Advanced Disclosure Part II / 2nd Press Release
Dear Sir: Please exit immediately - R.S.V.P.
??? - unedited version due to severe time restrictions placed by Westminster Magistrates Court
PM/B.M. Tony Blair - "Stupid is as stupid does" - Forest Gump
"Children learn what they live and you, my corrupt enemy, are an asshole."
- an intelligent, lucid statement of fact
- anti copyright
Statement of Charity Sweet: expert independent witness on corruption - Part 2 of 4
including the statements of Mr. Brian W. Haw and Mr. Chris Coverdale & a Briefing from Justice for your education and enlightenment / FREE Bonus literature: Genocidal Great Britain and Mercy - A Plea for Humanity - both are "a must read"
12,818 words
my opinion/my mind/my heart/my words
Tony Blair... "You have two hopes: Bob Hope and no hope." or...
"You have two chances: Adam chance and no f*cking chance!"
- so the sayings go and so says Chatham, Kent, England
PM/B.M. Tony Blair - "Stupid is as stupid does" - Forest Gump
"Children learn what they live and you, my corrupt enemy, are an asshole."
- an intelligent, lucid statement of fact
Attention:
Mr. Tony 'the war criminal' and Mrs. "muppet" Blair
a.k.a. George 'bushy-boy's' playmates - the Puppets
Hell is as long time a blazin'.
10 Downing Street
Please exit immediately of your own accord or be thrown out publicly. The choice is yours.
Westminster
London, England
George 'Bush-y boy'
A.K.A. THE warring 'HILL-BILLY', with his eyes set on Canadian land/resources/utilities/politics and cheap Mexican labor
***KNOWN ACCOMPLICE*** to the BLAIRS regarding WAR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
The Whitehouse of Blackened Hearts
Please exit immediately of your own accord or be thrown out publicly. The choice is yours.
Washington, D.C.
U.S.A.
sir ian 'the Joker' blair
Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis
Please exit immediately of your own accord or be thrown out publicly. The choice is yours.
Scotland Yard
London, England
'super-corrupt' Superintendent ian terry "t*sser" who loves to torture peace protesters
Please exit immediately of your own accord or be thrown out publicly. The choice is yours.
Caring Cross Police Station
Charing Cross
London, England
c/o Caring Cross Police Station
Charing Cross
London, England
02073217711
c/o Belgravia Police Station
Where I understand there are some good men and women of honor, real 'coppers' and 'bobbies', please be an independent eye witness, willing to testify in a court of law.
Belgravia
London, England
c/c:
Mr. Brian 'THE peace-maker' W. Haw
Parliament Square
London, England
The 'amazingzingly beautiful' Barbara Tucker
Parliament Square
London, England
Steve 'The True English Gentle Man' Jago
Parliament Square
London, England
Chris 'the extraordinary, true English, brilliant pacifist' Coverdale
via email
Justice
extraordinary, brilliant minds of justice high-lighting the libertines of our times
England
via email
Liberty
extraordinary, brilliant libertarians and up-holders of liberty, peace, justice and free speech
England
via email
rikki
- an 'old-school', young, 'real' reporter of reality as the facts support, without political bias
you anti capitalist, you.
indymedia u.k.
london, england
Queen Elizabeth II
Please bring home 'your' army. Please return 'our' nation's sons and daughters immediately and safely; home to English soil. Please.
Buckingham Palace
London, England
Princess Diana's boys XXX
c/o Kensington Palace
London, England
The Independent newpaper
London, England
The Guardian newspaper
London, England
The Evening Standard newspaper
London England
The Sun Newspaper
London, England
The British Law Society
England
Judge Which-face
"Is this Westminstergate?"
- Mr. Brian W. Haw
"How can this court case possibly continue, your honor, when the police have stolen almost all of my evidence? How can this trial possibly continue?"
- Mr. Brian W. Haw
For the second time... I beg your understanding and your patience, your honour...
The police have stolen the evidence and property of Brian W. Haw; notably needed for your (apparently and hopefully not) 'kangaroo' court of breaking exactly whose illegal conditions and his curious trial. He previously displayed, openly and publicly, said evidence of GENOCIDE and retained his personal legal property against the above noted JOKER and the above noted government/war criminals, for almost 5 years, until it was needed for these and other trumped up, ridiculous charges imposed by sir ian blair and somehow (clandestine dawn raid involving 78(?!) police) stolen by said policing farce, in collusion with and on the behalf of our muppet/puppet/dictator Prime Minister - Tony 'the Toad' Blair.
2 + 2 = 4 in any language. A + B = C? C'a va? Tu compris?
"Qu-est-ce que tu fait? Ou est-ce que tu va? Comment t'appelle? Arrete! Silence!"
Merde! Vous n'avez pas d'intelligence dans votre tetes?
Au feu! Au secours! Est-ce que vous oubliez tes tetes? Trop de merde - pas de sense.
Je veux le chien chaud et une tasse de the, le soleil et mes enfants. Je veux aller a la plage et je veux jouer avec ma famille. Je suis tres fatigue. Je veux aller a la bonne vacance en ... ou? Ce n'est pas de possible pour ma famile. Pourquoi?
SOCPA et... parce que j'aime beaucoup tout la bonne musique! Vrais? Faux? (Tony - mange le merde.)
Dormez - vous? (sp?)
Beauty may only be skin deep and in Tony's 'case of insanity' and in this insane 'law' suit against Mr. Brian W. Haw and free speech, within these duly noted 'special' circumstances - ugly is straight through to the bone! Does 'abuse of process' ring any legal bells or set off any landmines of understanding? Does anyone understand what 'advanced disclosure' means? The tainting of evidence and the event of a mistrial has both been known to occur in English law and therefore exist in reality and do aptly apply in this case, specifically.
Do you need to purchase a dictionary or to borrow a book of law? The Bible perhaps?
"Thou shalt not kill."
"Thou shalt not steal."
- God, the Christian Bible
The Moslem Koran and many otherworld religions say pretty much the same things, just in different languages for different cultures.
Tony can leave a good law alone like the weather is likely to stay the same for a week straight. The wording, omission and addition of words and phrases to English law have been interesting, to say the least; of this there can be no doubt.
It just seems like some rediculous conspiracy from a mystery novel and yet what was just an idea I had in my mind, has deepened into a hypothesis that seems to become more self-evident as a sound theory and logical flow of a corrupted society - collapse. Some seriously 'ugly' folks are colluding to alter the course of history in an 'ugly' direction - consistent world wars to distract the general public from the real problem... what is happening in the lives of our world's children in the homeland and abroad. Are their human rights being grossly abused in how many countries, including our own?
I remember the Lord's prayer as a child as "... and forgive us our debts, as we forgive those who debt against us...". That has been changed in my lifetime somewhere from or to "and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us..." Where was I when this change was made? Who presumes they have the authority to change the one and only Christian Lord's prayer? That just doesn't seem right to me.
The present day situation of everyday life is self-evident evidence enough for the 'average Joe' to recognize institutionalized corruption and what should be known as institutionable insanity - killing foreign children for domestic financial gain. How insane is that for a democratic foreign policy?
I think that religion and politics jumped in bed together somewhere along the time line and most world religions have been corrupted by politics in some fanatical way or another or have been the corrupting force behind corrupt politics. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Politics or religion. Same/same. Same shit, different country. The grass ain't greener over there, in that country, in their communities or their courtrooms - it's just another shade of shit brown.
"How big is your brown envelope, your honour?" - Steve, Babs, Brian and Charity in unison.
Your Honour, please grow some English 'bollocks' and throw this 'B.S.' case out of the window and into the rubbish heap where it belongs. Please dismiss all charges against Mr. Brian W. Haw and return his personal property and private legal documents immediately, accepting responsibility that a theft has taken place and the consequences will be forth-coming - no joke, whatsoever.
Until the application of the conditions, let alone the justification for the conditions is argued in the High Courts of this land, punishing Mr. Brian Haw, let alone incarcerating him, in the meanwhile, is completely out of the question due to an obvious corruption and gross abuse of the legal processes.
Please show your true face and do what is right and just by democracy, courage and truth, your honour.
Westminster Magistrates Court
Westminster
London, England
ken livingstone
As Mayor, please speak out for the people of this great city of London. Please speak up for peace and free speech. Please.
* Please All note: all names noted are responsible to please make sure that all names listed receive
advanced disclosure of this statement.
Mayor of London
London, England
The War Crimes Division of Scotland Yard
Knock, Knock.
Is there anyone there, please? Can you help, please? Pretty please, with sugar on top???
Scotland Yard
London, England
Royal High Courts of Justice
London, England
The Home Office
Westminster
London, England
The House of Lords
Westminster
London, England
The Houses of Parliament
Westminster
London, England
District Judge Evans
Horseferry Road Magistrates Courts
a.k.a Westminster Magistrates Courts
Westminster
London, England
The 'vulgar' DpG - Diplomatic 'plastic' Protection Group
Westminster
London, England
The 'crooked' cPs - Crown Persecution System/prosecution service
Westminster
London, England
September 7th, 2006
Dear Sirs:
Please exit publicly owned civil buildings immediately. You are unfit for purpose. You are all fired, including the female one who wears the pants at 10 Downing Street.
England does not and will not tolerate any 'Nazi' tactics, 'Nazi' reasoning or 'Nazi' trains of thought or 'Nazi' actions, let alone a couple of 'Nazis' usurping democratic leadership in the homeland. The Blair's are dangerous psychopaths - without conscience - loose on English soil, openly and blatantly destroying democracy and perverting justice, with their 'road map to peace' buddies, taking England to hell in a hand-bag. Racism is a sure sign of ignorance, as is elitism.
As I have gained a greater understanding of the world, in my past forty years of life, travels and experiences, I fail to
understand any clear distinctions between Capitalism and Communism. Both systems are based on a preponderance of serfs, begging for scraps from the lords (the abusers vs. the abused or the oppressers vs. the oppressed as the Samaritans recogize modern day reality), slaving away at the bottom of the pile and making up 99% of the pile, and the few greedy politicians and friends, at the top of the pile, the top 1%, who benefit greatly, especially financially, from their positions of power and their exertion of said corrupt power of economic abuse against the children of their own nation. 'They' enforce insanity onto and perpetuate immorality into the present and the future of their nation's children's lives, as well as the lives of many other nations’ children.
Insane living conditions for children under uncontrollable, intolerable abusers of economic power and those with financial abilities to promote war mongering is insanity. Isn't genocide a sign of a sadistic mind? Is genocide a sign of a masochistic mentality? Bondage and slavery come to mind, when thinking of Tony and Cherry 'muppet' Bliar's grip on democracy.
The English people are not nor will ever be slaves to the government, especially a government as corrupted as these lunatics. The government is employed to serve the people and if it is found to be only serving itself, as civil employees - all employment can and will be terminated.
Tony, if any crimes have been committed during your employment - the buck stops with you, yourself and your missus, not 'Me, Myself and Irene'. You aren't Jim Carrey and this ain't Hollywood. You will be charged - have no fear or plenty of fear, whichever mindset you choose. Your actions are your actions, just as mine are my own. If you are the Big Chief in command of the little indians who have behaved badly, the buck stops with you and please be certain that the ink from the printing presses will have stained every single small-minded, greedy corrupt little indian who financially benefitted and participated openly and willingly in your corrupt crusade of committing crimes against humanity.
We, the pacifists, are not stupid, unlike some, and are not playing the 'pass the blame' game and burying these issues of free speech and crimes against humanity into a bureaucratic, indefinite sentence of paperwork; wasting the tax-payers pound notes by dragging peaceful law-abiding members of society through foolish and malicious charges again and again and again; aided and abetted by the court system and the crown persecution service, at great public financial expense.
If it looks like a duck and it talks like a duck and it walks like a duck... it's a duck. A Nazi is a Nazi, no matter what 'wolf in sheep’s clothing', outward 'suited and booted', respectable appearances or 'fancy-shmancy' accent is supposed. Smarmy smiles and clever language-twisting, legalese skills are being deployed and practiced to pervert the law and the course of justice. Actions speak louder
than words. No one lies more and smiles, as consistently, as Mr. Tony Blair and his witchy missus - the rotten pair.
Human rights? Cherie or Cherry or whatever your name is... Howse about "witch-faced, wannabe, mother's m..."?
Human Rights? Have you any sense of motherhood or any sense of what your hubby is doing to the mom's of this world, all over the world?
Would you fancy having a child born with physical defects or cancer, solely because your hubby thinks plutonium and uranium tipped weapons are a good idea for Iraq and other nations and a 'great earner'? BAE kick-backs are apparently da' bomb! Very lucrative. Is it ever safe to drop baby nuclear bombs (literally) onto 'their' children and 'our' soldiers? Did you ever witness a child die with cancer? Have you ever nursed an adult dying with cancer and praying for death to come? Did you ever lose a son or a daughter
to illness or from an illegal war? Are you thick as shite, woman?
Would you fancy a soldier or many soldiers bolling into your home and scaring the living hell out of you and your children, while they scream and run behind you, in terror, to protect themselves from the scary man with the big gun pointed straight at them? You completely savage b*tch.
I bet your son won't be marching off to Iraq or Afghanistan to be brave and fight for democracy; indiscriminately murdering innocent children, having been brainwashed into thinking that what he is doing is just and right and noble.
There always comes a day, for each and every soldier, when the reality of his actions hits home with a heavy blow to the conscience - the conscious mind - if he/she has taken any life 'unjustly' and 'knowingly'. If a person has any conscience or when a confused mind returns to a state of conscientiousness, the act of taking life weighs very heavy on the heart also - especially when ending the life of a child.
When a child dies, it is usually heart-breaking to someone, somewhere, at some point in time - even if it is only the Good Lord above who mourns their loss. God does truly love every child, unconditionally. Deal with it - the soldiers are forced to, eventually, in the depths of their hearts and the darkest corners of their minds; that is punishment enough. We, the people, as sane logical
conscientious human beings, mostly all know right from wrong and you 'sicko's' are as wrong as it gets.
Abandoning ship from the Nazi brigade could put you away for life in the stockade if Tony 'the tw*t' has his way and his say - making his words into law by the stroke of his corrupt pen. SOLDIERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO QUIT WARRING APPARENTLY, unless Tony says so, and if Tony says no, to war you go or the stockade and a LIFE SENTENCE is awaiting for you.
FREEDOM? So much for seeing the world from behind the bars and gates of Tony's concentration camp for armed, forced dissenters - life sentence mandatory. And when that 'JACKASS' tries to bring in conscription through his 'Bad Lad's Army' advertising and probably more corrupt legislation abusing human rights and civil liberties of economically disadvantaged children, I will duly note I pointed out that 'the writing was already on the wall.'
I think the sanity of Tony Blair needs to be questioned as he has shown himself clearly to be a psychopath, having no conscience for his actions and how they effect others. He foolishly has no conception of how his criminal activity is going to effect his future freedom from behind some metal barn, taylor made for Tony; he is a consistent, habitual offender who consistently shows no remorse for his crimes and lives in a complete state of utter denial.
Is he a dangerous offender? I would say so.
He suffers from delusions of grandeur. I am pretty certain that a drugs test would be necessary for him and the missus - you can never be too careful with drug abuse. I have witnessed him many times on the television with that certain 'could be cocaine-induced', 'I rule the world' look to his eyes I have seen that 'look' in so many others with cocaine addictions. Of course, I could be mistaken.
Could someone please check his septum to see if he still has one? Coke does exit the blood system fairly quickly. The nose rot is always a sure sign of this particular drug's over-usage.
I firmly suggest the Blair's be sectioned under the mental health act, section 136, I believe, for at least 90 days, as SOCPA legislation allows for all suspect terrorists to be held; the first 48 hours of which to be in the isolated confinement of a mental institution to ascertain the state of their mental health. They have most certainly shown themselves to be of a great and serious, violent threat to society.
Yes, I do believe these 'people' all individually need to be sectioned under the mental health act immediately, post haste, as they are an immediate threat to the public specifically, society in general, the children of
the world indefinitely and most probably, to themselves.
Tony: Can you read and do you understand what you are reading? How are your reading comprehension skills, you muppet?
D.o. y.o.u. u.n.d.e.r.s.t.a.n.d?
Cherry: Did you read the story in the Independent about the soldier who committed suicide because he didn't want to go to Iraq and kill children as he was informed, by his senior officers, was his duty to do? You sick nightmare of an excuse for a female - where is your compassion?
"Keep bombing em' Tony - you're creating a lot of good refugee business for me and the firm - 'Human rights/Wrongs'. Lots of new voters and cheap laborers for our friends in the building trade. The great land grab and sell off of English 'green space'/Crown land is going fine as kind!" - my assumption of Cherry Bliar's conversation with Tony, while she is 'taking a crap' (on England) 'on the bog'. I bet that is just the way those two think, and 'how it is', at 10 Downing Street.
Pleading insanity is most certainly your best option when explaining your unbelievable greed, your total inhumanity and your complete lack of remorse.
Do you understand the word compassion? Have you passed any onto your own children? What about other people's children? Have you any compassion for anyone's children? Human Rights? Children's Rights? Cherry, you are an evil 'cow'.
Princess Diana Spencer would have ate you up for breakfast and spat you out for dinner in her own (far superior to you) humble, refined way with two words... land mines. Landmines that disfigure children and the discussion of said topic is the probable assumption I have made as to why she was bumped off; that and the possibility of another beautiful child in her belly - maybe a beautifully brown Moslem baby as a poster child against you and your hubby's, and your mate's, long-planned, insane, future campaign of destruction and murder for profit, on a global scale.
Both Diana's topic of conversation and her choice of lover, when combined with her attempt to leave the 'family', are logical reasons to some insane individuals, civil employees - if you please, for murdering The Princess of the People - our Queen of Hearts.
It still makes me cry when I think about that day. The radio clicked on and there was sad music and then the news of her death. I cried - I won't lie. I cried like a baby like so many others. I went up to Kensington Palace and just wanted to be where she had been to feel closer to her, even though I knew she was gone; as if that would make any sense to war-monger and someone with a blackened
heart.
Lots of people went up to Kensington Palace and brought flowers - an ocean of flowers and a sea of sentiment. The message, "Diana, we love you" was on almost every gift of mourning in some shape or form of written expression of true grief and deep love. Isn't it odd that by today's SOCPA standards, that demonstration of love and display of grief would be concieved as an unauthorised demonstration and an act of terrorism by Tony's weakened standards of mind.
I brought my children with me. I cried for her boys and the wonderful mother I knew they had lost forever. It really sucks when your mother dies (I personally know). A family almost always falls apart at the seams from the heartache. A mother is what glues everyone together - she is the peacemaker who loves everyone equally and wants to see everyone get on in life and get along with each other. That was an awful day and it was good to be around so many people who were feeling the same thing and sharing so many wonderful thoughts about such a beautiful person.
MURDERERS. YOU WILL ALL BE TRIED AND CONVICTED AND SENTENCED ACCORDING TO THE EXTENT OF YOUR CRIMES IN THE EYES OF THE PEOPLE. MURDERERS. I AM SO ANGRY RIGHT AT THIS PRESICE MOMENT, I COULD SPIT FIRE.
HENCE, I WRITE!
MY WORDS ARE MY ONLY WEAPONS!
MURDERERING SONS OF B*TCHES!
YOU EVIL, ROTTEN, SATANIC, LYING B*STARDS!
Cherry, your law firm and you are financially benefiting from these war crimes (land mines) and crimes against humanity. And you 'stand' for Human Rights? You, 'miss human wrongs' and your 'war-mongering' hubby,Tony 'the war criminal', are SERIOUSLY 'taking the piss'.
Have either of you ever raised any of your progeny? (You, yourselves?) Have you ever actually spent any time with your 'rug- rats' as I warmly refer to mine? A real mother or father spends time, lots of time, and not just the politically correct, minimal, nominal 'quality- time' as ascribed by the government as necessary; fitting 'them' into your busy 'work' life and not fitting your life around them.
A Chatham mum of four was telling me how she had met you and you were asking after the age of her baby, as if you think you fooled her into thinking you gave a damn about her or her child. Her comment to me was, "She ain't no mother. You actually have to see your kid and raise your kid, yourself, to be a mom. She just hands em' over to someone else and pays the bill."
I also had the pleasure of meeting another young man, a heroin addict, who had the displeasure of meeting Tony as he was exiting a train at Rochester, here in Kent. I took great pleasure in shaking his hand. Why?
"You're a c*nt!", Tony was told, to his face.
"...and you have a very nice day too, sir..." Tony responded.
Apparently, Tony has thick skin or he is simply used to being verbally abused by the English public... or maybe not and hence the SOCPA gag order on free speech. How could a war criminal possibly be a good father to his children or a good person in general, when there is no good to be found in his soul and he is devoid of the humane spirit of humanity - kindness? Is he a good husband - a good leader to his family? Tony is an unfit parent and an insane dictator; he is a steaming pile of shit in my mind.
Before women were given the right to vote, they were known as chattel - property. Are children now chattel? Are they mere physical property to be sold INTO economic SLAVERY OF SOME FORM OR ANOTHER? In today's modern world - yes, sad to say, would be the correct answer.
Is life chattel? Something to be bought and sold? Weapons sold to whom, profited by which people and at the cost of whose human life? Is a child's life worth nothing unless it is sold into slavery of some form, being of a financial benefit to some master or is it not until the children are completely sold out, 'lock, stock and bollocks', and exterminated, they are deemed worthy of any value?
War...the biggest business of all big business and government enterprises... killing children.
ass: noun 1. an animal of the horse family, smaller than a horse and with longer ears[ironic and appropriate for Tony] 2. a foolish person from a Latin word asinus meaning 'donkey'; slang referring to the buttocks or an anus
hole: noun an empty space or opening in a solid body, mass or surface; informal to hide yourself from an old English word hol
asshole: noun 1. Tony Blair plural assholes: slang 'Tony's cronies'; the relatively few, greedy politicians - namely most, in considering the human population of the earth - individually all, and their friends/business associates and/or spouses - always to be found riding at the top of the pile of a mountain of politically correct horseshit, taxing the citizens to death and profiting off the backs of their fellow country man and his woman and his child - denying basic education, basic healthcare and human rights in general; the top 1%, who benefit greatly, especially financially, from their positions of power and their exertion of said corrupt power of economic abuse directly against the children of their own nations and their varying countries of origin; those who would enforce insanity onto and perpetuate immorality into the present and the future of their nation's children's lives, as well as the lives of many other nation's children; those 'people' who think(?) 'people have to die' when it comes to THE question of war, big business and the almighty dollar/pound/yen versus the DEMAND for PEACE and the God-given gift and RIGHT of FREE SPEECH, by THE PEOPLE 2. anus
see also: politically insane or political insanity
- Charity Sweet
God, please protect all the world's children from these vile, evil creatures, their henchmen and their minions: the war-mongers...
...the Blairs and the Bushes of this world.
God save the peace. S.O.S. XXX
R.S.V.P. ???
Regards,
Mrs. C. Sweet
XXX
anti copyright Charity Sweet acknowledging Barbara Tucker and the 'sane' thoughts and opinions of most of 'sane' England regarding the 'insane' politics of a police state under 'insane' dictatorship - Mr. and Mrs. 'muppet/puppet' Blair.
30.05.06
Statement
of
Brian Haw
730 words
Your Honor: Excuse me please. I do not agree with today’s proceedings.
It is my opinion that:
1. I cannot make a plea today until I have received advanced disclosure from the CPS or the police. I understand there should now be an itemized list of all items seized on the morning of Tuesday, 23rd May, 2006 from Parliament Square. I understand that I should be provided with a written documented list of each individually tagged item.
2. Two black Bibles were also seized on the aforementioned date. I am requesting that they be rescinded into my care immediately as I have been fasting and praying for peace. They were gifts of love and compassion given to myself from dear friends to comfort me - to comfort us all. I believe that they convey the message that a time of peace shall come to pass - a promise by God. And as Mr. Tony Blair has been quoted in the paper yesterday as desiring to commit his faith to the Christian faith and the Roman Catholic Church, I am certain he can appreciate that this request is most reasonable.
3. I am requesting the return of all personal property required for my living needs such as clothes to my permanent address as recognized by the Royal High Court of Justice: Brian Haw, Parliament Square, Westminster, London, .
4. I am requesting to carry out a personal inspection, today, in the presence of my solicitor and/or barrister and an one independent witness of my choice and that this inspection be carried out and video recorded by an independent party to be jointly agreed upon today, of all the admissible evidence pertaining to today’s proceedings which I assert is my personal property seized on the aforementioned date. I assert I have just cause to question what state any of it any of it is in due to the video-taped nature of the afore mentioned seizure of said property from Parliament Square. I am also requesting to personally re-locate the entirety of the afore mentioned admissible evidence to a location of my choice, and to commence removal within forty-eight hours of today’s date, with a person of my choice, to be jointly agreed upon today. I am requesting I be given twenty four hours to complete the relocation of afore mentioned admissible evidence.
5. I am requesting that all privileged confidential legal documentation between my solicitor, my barrister and myself, along with tape-recorded and video-recorded and photographic evidence be returned immediately as I assert the legal documents were illegally seized. The police were told at the time of the seizure of these items that I believed that they had no legal right to take these items, by myself and others.
6. I personally have many questions regarding the legalities and/or illegalities pertaining to the continuation of these proceedings. Almost all of my evidence for not only this case, but many other cases and actions, pertaining to the police, has been seized by said police. It is somewhat ironic that the admissible evidence in question and privileged confidential legal documentation pertaining to various on-going cases and actions against the present government of England has been seized, by force, from Parliament square in a dawn raid which, in my opinion, was a great waste of the taxpayers monies and used somewhat excessive force and bullying tactics. I cannot see how this case can proceed for if I had stolen all the evidence from the CPS, they could not have possibly proceeded to trial for even a first hearing.
7. I am humbly requesting that I be treated fairly and justly by the courts of this land and allocated a minimum of 20 feet to store my admissible evidence of what I consider to be genocide by this government, as has been the approximate length of most prior demonstrations, and to have the width also set as according to that of previous prior government authorised protests, as filmed by the City of Westminster which I am presently requesting of yourself. Lastly, I humbly request that the limitations set regarding the amount of people who may choose to show their support be questioned and be set in line with other government permitted protests on parliament square.
8. Your Honor, with all due respect … is this Westminster gate?
___________________________________________________
Anti copyright acknowledging Brian Haw
____________________
Date
MERCY
A Plea for Humanity
- Brian Haw
1969 words
My opinion: 30/05/06
Genocide: Judge Pleads Not Guilty on Behalf of Government
Dear Sir:
I still cannot quite digest what I witnessed today within the Bow Street Magistrates Courts - such flagrant abuse of a fellow country man’s rights. Why did not the solicitor object more strenuously? Perhaps she did not fully understand the games that were being played in that courtroom. They are certainly beyond the comprehension of most ordinary folk. Business as usual, I suspect - collusion. I recognized what I saw. I will explain…
It is just not a very pretty conclusion that is beginning to form in my mind. Brian politely stood up and asked the judge for his help, humbly, and was told to sit down and remain silent; that he could not speak regarding matters that others present were able to discuss to whatever length they chose - so many unanswered questions.
I know from article 1. of Brian Haw’s statement that it was legally impossible for a plea to be offered today, let alone one be chosen and laid down by the judge on behalf of the accused, until advanced disclosure of all evidence is provided to the defendant by the CPS or the police. Lunacy comes to mind. The man said he could not make a plea and the judge did it for him. Why? What was his motivation? What could be the possible ramifications of his chosen actions upon Brian Haw? I certainly hope someone is not trying to make Circuit Judge off of the back of Brian Haw. Carrot and stick comes to mind.
Furthermore, it was agreed prior to court, behind closed doors, that no plea could be entered. Wat went wong? Are even the processes of law being abused? The CPS council and Brian’s solicitor, present behind closed doors, viewed Brian Haw’s statement before entering the courtroom - they received advanced disclosure. Good for the goose is not good for the gander in the kitchens of Bow Street Magistrate‘s Courts. Just what are they cooking up? The Judge received The Statement of Brian Haw by hand, by Brian’s solicitor, in courtroom Number 1, in public view, make no mistake please.
If Brian is to be found guilty under the new SOCPA legislation, he could face up to one year in jail for his five year pursuit of peace, eviction and a hefty fine. To plead not guilty and be found guilty appears far worse that to confess ones guilt from the beginning. Wonderful childhood lessons I hope we have all learnt - all things being equal. It is curious how applications for anti-war protests, to be located at Parliament Square, are being continually rejected since the whips of Parliament determined to move Brian Haw on.
This is not the England my mother taught me about. Is this Roger Whittaker’s England? Is this your England? Do you recognize this country? I don’t, and I have lived here since 1991. Things have not been changing for the better, Tony. Everything you have touched has turned to shite; education, healthcare, Iraq and the law - shite.
Is this English justice?
A woman was arrested under the same SOCPA legislation for reading the names of the dead soldiers of this illegal war at a place of respect for them without government permission. Do we now require government permission to grieve? Just exactly what happened to the folks in Parliament Square when they held up blank placards without permission? Were they cautioned like myself, or arrested like others under which ridiculous section of what new and improved legislation attempting to erode away our civil rights? Not even a question mark folks?
Free speech is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as the right to express your opinions. Read it. Learn it. Live it. Love it. Speech is a gift from God and He intended to give it to everyone and some have had it taken away. Make no mistake yet again. Free speech is a gift that God gave me that no man in this land may wave his magic pen and write a law to deny my voice or the voice of others. We, as members of the humane race, must speak for those who have been deprived their voice, especially to incite peace on behalf of my Good Lord. I will sing out and rejoice as the Bible has taught me to do. Amen!
I am a Christian woman and Brian is my brother from another mother. We have brothers and sisters all over the world; Moslem sisters and Hindu brothers, Jewish mothers and Buddhist fathers. We are indeed a global family that does not bar any creed, race, religion or fellow human being. We are humanity. Our uniting common desire is that of peace, love and justice for all our children’s future. Education is the way forward, not ignorance. Lying is never a good idea. The truth always has a funny way of coming to light.
Tony… can we talk?
Recently, I was cautioned for singing Jesus Loves the Little Children, All things Bright and Beautiful, Always Look on the Bright Side of Life - Monty Python, the word “mercy” sang over the tune of Amazing Grace and You Are My Sunshine, outside Number 10 Downing Street on a Sunday evening. The policeman on the gate was a sweet heart. I think his mum must have sang him these songs too as he commented that he liked a certain hymn. He had a nice smile. It was all cool and copasetic - so why the charges?
Section 132 and 137 were first cited by two police officers after I demanded they tell me under which specific section of SOCPA I was being cautioned. They seemed to feel I had enough information in the knowledge of the Act and did not need to know under which specific section I was being cautioned; the fact that I was being cautioned under the Act alone was enough information for my small mind to handle.
Section 137 deals with the use of a megaphone. I had none and duly pointed out the lunacy of that charge. Are you starting to get the picture? This all happened in public view - I am certain that their camera’s caught the play.
I am told they are considering summonsing me to court as a serious organized criminal basically for practicing/singing hymns and a quirky English tune. (You cannot whip this woman into submission.) The very next day, I hear that Mr. Tony Blair is swearing his faith to the Roman Catholic Church when he steps down from Number 10 and desires to lead the UN? Not into the music anymore, Tony? Hypocrisy comes to mind.
What more can I say?
Tony, it's high time you faced the music!
The British Law Society needs to be duly informed that grievous improprieties and abuse of processes occurred within the walls of the Bow Street Magistrates Courts, Room number 1 on the above noted date.
I would also assume that an immediate dismissal of said hearings would be appropriate - a mistrial. It is contemptible that Brian Haw is expected to negotiate the return of his personal confidential legal documents and personal property, such as clothes and two priceless Bibles, with the parties who, in my opinion, illegally took possession of said confidential property and should have never had touched his personal effects in the first place. For myself, that is like telling a woman who was been raped and mugged to “go sort it out” with her rapist - the safe amicable return of her handbag and virginity.
I don’t think the artist Mr. Banks is going to be very happy with the due care that was not paid to his gifted artwork valued at some £50,000 that was on the pavement for public display until 78 police officers were sent on a clandestine dawn raid of Parliament Square. Has this theft been reported and filed? Has a statement been taken from the victim of this crime? Were there any witnesses? Were these paintings evidence and exactly whose evidence were they?
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not kill.
The evidence Brian Haw displayed on the pavements of Parliament Square is that of genocide: noun deliberate extermination of a race of people.[from a Greek noun genos meaning ‘a race’ and a Latin verb caedere meaning ‘to kill’]
Uranium/plutonium tip weapons are raining down on the Iraqi women and their foreign invaders. Just as the men and women of Iraq are presently birthing Chernobyl babies due to radiation where there was no nuclear plant melt-down, the parents of Hiroshima cried out years before them.
I fear that same hell we be re-visited upon our returning troops - their sperm and eggs were not protected upon Iraqi soil. Will you believe when England begins to birth these mal-formed children from her own womb and hear the cries of the Iraqi women? Oops…You won’t see those babies on Westernized soil - we have abortion. The Iraqi women do not believe in abortion. They endure a naturally painful childbirth without modern pain relief to hold ‘what’ in their arms and show ‘who’ to their families. They believe every child is a gift from God, as is right and proper.
Due to what can only be described as barbaric sanctions and the virtual destruction of a country through perpetual warfare back to the standards of the Stone Age, the cradle of civilization tracing from the Stone Age - Iraq - the Garden of Eden, the birth place of Abraham, is being systematically finished off. (Nice going George and Tony! And you call yourselves Christians?)
The first gulf war was only the beginning. This time, the troops have been sent in to finish off the job which will be at their own peril. Did Hitler not think to kill off a breed of people? Did the English not seek to breed out the Scots, at one point in time, unless I am mistaken? Did the Bruce not commit treason against his fellow Scotsman in Mel Gibson’s ‘Brave Heart’ when he allowed the arrows to drop on his fellow Scotsman, while he plotted and colluded with Lords and Kings of other lands? (My 13 year old son explained that little interesting point.)
Is this treason I am witnessing? Does the English nation support these actions?
At the very least, an appeal on behalf of Brian Haw should have been immediately lodged. The amount of monies wasted harassing and bullying this warrior of peace is yet to be discussed in the House of Lords.
Is this English justice?
Please read the statement of Brian Haw and dare to question his written truth - a mere 730 words of your precious time. Ask yourself whether his heart speaks for the hope of peace for all nations or whether he is the heartless God Father of all serious organized criminals, as proposed under England’s daft new serious organized crime laws. Does he deserve a jail sentence for his plea? For the love of Christ, the man is proposing peace to the world and asking the bullies of this world to look at what they are doing and stop attacking and killing the children. The man is proposing love, peace and justice for all!
Some folks appear to be more interested in arresting free speech than educating terrorists into the understanding that terrorizing any race or segment of society is never a good idea.
No one likes a bully.
I am a Canadian citizen with permanent Right to Abode Status in England and in my heart, I am English. I was blessed with a fine English lady for my mother. My eldest daughter is Iraqi. Brian speaks for me and for her and my mum. God bless him and protect him and all God’s children.
Charity Sweet
Anti copyright acknowledging Brian Haw
genocidal britain
Genocidal or Great Britain?
02/06/01 - 02/06/06
5 YEARS
Brian Haw
Parliament Square
London SW1
My Opinion: 02/06/06
Genocidal or Great Britain?
Five years ago, I was sent to Parliament Square with a message of Love, Peace and Justice for all. I have been a silent witness; displaying; and crying out in the face of our beastly government twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, ever since.
I came, having seen what our administration as junior pax-partner, was doing with the United States of Assassins to the people of Iraq. Starkly, it is called, ‘bomb, burn, bugger, and beggar your neighbour’. It is what our two countries have done as our second best to the nations of the world for centuries.
In the process of looting their material resources, we’ve committed genocide time and again. The best excuse we use is “Other countries do this too” - genocide against human beings who we regard as lesser than ourselves; ‘unter-menschen’, as the Nazi’s regarded the Jewish and other groups of peoples. It is so ugly, we also prefer not to look at it. As the Germans did though, we must, in order to learn and redress the perpetuating crimes of history. We’re in Iraq and Afghanistan today because we did not learn from our past mistakes.
My father, Robert William Haw, was a sniper in the British Army; one of the first saviours of the Bergen-Belsen survivors. He gassed himself twenty years later. I was in Belfast, Ireland in 1971 and in Cambodia in 1990. With all the others since, for me, Iraq was a ‘Genocide too Far’.
My ex-wife, children and family are beyond price to me. Your children, you, have the same value, no matter where you live, your race, and your religion, whatever. Fifty-seven years of life, five years here - what I have to tell! Immediately though, so many lives are at stake. The sands of time are running out at express speed for our fellow human beings as I write; as we live our relatively comfy, enjoyable, oblivious lives. We are each responsible.
My previous statement of May 30, 2006 was for my eleventh court case for peace and justice - other cases up to the House of Lords will follow.
Genocidal or Great Britain? Our choice folks. To encourage, I’ve been so blessed to meet so many truly Great Britons, and glorious people of all race, especially Americans, in my time here. We have the resources between us to make this world a far better place for our children, their children. Let’s stand up for good now, Amen! Let’s not sit down again until this horrible nightmare for our human family is over.
We are each responsible. Let’s give the world our best - the Best of British and the true ‘Old Glory’ of America, Amen!
Brain Haw & Co.
Anti copyright Brian Haw
Defence
I submit that my actions were justified on three grounds:
1/ That I was attempting to prevent serious crimes from taking place within Parliament and government offices in Westminster, and to effect the arrest of the offenders, which is a legitimate activity under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967
2/ That I was pursuing my legal duty in international law under The Judgement of the Nuremburg war Crimes Tribunal and the Nuremburg Principles to disobey the orders of the UK government to prevent it from waging a war of aggression against the people of Iraq.
3/ That my action was one of necessity and that I was acting under duress of circumstances to prevent a greater evil – the mass murder of tens of thousands of totally innocent Iraqis, the deaths of British servicemen and women.
1.0 The Prevention of Crime and Arrest of Offenders
1.1 Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states:
“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”
1.2 I submit that the force that I used in keeping the peace and carrying out my duty as a citizen was entirely reasonable. By handing out leaflets requesting police to arrest the Prime Minister and others, by using a megaphone to inform MPs, Peers, the police and the public of the crimes taking place within the vicinity, by resisting the seizure of the megaphone by the police, by demanding that the police arrest the offenders, halt the crimes taking place and prevent the crimes that were still to take place, I was carrying out my duties as a citizen and behaving in a lawful and reasonable manner.
1.3 The 11 crimes taking place in the palace of Westminster that I was attempting to prevent are:
a crime against peace,
(i) conspiracy to commit a crime against peace,
(ii) genocide,
(iii) a crime against humanity,
(iv) war crimes,
(v) conduct ancillary to genocide,
(vi) conduct ancillary to a crime against humanity,
(vii) conduct ancillary to war crimes,
(viii) murder,
(ix) conspiracy to murder and
(x) incitement to murder.
A crime against peace is an international crime under Principle 6 of the Nuremburg Principles, and the other crimes (ii) – (xi) are criminal offences under the law of England and Wales, and as such qualify as crimes for the purposes of section 3 of the Criminal Law Act.
1.4 There is extensive evidence in the public domain of these 11 crimes taking place within the Palace of Westminster. Initially, I will produce evidence of genocide and conduct ancillary to genocide, both of which are criminal offences under section 51 and 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001. Should the court consider this evidence inadequate to prove my defence, I reserve the right to introduce further evidence for each of the other eight listed crimes.
1.5 The leaflets and poster introduced into evidence summarise the purpose and object of my actions in Parliament Square and focus in particular on the crime of genocide. I will show that the crimes of genocide and conduct ancillary to genocide of the people of Iraq have been, and continue to be, committed by the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers and others.
[Evidence of the crime of Genocide - document attached]
1.6 I assert that I was attempting to prevent the crimes of ‘genocide’ and ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ which were taking place, and are continuing to take place in the Palace of Westminster, and as such under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 I have a valid defence in law and therefore there is no case to answer.
2.0 The international duty to disobey Government
2.1 The second of the three grounds for defence is my submission that I was pursuing my duty in international law under The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal and the Nuremburg Principles to disobey the orders of the UK government to prevent it from waging an illegal war of aggression against the people and State of Iraq.
[Evidence of individual duty under international law – document attached]
2.2 I assert that in commanding the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, 412 MPs, Peers, officers in command of HM armed forces and others committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity as they are defined under Principle VI of the Nuremburg Principles.
2.3 I submit that every citizen of Britain who condones supports or assists the British Government in waging illegal war against the people of Iraq is complicit in these crimes and as such commits a crime under Principle VII of the Nuremburg Principles.
2.4 I submit that I was in Parliament Square pursuing my duty in international law as described in the Nuremburg judgement to ‘transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state’. I submit that it is the duty of every British citizen to refuse the illegitimate orders, commands, laws and regulations of the United Kingdom Government on the grounds that these laws and regulations are unlawful and designed to silence legitimate protest against the British Government’s violations of international law and crimes against the people and state of Iraq. I submit therefore that my actions in Parliament Square were entirely lawful in international law and that I have no case to answer.
3.0 Duress of Circumstance
3.1 Lastly I submit that I was acting under duress of circumstance to prevent a greater evil – the mass murder of tens of thousands of totally innocent Iraqis and the deaths of British servicemen and women, and that any citizen, knowing the laws against war and the horrific implications of undertaking an armed invasion and occupation of a member state of the UN, would do the same.
3.2 I was compelled to act as I did because I feared that unless the Prime Minister and other members of the British Government were stopped from continuing the illegal armed occupation of Iraq, many more innocent men, women and children would be killed and seriously injured.
3.3 The facts indicate that at least 1000 Iraqis are being killed every month and that 10 British servicemen and women were killed in May 2006. Every one of these deaths is illegal and a crime in both domestic and international law.
Summary
I submit that my actions were justified in law on the grounds that:
(1) I was attempting to prevent serious crimes from taking place in the Houses of Parliament and adjacent government buildings, and attempting to effect the lawful arrest of the Prime Minister and others for serious criminal offences under domestic and international law.
(2) I was pursuing my legal duty under The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal and the Nuremburg Principles to disobey the orders of the UK government and prevent it from waging a war of aggression against the people of Iraq.
(3) That my action was one of necessity and that I was acting under duress of circumstances to prevent a greater evil – the mass murder of tens of thousands of totally innocent Iraqis, the deaths of British servicemen and women.
Finally I ask the court to order the Metropolitan Police to investigate the 11 crimes taking place in violation of domestic and international war law in the Palace of Westminster and other Government departments, and in co-operation with the Crown Prosecution Service, initiate criminal proceedings against all the prominent offenders.
Chris Coverdale Wimbledon May 2006
Evidence of genocide
1/ I assert that members of HM armed forces committed genocide against the Iraqi people, which conduct constitutes a serious crime in domestic criminal law under sections 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001.
Facts
Prior to September 2002 the Prime Minister of Great Britain decided to form a Coalition with the United States of America to greatly increase the number and ferocity of armed attacks against the State of Iraq with the intention of removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and destroying Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. Subsequently members of HM Government gave orders for increased numbers of HM armed forces to be deployed to the Middle East in readiness for a full-scale armed invasion of Iraq. The invasion and occupation of Iraq commenced on March 20th 2003 and reliable sources indicate that to date at least 25,000 and possibly 100,000 Iraqi men, women and children have been killed as a result of the actions of Coalition forces.
Contention
I contend that the conduct of HM armed forces in joining a Coalition of States and using high explosive weapons against targets in Iraq, and are thereby jointly and severally responsible for killing at least 25,000 Iraqi citizens. This act constitutes a crime of genocide in the law of England and Wales under section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
In July 2002 Australia became the sixtieth State to ratify the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and as a result the world’s first international criminal law came into effect. The Rome Statute introduced the universal criminal offences of ‘genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes’, and set up a permanent international criminal court in The Hague with jurisdiction over these crimes.
The international Criminal Court Act 2001
By enacting the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (ICCA), Parliament ratified this international treaty, introduced the criminal offences of ‘genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to such crimes’ into UK domestic criminal law, and at the same time ceded ultimate jurisdiction over these crimes to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The following are relevant extracts from the ICCA:
OFFENCES UNDER DOMESTIC LAW
50 (1) In this part
“genocide” means an act of genocide as defined in Article 6,
ARTICLE 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”
51 Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
(1) It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime.
(2) This section applies to acts committed –
(a) in England or Wales, or
(b) outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national, a United Kingdom resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction.
By using high-explosive, indiscriminate weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs, depleted uranium tipped artillery shells, and mortars against targets in Iraq, American and British armed forces knowingly and deliberately caused the deaths of at least 25,000 Iraqi men, women and children.
66 Mental element
(3) For this purpose
(a) a person has intent –
(i) in relation to conduct, where he means to engage in the conduct, and
(ii) in relation to a consequence, where he means to cause the consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events; and
(b) “knowledge” means awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events.
I contend that these killings were carried out with intent to destroy members of the Iraqi national group. The grounds for describing these deaths as intentional as defined in Article 66.3(a) of the Act, are that officers of HM forces, gave orders to fire such weapons, knowing that by the nature of their design and purpose that the explosive power of these weapons when detonated or hitting the target would result in the deaths of individuals within the vicinity of the explosion; and that this awareness of the mortal consequences of their actions on Iraqi citizens constituted “intent to destroy members of a national group” and as such is a crime of genocide.
Articles 50.(2) and 50.(3) which state :
50 (2) In interpreting and applying the provisions of those articles the court shall take into account
(a) any relevant Elements of Crimes adopted in accordance with article 9
(3) The secretary of State shall set out in regulations the text of the Elements of Crimes referred to in subsection (2) as amended from time to time
The regulations shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament after being made.
The relevant Elements of Crimes were adopted in accordance with Article 9 of the Rome Statute on the 4th May 2004 when the Secretary of State issued Statutory Instrument 2004 No 1080. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 (Elements of Crimes) Regulations. The relevant section states:
Genocide by killing
Elements
1. The perpetrator killed [4] one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.
Notes [4] The term killed is interchangeable with the term “caused death”
I contend that the intentional killing of Iraqi citizens, members of a national group, by means of high explosive weapons took place on thousands of occasions since March 20th 2003, and that such conduct taking place in the context of the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq ordered by members of the British and American Governments created a manifest pattern of similar conduct across wide areas of Iraq and as such (Element 4) constitutes genocide by killing.
2/ I assert that the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, the defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, members of the cabinet and other members of HM Government engaged in genocide and conduct ancillary to genocide against the Iraqi people, which conduct constitutes serious crimes in English law under sections 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001 (ICCA), and in international criminal law under Article 25 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Facts
Analysis of Governmental affairs shows that The Prime Minister decided in 2002 to form a Coalition with the Government of the United States of America to undertake the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In a vote in Parliament on March 18th 2003 412 Members of Parliament voted in favour of war knowing that armed attacks by Coalition forces using high-explosive weapons would result in the death and injury of Iraqi citizens.
Evidence
Evidence of foreknowledge that the outcome of their decision would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians is contained in the final two paragraphs of the speech by Jack Straw in closing the debate in Parliament on March 18th 2003 (Hansard Vol 401 No.65 Page 902).
“But as elected Members of Parliament, we all know that we will be judged not only on our intentions, but on the results, the consequences of our decisions… Yes of course there will be consequences if the House approves the Government’s motion. Our forces will almost certainly be involved in military action. Some may be killed; so too, will innocent Iraqi civilians... I urge the House to vote with the Government tonight.”
Contentions
I contend that the conduct of Tony Blair (Prime Minister), Jack Straw (Foreign Secretary), members of the Cabinet, the Attorney General, 412 Members of Parliament and others, in preparing for and planning the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and subsequently commanding HM armed forces to attack targets in Iraq, constitutes the crimes of genocide and conduct ancillary to genocide under sections 51 and 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
52 Conduct ancillary to genocide, etc. committed outside jurisdiction
(1) It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to engage in conduct ancillary to an act to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies to an act that if committed in England or Wales would constitute -
(a) an offence under section 51 (genocide, crime against humanity or war crime), or
(b) an offence under this section, but which, being committed (or intended to be committed) outside England and Wales, does not constitute such an offence.
Ancillary conduct is defined in ICCA section 55
55. Meaning of “ancillary offence”
(1) References in this Part to an ancillary offence under the law of England and Wales are to -
(a) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence,
(b) inciting a person to commit an offence,
(c) attempting or conspiring to commit an offence, or
(d) assisting an offender or concealing the commission of an offence.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) the reference to aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring is to conduct that in relation to an indictable offence would be punishable under section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
Section 8 of The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 states :
8. Abettors in misdemeanours
Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.
I assert that by making public and private statements in support of an attack on Iraq, by voting in Parliament in favour of armed action, by agreeing in Cabinet to the policy, by signing or giving orders to others to conduct armed attacks against Iraq, by providing assistance with the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the knowledge that innocent men, women and children would be killed, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, the Attorney General, 412 Members of Parliament, and others did aid, abet, counsel and procure the commission of genocide against the Iraqi people and as accessories to genocide are liable to be tried, indicted and punished as principal offenders for the crime under ICCA s. 51 and 52.
International Criminal Law
3/ I contend that the conduct of The Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, the Attorney General, 414 Members of Parliament and others in commanding, HM armed forces to join a Coalition of states to attack Iraq in the knowledge that its citizens would be killed, constitutes a crime of genocide under Articles 6 and 25 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (RSICC) rendering the offenders criminally responsible and liable for punishment for such a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Article 25
Individual criminal responsibility
3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;
I assert that the actions of HM armed forces in using indiscriminate weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells against targets in built up areas in Iraq, in the knowledge that such attacks would kill Iraqi men, women and children constitutes genocide as defined in Articles 6 and 25.3(a) of the RSICC and as such renders the aforementioned leaders and commanders criminally responsible for ordering, soliciting and inducing such a crime, which itself is a crime under RSICC Article 25.3(b).
I draw the court’s attention to RSICC Articles 27 and 28 which place responsibility for the crime of genocide with those leaders and commanders responsible for its commission and negate the claims that the royal prerogative or parliamentary privilege take priority.
Article 27
Irrelevance of official capacity
1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.
Article 28
Responsibility of commanders and other superiors
In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility under this Statute for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court :
(a) A military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by forces under his or her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such forces, where :
(i) That military commander or person either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or were about to commit such crimes; and
(ii) That military commander or person failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
Chris Coverdale Wimbledon March 2006
The Nuremburg Law
[The duty to refuse to take part in or assist the state in waging illegal war]
1. I submit that every human being has a duty in international law under the Nuremburg Principles to refuse the orders, commands and laws of the State where that State is in violation of the laws against war.
2. As the world’s first major war crimes trial, the Nuremburg Tribunal provided the principles and tenets that now form the basis of customary international war law. In 1946 Germany’s leaders were convicted of crimes against peace and humanity for waging wars of aggression against eleven nation states in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The judgement highlighted the principles governing conflict between nations, and highlighted the responsibilities of individuals in preventing war.
“After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing...
It was submitted that international law is concerned with the action of sovereign states, and provides no punishment for individuals; and further, that where the act in question is an act of state, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State. In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States has long been recognised…
The very essence of the [Nuremburg] Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…
That a soldier was ordered to kill or torture in violation of the international law of war has never been recognised as a defence to such acts of brutality, though, as the Charter here provides, the order may be urged in mitigation of the punishment. The true test, which is found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations, is not the existence of the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible…
3. The Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials were the first occasions in modern history when political leaders were held to account for their crimes in court. The essence of the trials was that individual political, civil and military leaders and officials could not shelter behind their duty to the state, when the state was in breach of international law. As both Germany and Japan had ratified the Kellogg-Briand Pact, their leaders, by breaching the Pact, had committed serious crimes for which they were personally responsible and for which they were convicted and punished.
4. The reason why the Nuremburg trials are important is that they provide the first example of the rule of international war law in action and the judgment gave a lucid account of the laws against war and the principles which underpin relations between states. The International Law Commission then used the Nuremburg judgment as the basis for the statutory laws against war agreed by the UN General Assembly which were entitled the Nuremburg Principles in recognition of their source.
5. The single most important legal development derived from the Nuremburg judgment is the focus on the responsibility of the individual in matters of international warfare. Those responsible for waging war are to be held to account in court. Up to that moment national leaders such as Kaiser Wilhelm or Napoleon Bonaparte who were responsible for waging wars causing the deaths of millions had escaped the ultimate penalty for their crimes. Furthermore, the Nuremburg judgement made it clear that it was not only Heads of State that could be indicted, but all those individuals who together were responsible for planning, supporting, condoning, funding or taking part in aggressive war.
6. The Nuremburg Principles became international statute criminal law when they were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950. As these seven principles are the world’s primary international laws against war, it is the duty of every citizen of Member States of the United Nations to uphold and abide by these laws.
I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
7. I assert that in commanding the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, 412 MPs, Peers, officers in command of HM armed forces and others committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity as they are defined under Principle VI of the Nuremburg Principles.
8. I submit that every citizen of Britain who condones supports or assists the British Government in waging the illegal war against the people of Iraq is complicit in these crimes and as such commits a crime under Principle VII of the Nuremburg Principles.
9. I submit that I was in Parliament Square pursuing my duty in international law under the Nuremburg Principles refusing the illegitimate orders, commands, laws and regulations of the United Kingdom Government on the grounds that these laws and regulations are unlawful and designed to silence legitimate protest against the British Government’s violations of international law and crimes against the people and state of Iraq.
Chris Coverdale Wimbledon May 2006
The closing argument of Justice can be found on the internet. It is a briefing set before the House of Lords warning of the dangers of socpa legislation. Google Socpa and Justice and you will find a few unpleasant answers…
'come on... slow coach' - my lovely girlie-girl, calling out to her little mate, with a big smile!
anti copyright Charity Sweet acknowledging Brian W. Haw, Parliament Square, John Catt, Mark Thomas, Ziggy Abu and FCUK - all equally, greatly inspire free speech
www.parliament-square.org
Tony, without your corrupt 'nonse' judges on the bench and your 'politically corrupted' henchmen police... where would you be? Broadmoor, if not the Haigue.
Forever seeking that story of "The 100th Monkey" of kindness within the reality of the psyche of all humanity - Peace to everyone, everywhere, always. And the world... could be a better place...
- a mom and member of humankind
Kindest Regards,
Charity Sweet
XXX
anti copyright Charity Sweet acknowledging the persistent efforts of Princess Diana Spencer, Steve, Babs, Chris, Maya, Mark, rikki, Eric, 'Mary Poppins' of Parliament Square, Maria and Brian and many more enlightened reasonable logical minds
e-mail:
