth all the millions”. 

Alte informatii interesante: http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/its-just-peanuts-to-some.html

Pe cine supara internetul si cat de tare ? – partea a 2-a

Spuneam aici   despre ceea ce tricoteaza UE legat de cenzurarea comunicarii. Iata si continuarea pe teren 🙂



autor:  Alex Sima HotNews.ro

Dialogurile purtate prin intermediul programului Skype ar putea fi interceptate in curand, ca urmare a corectarii unor carente in legile ce in stadiul actual permit infractorilor sa comunice fara teama.

Investigatia europeana ar putea sa-i ajute si pe americani, NSA (The National Security Agency) lasand sa se inteleaga ca teroristii ar comunica astfel ca sa evite detectarea.

In vreme ce politia poate obtine un ordin judecatoresc pentru a inregistra convorbiri pe linie fixa si pe telefoanele mobile, in momentul de fata este imposibila obtinerea unui mandat pentru ascultarea celor care folosesc Skype sau alte programe similare ca sa comunice, mai ales cand e vorba de persoane de pe continente diferite.

Reprezentantii companiei au precizat ca „acolo unde e legal si tehnic posibil” coopereaza cu organele de ordine.

Skype a prezentat propriile capabilitati de combatere a crimei in fata comisiei Eurojust. Aceasta este o agentie UE, cu sediul la Haga, responsabila cu coordonarea investigatiilor juridice de-a lungul mai multor jurisdictii, care a anuntat ca a deschis o investigatie in toate tarile din Uniunea Europeana.

Scopul declarat de Eurojust este de a depasi obstacolele tehnice si legale, pentru a putea intercepta sistemele de telefonie pe internet. Experti din toate tarile fac parte din echipa condusa de reprezentantul Italiei, Carmen Manfredda.

Conform Departamentului National Antimafia din Italia, interlopii au inceput sa foloseasca in numar din ce in ce mai mare aceasta metoda pentru a scapa de investigatii.

Joannes Thuy, purtator de cuvant al Eurojust, a declarat, ca „in vreme ce companiile de telecomunicatii sunt obligate sa se supuna ordinelor judecatoresti, Skype refuza sa coopereze in acest sens”.

In articolul prezentat de GGG, se arata ca circula zvonuri conform carora la ora actuala NSA plateste regeste hackeri care sa sparga criptarea Skype, pentru a putea auzi conversatiile suspectilor.

Mai multe detalii despre respectarea intimitatii celor care folosesc serviciile Skype, aici.

Deci internetul sovietic   este pe drum. Si iar se vantura acelasi refren .. delicventi, teoristi blabla. Interesant este ca Italia conduce „joaca”. Iar Italia ?  

De frica .. devii sclav. Cu acte in regula!

Lege europeana: politia poate hack-ui calculatoarele oamenilor!

sursa: http://www.eurosceptic.ro/index.php/2009/01/04/lege-europeana-politia-poate-hack-ui-calculatoarele-oamenilor/

Hai sa vedem incotro mergem si de ce sunt unii sceptici ( si cam au toate motivele sa fie). 

„Sursa: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5439604.ece

In urma hotararii unui Consiliu European al ministrilor de interne din tarile membre UE, politia din tarile membre poate folosi metodele hackerilor impotriva “suspectilor”. Mai mult asemenea cercetari, considerate “de rutina”, pot fi realizate fara nici un mandat judecatoresc. Practic, orice cetatean poate fi considerat “suspect”. Mai multe grupuri care apara libertatile civile considera aceasta masura ca o “extindere sinistra a statului politienesc“.

In contrast cu garantiile legale in privinta mandatului de perchezitie a unei locuinte, in acest caz nu exista nici o garantie in privinta respectarii drepturilor cetatenesti. Practic, politia poate introduce virusi informatici in calculatoarele “suspectilor”, care sa transmita informatii, inclusiv sa activeze camera web sau microfonul – fara ca posesorul sa fie constient de asta. Este ca si cand ai pune o camera ascunsa in dormitorul cuiva, a declarat Richard Clayton, profesor de informatica la Cambridge. Politia va putea trimite mail-uri virusate sau va putea utiliza reteaua wireless pentru a intra in calculatoarele victimelor.

Oare de ce nu auzim nici cuvant la televizor despre aceste lucruri?! (intrebare retorica)”

Buna intrebarea retorica. Si cum se face ca toate acestea sunt posibile in „democratica” si „transparenta” UE? 

Iar oamenii nici macar nu stiu despre aceste lucruri si totu’i este pe sestache.  Interesant este ca sistemul UE este in asa fel alcatuit incat nici nu conteaza ce spun parlamentarii, pot fi pacaliti usor, legile le fac un grup de indivizi care nu reprezinta decat interesele corporatiilor si cam atat. Ooops, am uitat sa adaug ca cei ce fac legile UE sunt „mari iubitori” de oameni; de obicei duminica seara, de la 3.00 la 3.05. Dupa aceea se intorc la interesele lor de bani si putere. 😀

Hai sa ne uitam si la textul articolului din Times:

[…..] Hacking-ul este cunoscut sub numele de „remote searching” si permite politistilor sau ofiterilor de la MI5  (care pot fi la sute de mile departare) sa examineze hard drive-ul din computerul de acasa, de  la servici sau dintr-un hotel.

Materialele adunate in acest fel includ continutul tuturor email-urilor, obiceiurile de navigare si mesajele instant ( gen yahoo messenger, skype etc)

Sub edictul Bruxelului, politia din toata UE a primit unda verde sa extinda implementarea unei puteri folosite relativ rar si care implica intruziunea in viata / proprietatea privata a cuiva, fara a avea garantii. […]

O cautare „remote” poate fi declansata daca un ofiter superior spune ca „el / ea crede”  ca este „cazul” si necesar pentru a preveni sau a detecta o ilegalitate serioasa – aceasta ilegalitate fiind orice ofensa care atrage o pedeapsa cu inchisoarea de mai mult de 3 ani. 

[..]  in contrast cu prevederile legale necesare pentru perchezitionarea casei unui suspect, in cazul unui „remote search”  politia NU are nevoie sa ceara un mandat de la un judecator. 

Mda, chestia asta se intampla de ceva timp si se pare ca se foloseste deja. 

Si la noi in presa de ce nu apare?

Pe cine supara internetul si cat de tare ?

Ar fi cazul sa ne punem intrebarea daca internetul va supravietui, cu gradul lui de libertate cu tot ? Sau vom avea toti un internet  reglementat „chinezeste” ?

Hai sa ne uitam pe cine a suparat internetul in ultima vreme si cata putere au „suparatii”  vs ce pot sa faca oamenii obisnuiti:

Internetul si politica

Saptamanile trecute ( mai precis pe 2 septembrie) a aparut o stire (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0902/1220301236029.html ) despre cat de tare a suparat internetul pe „creatorii” constitutiei de la Lisabona, pardon, tratatului de la Lisabona. Irlandezii ( adica populatia, nu guvernul) au avut „tupeul” sa se opuna ratificarii tratatului si au avut diverse obiectii referitoare la tratat si la legislatia ce va intra in vigoare dupa adoptarea tratatului. Raportul (http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2008/lisbondocument/index.pdf ) arata schimbarile din media aparute intre 2002 si 2008 in Irlanda.

Conform acestui raport, UE a „suferit” o infrangere din partea www; in internet lucrurile au scapat de sub control. S-ar putea spune ca aparitia si cresterea asa numitului jurnalism civic, blogurile, forumurile si site-urile alternative de stiri nealiniate grupurilor media dominante, au cauzat problemele reale legate de viitorul Unuiunii Europene. In raport este mentionat „Internetul a permis o crestere a comunicarii intre grupuri de cetateni, in  afara surselor guvernamentale si media traditionale dominate (deja) . Acest flux informational orizontal este contrastant fata de abordarea tipica „sus- jos” existenta pana acum.” (…) „tehnologia ce a generat comunicarea profesionista si bogata a ajuns in mainile cetatenilor obisnuiti, permitand podcasting, streaming audio si comunicari virale.”

Si inca un citat care mi-a „placut” 😀

„ Exista un shift al audientei de la statiile de radio si TV de stat. Asta inseamna ca a suferit calitatea dezbaterii „ LOOL .. asta este ce vor ei sa insemne?? Si daca ar fi sa speculam, se pleaca de la premisa ca oamenii obisnuiti sunt mult prea prosti sa inteleaga, sa dezbata probleme atat de importante precum politica si aliantele politice, implicatiile economice etc. Mda .. s-ar putea spune ca in exprimarea lor exista o premisa: doar in mijloacele mass media controlate exista dezbateri de buna calitate. Oare este asa?

Ce putere are parlamentul European .. daca se supara pe „vinovatul” internet si ce putere au oamenii „obisnuiti” sa nu-i lase pe „alesii europeni” sa le masacreze libertatatile ? Hmm … good question! Constitutia de la Lisabona ( na.. ca iar am uitat sa-i spun Tratat ) nu prevede nici un mecanism, institutie prin care cetatenii sa aiba un cuvant de spus, sa fie intrebati daca vor, de buna voie si nesiliti de nimeni, sa renunte la libertatile lor.

Sanatatea pe internet 

In data de 25 septembrie site-ul Natural News ( http://www.naturalnews.com/024322.html ) publica o stire despre miile de familii care au depus plangeri legate de cauzarea autismului de catre vaccinuri. „Curtea considera dovezile prezentate de 4900 de parinti care spun ca vaccinurile produc autism sau probleme neurologice la copiii lor care, inainte de vaccinare, erau perfect sanatosi. Multi parinti se plang ca boala s-a declansat dupa vaccinari.

Pentru a face fata numarului mare de plangeri, Curtea a cerut avocatilor familiilor sa selecteze 3 cazuri test pentru fiecare din cele 3 argumente / dovezi prezentate si care leaga vaccinurile de autism.

In audieri , avocatii sustin ca autismul a fost produs de conservantul thimerosal, care contine mercur. Vaccinul a cauzat ca mercurul sa ajunga in creierul copiilor si sa altereze dezvoltarea mentala normala din cauza faptului ca celulele creierului au devenit cronic hiperactive  incercand sa inlature metalul din organism.

Alt grup de parinti, care au pornit procesele in 2007 si asteapta acum verdictul, sustin ca autismul nu este produs doar de timerosal ( nota tr: care se gaseste si in vaccinurile antigripale din Romania) ci si de vaccinul MMR ( pojar – oreion – rubeola , ROR in romana ) chiar daca acest vaccin nu contine substanta chimica timerosal. Un al treilea grup ce va incepe procedurile legale in septembrie sustine ca doar vaccinul MMR ( ROR) este cel care a declansat autismul la copiii lor.”

Iata ca incepe cosmarul Big Pharma ( marile companii farmaceutice); incep procesele intentate de „bietii oameni obisnuiti” vaccinati cu „studiatele” si „sigurele” vaccinuri vandute pe bani grei.

In paralel, exista procese intentate medicilor care au avut curajul sa vorbeasca despre problemele cauzate de vaccinuri, despre faptul ca nu exista studii pe termen lung care sa dovedeasca faptul ca sunt sigure si eficiente sau care, mai rau  .. au avut „tupeul” sa studieze eficienta, siguranta si efectele secundare ale vaccinurilor. Si nu sunt putini cei carora li se pune pumnul in gura: ”    

http://www.whale.to/a/ata.html  Goldman also reports that shortly after communicating on authorship issues with health officials associated with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) concerning the shingles data and analysis, he was threatened with legal action if he published the manuscript in the medical literature. He said, „Whenever research data and information concerning potential adverse effects associated with a vaccine used in a human population are suppressed and/or misrepresented by health authorities, not only is this most disturbing, it goes against all accepted scientific norms and dangerously compromises professional ethics.”.

Vina lui Goldman ? S-a luat de vaccinuri, de cel pentru varicela, in special, avand in vedere ca a lucrat la VASP (Varicella Active Surveillance Project). Din prelucrarea datelor si-a dat seama ca vaccinarea in masa este legata de cresterea numarului de cazuri de pecingine. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/10/prweb82645.htm

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/jabs_briefing_note_9th_april_2008.html Dr Andrew Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch si Professor John Walker-Smith au fost audiati disciplinar + plus alte repecursiuni din pricina studiilor care leaga vaccinul MMR / ROR de autism. Atmosfera este destul de incinsa, mai ales ca multi cercetatori au validat studiile lor. Neavand de ce sa se lege, autoritatile au sustinut ca „acuzatii” nu au mentionat staff-ului The Lancet, atunci cand au trimis spre publicare un studiu,  ca dr. Wakefield este impliat intr-un litigiu referitor la vaccinul MMR / ROR. Descoperiri ulterioare au aratat ca The Lancet fusese informat si, la vremea publicarii cercetarilor, nu au considerat controversa ca fiind un motiv de a opri publicarea studiului. Poveste incurcata si interesanta, din categoria ce nod in papura putem gasi sa oprim tornada.

– alte cazuri plus detalii despre  dr. Wakefield  aici: http://www.archetypeltd.co.nz/Silencing_dissenters.htm si aici http://www.whale.to/b/bryant_jayne.html

– o doctorita din UK care a avut „tupeul” sa-si puna intrebari despre vaccinuri si efecte, protocoale si rezultate. http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/MyExperiencewiththeGeneralMedicalCouncil/tabid/985/Default.aspx Evident, a ajuns in tribunal. De ce ? Pentru ca avut curiozitatea de a expune statistici relevante legate de vaccinare.

Incepe campania de .. convingere ca libertatea internetului trebuie limitata

In data de 15 Septembrie 2008, BBC News publica un articol interviu cu Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Acesta sustine ca este in mod continuu ingrijorat despre modul in care internetul este folosit pentru a dezinforma. Exemplele folosite sunt experimentul LHC (n.n: povestea cu gaura neagra) si … 😀 …. „zvonurile” despre faptul ca vaccinul MMR / ROR este cauza in autismul declasant la copiii din Anglia.

Nu conteaza ca exista zeci de studii care arata efectele vaccinarilor si ale adjuvantilor din vaccinuri. Plus ca exista copiii autisti. Ei nu conteaza ?!

22 septembrie 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/3059617/Euro-MPs-to-vote-on-anonymous-blog-ban.html

“ Parlamentarii europeni se pregatesc sa voteze o directiva ce va reglementa situatia blogurilor, scopul fiind “ limitarea periculoase blogosfere” .

Marianne Mikko, parlamentar european din Estonia, este ingrijorata de cresterea numarului de bloguri care sunt folosite de persoane cu “intentii malitioase si agende ascunse”.

„Blogosfera a fost, pana acum, un rai al bunelor intentii si al punctelor de vedere relativ oneste. Dar acum, cand blogurile devin ceva comun, persoane fara principii vor dori sa le foloseasca “ a declarat Marianne Mikko.

Doamna Mikko a propus ca bloggerilor sa li se ceara sa se identifice si astfel unele dintre blogurile populare sa publice o declaratie de interese. « Nu avem nevoie sa stim exact identitatea bloggerilor. Avem nevoie de certificare, o marca de calitate, o declaratie despre cine scrie si de ce. Avem nevoie de asta pentru a avea incredere in sursa : a adaugat ea.

Chris Heaton Harris, British Conservative Euro MP, a respins orice cerere ”de reglementare si restrictionare a surselor media independente”

„Doamna Mikko, in mod clar, nu intelege ca au devenit singele, viata unei democratii vibrante” a adaugat el.  ” Sper ca aceste propuneri sa fie respinse”

Votul de azi din Parlamentul European nu va duce catre o reglementare obligatorie dar este un indicator al cresterii ingrijorarii UE referitor la influenta blogurilor in internet. Un raport intern al Comisiei Europene, « scapat » in presa acum 3 saptamani, concluziona ca UE pierde batalia online pentru inimile si mintile cetatenilor. « activitatea blogurilor ramane coplesitor negativa » spune raportul ( referitor la atitudinea legata de tratatul de la Lisabona).”

Momentan s-a potolit problema reglementarii blogosferei. « Parlamentarii UE au fost la 45 de voturi distanta de a respinge o rezolutie care chema Comisia Europeana si statele membre sa reglementeze protectia pluralismului in mass media offline si online. Votul ( 307 pentru, 262 impotriva) arata ca exista in PE un puternic curent in favoarea controlului mass media si a blogurilor. » http://tonysharp.blogspot.com/2008/09/eu-backs-off-blogs-for-now.html

Ei fac legea.

In iulie, o noua stire legata de ceea ce planuieste UE / EU legat de internet, software si comunicatii, apare online.

„Amendamentele la directiva Europeana a Telecomunicatiilor este grabita sa treaca prin parlament si propune un „internet sovietic” in care creatorii de software si furnizorii de servicii de internet supravegheaza traficul si datele pentru Hollywood.  Software-ul si serviciile care ruleaza pe internet vor fi obligate sa ceara permisiunea institutiilor reglementatoare.

Unele amendamente ale directivei Europene de Telecomunicatii permit autoritatilor administrative din fiecare stat membru sa defineasca ce aplicatii software sunt autorizate pentru internet. Parti ale directivei ar trebui sa fie implementate de catre statele membre prin „cerinte  tehnice specifice” in retelele electronice de comunicatii. Analizarea live si filtrarea compun cerintele determinante pentru un mediu de cenzura „in stil sovietic”.

Mai multe comitete au sugerat schimbari masive la o propunere extrem de complexa a Comisiei. (..) Propunerile imature risca sa creeze o povara administrativa si sa sufoce inovatia internetului. Supraincarcati si confuzi din pricina sutelor de amendamente pe care lobbyul il face, va crea presiune asupra membrilor parlamentului (UE) sa accepte si sa voteze compromisuri penibile.

Benjamin Henrion, reprezentantul FFII in Brussels, ridica un semnal de alarma : „ Maine, aplicatii populare precum Skype sau chiar Firefox ar putea sa fie declarate ilegale in Europa, daca ele nu sunt certificate de o autoritate administrativa. Asta compromite intreaga deschidere a internetului, asa cum il stim azi. Candva, Uniunea Sovietica a cerut inregistrarea si declararea  tuturor masinilor de scris si a tuturor sistemelor de printare catre autoritati ”

Expertul Ricardo Cristof Remmert-Fontes comenteaza: ” In Germania,  Deutsche Telekom este tinta unui criticism feroce pentru ca a fost acuzata ca spioneaza cetatenii si jurnalistii. Amendamentele propuse tintesc sa transforme spionarea intr-o obligatie naturala a furnizorilor de servicii de comunicatie. Infrastructura planuita pentru live – analysis ( analiza in timp real) si filtrarea pot fi folosite ca modalitati de cenzura si supraveghere in masa”.

Presedintele FFII, Alberto Barrionuevo, adauga: ” Planul de a stabili in Europa un zid chinezesc pentru internet este promovat de cativa lobby-isti inraiti in ale copyright-ului. FFII sustine multe dintre ideile legate de copyright dar nu sunt de acord ca acest lucru sa justifice intentia lor de a spiona pe toata lumea cu scuza de a proteja copyright-ul. Practica se realizeaza un precedent pentru controlul pietei: reglementarea unei mari parti din comunicatiile pe internet, contractele providerilor, dezvoltarea de software si astfel se ajunge la reglementarea internetului. Mediul propus ( directiva si amendamentele) ameninta toate afacerile europene care au nevoie de protectie in fata spionajului economic precum si posibilitatea de a avea VPN-uri ( retele virtuale private) in internet. Vor fi sacrificate secretele industriale ale companiilor europene si confidentialitatea cetatenilor pentru a proteja interesele si modelul de afaceri al Hollywoodului ?”

De aceea, FFII cere membrilor Parlamentului European sa reconsidere propunerea directivei in telecomunicatii, asa cum a fost ea inaintata spre votare. Mai mult de 300 de amendamente si ingrijorari fundamentale legate de diverse aspecte precum libertatea de opinie si exprimare, cenzura, neutralitatea netului si secretele de afaceri trebuie revizuite cu mare grija. (…)”

Hmm…. Mai vedem ce va urma 😀