18 May 2009 | Uncategorized
The visit of a religious dignitary of the stature of Benedict XVI is a delicate matter, fraught with religious and political sensitivities. In particular, Israeli authorities were especially keen not to burden the Holy Father with anything as earthly as political protests, especially protests critical of the hosting state.
Quite apart from the extraordinary reaction to a Palestinian cleric making a few fairly non-controversial remarks, local police have been sparing no effort to depoliticize the visit, or at least not to allow it to be politicized in any way beyond the recognition demanded of the pope for exclusively Jewish suffering.
In one example, two Palestinian citizens of Israel (or “two Arabs”, as most of the media chose to phrase it) were arrested in East Jerusalem on May 9, three days before the pope was due to land, on suspicion of “intending to deal out leaflets calling for a boycott of the Papal visit.” The police did not specify the content of the leaflets and whether they incited to violence of any sort.
Two other men were arrested in Nazareth the following day, also on charges of “intending to hang posters critical of the papal visit.” The local police again refused to comment on the content of the materials, but noted that “we will act decisively against any attempt to interrupt with the visit.” The headline heralding this arrest in one Israeli website was a gem in its own right —- “Two more suspected of opposition to the pope arrested.”
On the day of the visit itself, police proceeded to shut down a Palestinian Authority press briefing organized in an East Jerusalem hotel. The room at the Ambassador hotel was sealed, the attendees politely dispersed and all “documents” found confiscated. The commanding officer remarked the operation went through “without incident.”
Unusually, the arrests were not entirely reserved to Palestinians. A Jewish ultra-Orthodox man was caught throwing paint at a Vatican flag on a lamppost on a Jerusalem street and promptly detained. Police also dispersed the comic relief of the week — several of the most brutal settler activists, including Cahanist MK Moshe Ben Ari demonstrated in front of the presidential palace, demanding the pope “returns stolen sacred artifacts” – namely, the Temple treasures looted by the Romans in 66AD.
However, in marked contrast to the Palestinian protesters arrested through the weeks, prominent Jewish figures — including several rabbis and a left-wing MK — who called to boycott the events around the visiting pontiff were left untroubled by police.
15 May 2009 | Comment, News and features, United Kingdom
As the divide narrows between left and right in Britain, so too does the space for adversarial dialogue and free expression
(more…)
15 May 2009 | Uncategorized
In his latest efforts to keep details of the UK’s alleged involvement in the torture of former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed secret, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband has made a third public interest immunity (PII) certificate.
On 6 May, the High Court ruled that the judgment on Binyam Mohamed should be reopened, following an application from both UK and international media, including Index on Censorship.
The Court had, with reluctance, originally redacted seven paragraphs from the judgment, after the government claimed that their publication would affect the UK’s intelligence sharing relationship with the American administration. The media then made an application for the judgment to be reopened.
In a highly dramatic day at the High Court on 22 April, lawyers for Binyam Mohamed and the media accused the government of misleading the court. It transpired that the government had not in fact actually asked the Obama administration if the publication of the paragraphs would endanger their relationship.
The government then took advantage of the time given it by the court following the hearing last month to approach the Obama administration for a statement, as follows: “Public disclosure of this information reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the United Kingdom’s national security. Specifically, disclosure of this information may result in a constriction of the US-UK relationship, as well as UK relationships with other countries.”
But there are many questions that need to be answered, and lawyers for the Guardian have now made a request for further clarification — who in the Obama administration wrote the statement? Was it preceded by any correspondence between the foreign office and the US administration? Did the foreign office assist in the drafting of the letter? It’s clear how desperate the government is to keep the paragraphs secret. And even though Lord Justice Thomas declared himself “baffled” as to why the Obama administration should have any objection to the release of the Mohamed paragraphs when it had just released the torture memos, it may be tough for the High Court judges to resist the foreign secretary. However much they may like to.
15 May 2009 | Index Index, minipost
Guatemalan tweeter Jean Anleau (http://twitter.com/jeanfer) has been arrested for causing ‘financial panic’. Anleau had suggested in a tweet that Guatemalans should fight corruption by withdrawing all their money from banks.
Read more here
