Month: March 2018

Submitted by Robbie Travers,

Would you want your government to decide who can and cannot enter your country based on how popular their political views?

Would you trust any individual to police on your behalf what speakers are “conducive to the public good?”

The UK Home Office feels it is absolutely the organisation to fulfill this role. It also apparently feels there are certain opinions that you are far better never hearing.

Like those of Lauren Southern, who on the 12th of March was “banned for life” from entering the United Kingdom, after being detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act (2000).

Southern was told that “by her own admission” she had distributed “racist material.” It is important to note that actually, Southern, however, did not at all admit to the material being distributed being “racist” in nature, she simply admitted to distributing it.

But she, of course, was forbidden to dispute whether her material was truly racist, the mere suggestion that Southern was racist proved ample enough for her right to speak freely being expunged.

What material led to Southern being banned from entering the United Kingdom? A UK Home Office official explained that Southern was “refused [entry] on policy grounds that their presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good.” It leaves anyone who believes in free discourse, without the trappings of state oversight with the question: Should the state really be the arbiter of what is “conducive” to the public good? No, is the answer most sensible individuals will conclude.

You may like the idea of a state you agree with having this power, but what happens when it becomes a state you disagree with?

This decision is far better left to the people of the United Kingdom and any other nation.

But this isn’t just censorship, this is using the potent force of counter-terrorism legislation to silence. An examination is needed. We must inspect the alleged possible ways in which Miss Southern could potentially have posed a terrorist threat and breached the Terrorism Act of (2000).

Southern was served a notice that she was detained under counter-terrorism laws, specifically under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act (2000). A reminder: when detained under this serious counter-terrorism tool, it is a serious offence to remain silent.  Does this really seem like a fitting use of counter-terrorism legislation when we have IS fighters returning in their 100s to the UK? Only 54 of said fighters have even been prosecuted.

The alleged breach of Schedule 7 is not made perfectly clear in the dubious material handed to Southern, although the official Home Office notice claims that “distribution of racist material” in Luton was enough to warrant a refusal of entry.

The material in question appears to be that Southern in February of this year distributed material emblazoned with the slogan “Allah is a Gay God.”

Oh dear. Quelle horreur! How will the omnipotent Allah recover from such a “sick burn.” It appears the state is now censoring individuals who dared have the audacity to offend Islam by saying something mischievous!

OK Magazine will be asking: How will Islam cope? Oprah may give Allah a tearful interview. But on a more serious note: should the UK Border Force really be trying to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws? We have enough regressive Islamists constantly asserting to suggest who we can and cannot criticise, and intimidating those who do dare to criticise Islam a little more forcefully. Do we really need our state joining in?

Voltaire once noted: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Islamic theology, it seems, is off limits to rational thinkers.

Regardless, consider what is so offensive about calling Allah gay? Unless, Islamic individuals would have a problem with Allah being homosexual?Could that be down to regressive opinions and intolerance of homosexuality amongst Islamic individuals?

True, perhaps Southern’s leaflet is not the sharpest or most intelligent criticism of Islam, and it certainly won’t mortally wound Allah, even if his acolytes seem to think so, but should the UK Government now in the role of policing criticisms of Islam? This is the next logical step. The UK Government now seems to be the theological arbiter of what is acceptable when criticising Allah.

Interestingly, this doesn’t seem to have been an offence that has previously seen arrests, or even action taken. Or even been illegal. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Great Britain at the 2017 London Pride Parade held placards inscribed with the apparently deeply damaging slogan “Allah is Gay.” Despite outrage from the East London mosque who felt this was Islamophobic, no police action was taken. So how can it be a terrorist offence for an individual to distribute material with this opinion when others can march with it on placards? The implementation of the law here, at best, seems inconsistent.

It seems like all individuals have free speech, but certain individuals have more free speech than others.

Surely, calling Allah a “gay god,” a theological and not racial criticism, is not enough to merit detention of Southern alone? So, an important question is what other parts of the Terrorism Act (2000) would merit the detention of and refusal of entry for Southern?

Section 11 notes that “A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.” Lauren Southern obviously does not belong to any proscribed terrorist organisation, so this ground for arrest can be swiftly ruled out. Lauren Southern, if anything, has repeatedly criticised terrorist organisations, and fought to defend those who have been censored for doing so and brought attention to actions of these organisations and human rights abuses. You may disagree with her politics and find her even personally repugnant, but she has not engaged in support for international or national terrorism.

Section 12 of the Terrorism Act (2000) notes: “A person commits an offence if— (a) he invites support for a proscribed organisation,” which clearly does not apply to Southern. She does not support any organisation that could be considered terrorist in nature, the opposite would seem to be true. This charge can also be dismissed out of hand.

Section 12 also states: “(2) A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is (a) to support a proscribed organisation, (b) to further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or (c)to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.”

Again, there seems to be no evidence that Lauren Southern supports or has supported any organisation on the UK’s proscribed list of organisations. There is additionally no evidence that Lauren Southern was planned to meet any terrorist organisation.

Regardless, alarm bells of hypocrisy should be overwhelming, if not certainly ringing, dear reader.

What about the Al-Quds rally in London, where thousands rallied, flying flags of a terrorist organisation and making spurious allegations about the Jews? This author isn’t recommending these people be prosecuted, but recommends that if one can stand with terrorist material promoting anti-Semitic conspiracies in British streets with police protection, someone who called Allah “Gay” in a leaflet should be able to enter the country.

Furthermore, returning to Section 13 of the Terrorism Act (2000), which declares: “A person in a public place commits an offence if he (a)wears an item of clothing, or (b)wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation,” we see more of this blatant inconsistency. Again, Southern has not been charged for her clothing or for wearing the insignia of any terrorist organisation? Even if one argues that her leaflets were “offensive,” they were not in support of terrorism or emblazoned with such insignia.

Sections 15 and 18 of the Terrorism Act (2000) pertain to the other possible offences, that are “fund-raising” and “money laundering,” of which it is perfectly clear did not justify Southern’s Schedule 7 detention, and Southern is not guilty of.

What appears to be the case is that Southern was arrested, detained and refused entrance to the United Kingdom because her political opinions were deemed to be a little too inappropriate and obviously exceedingly dangerous… for British people to hear.

Silencing the opposition isn’t a sign of strength, and it is a sign of weakness and ultimately totalitarianism. If the Home Office’s ideas of stability can stand the test of time and fierce logical criticisms, then they can stand a moderately famous blonde youtuber and her critiques.

Sadly, the Southern incident is one of many, in which individuals who have been deemed to have thought “wrongly” have been detained, and their ability to enter or leave the UK restricted. Activists Brittany Pettibone and Austrian politician Martin Sellner have also been detained for a period of 3 days and then deported from the United Kingdom.

Pettibone’s offence was arranging to interview Tommy Robinson, former leader of the English Defence League. Her crime was going to be interviewing a man who holds opinions that are unfashionable. It was not even her own opinions that saw Pettibone deported, but her daring to possibly inquire about, challenge and probe those of another person. Regardless of what you think of Robinson, or Pettibone, should another individual be held accountable for asking him about his opinions? This censorship would fit well in the world of Orwell’s 1984.

Selner’s alleged crime that warrants removal from the UK, according to a Home Office spokesperson is to belong to Generation Identity, designated “a far-right group” that “intend[s] to incite racial hatred.”

Generation Identity, which Selner allegedly belongs to, is not a proscribed organisation under existing counter-terrorism laws, but it is apparently too dangerous for you to hear from. They do not seem to advocate violence or promote terrorism, even if you have disagreement with their political goals.

Generation Identity seem to wish to defeat the ideology behind terrorism, however, not support it, they have publicly stated that “London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, believes that the threat of terror attacks are “part and parcel of living in a big city”. On the contrary, we think that the source of islamisation lies in mass immigration, which must be stopped.”

Believing that immigration should be restricted, a legitimate policy opinion, is now enough to see you rejected from entering the United Kingdom? This is a legitimate policy concern, which polling appears to vindicate, as it suggests that 7 in 10 Brits want reductions in immigration. But apparently wanting to promote this, in a peaceful manner through demonstrations including displaying non-violent banners, is to be deemed enough to see you rejected entry from the UK.

Sadly, it seems that frequently individuals in the UK face being arrested and detained for having the “wrong opinions.”

Take the case of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who has been arrested and questioned for daring to disagree with allowing young transgender individuals to transition. Keen-Minshull was “told she will be arrested if she tries to leave the country.”

You may not agree with a single one of these individuals or their politics, and that is well within your right to do so. You do not have to like or laud them, or view them as particularly helpful, but what you should support is the individual citizen’s ability to decide whether they agree with you. And their freedom to make a case without state intervention.

Orwell warned us about the dangers of policing what is and isn’t acceptable. In effectively censoring these individuals, the UK Home Office has decided that you cannot be trusted to make up your own opinion, and that it should decide for you. And that should be enough to terrify any individual who thinks all in our society must have the fundamental right to unfettered discourse.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2I6NCc7 Tyler Durden

If you’ve studied the history of markets, you know that sentiment can turn on a dime.

Whether it is an unexpected wake-up call like the collapse of Lehman Brothers, or simply the popping of a bubble that’s blown too big, the tides can shift in a matter of hours or days.

As Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjaridns notes, no one knows this better than the world’s most elite investors – and that’s why billionaires like Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Bill Gross, Paul Tudor Jones II, and Carl Icahn take the necessary precautions available to protect themselves from these big and unexpected market swings.

5 RISKS THAT KEEP BILLIONAIRES UP AT NIGHT

Today’s infographic comes to us from Sprott Physical Bullion Trusts and it highlights some of the potential market risks that could move markets, as well as how these elite investors are hedging to protect their fortunes.

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

While these are all market risks that billionaires are concerned about, it’s worth mentioning that these kinds of events are almost impossible to predict or forecast.

Despite the unlikelihood of them occurring, they all have the potential to impact markets – and that’s why elite investors are always active in hedging their investments.

A NOTE ON NET WORTH

Why are billionaires so concerned – after all, don’t they have lots of cash to protect themselves?

It’s worth noting that on a relative basis, billionaires often aren’t very liquid at all. In fact, the majority of their net worth is usually tied up in business interests or other investments, and the value of these assets fluctuate with the market.

That means a big market movement could wipe out millions or billions of dollars in the span of hours. For an extreme example of this, just look at Mark Zuckerberg, who saw his net worth plunge $6 billion in just one day in the wake of his company’s most recent privacy crisis.

THE 5 BIG MARKET RISKS

Here are the risks keeping the world’s most elite investors up at night:

1. The Return of Inflation
Have central banks mastered monetary policy- or is there a chance that inflation could come back with a vengeance? After trending down for decades, billionaire Carl Icahn says that creeping inflation could lead to higher interest rates, which he thinks would be “difficult to deal with for the market”.

2. Record High Debt
The most recent number for global debt is at $233 trillion, and about $63 trillion of that is central government debt.

Bill Gross, the “Bond King”, says that our system is dependent on leverage, and the critical values that affect this are debt levels, availability, and the cost of leverage. He said in a recent interview that “When one or more of these factors deteriorates, the probability of the model’s success and stability go down”.

3. Bond Market Worries
Last year, 84% of investors said that the corporate bond market was overvalued – and 82% said that the government bond market was overvalued.

In a recent interview, hedge fund billionaire Paul Tudor Jones II predicted a price plunge, saying that “Bonds are the most expensive they’ve ever been by virtually any metric. They’re overvalued and over-owned.”

4. Geopolitical Black Swans
Elite investors continue to worry about geopolitical surprises that could impact markets, such as a trade war with China. We looked at this broad topic in depth in our previous infographic on geopolitical black swans.

5. Overzealous Central Banks
Lastly, many world-class investors are also concerned about the unintended aftereffects of massive central bank programs in recent years. With $13 trillion in total QE pumped into global markets since 2008, investors are worried about how much room that central banks have left to maneuver in a situation where the central bank “tool kit” is needed.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2ukOGH3 Tyler Durden

Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

The UK is accelerating its Islamization at an ever-increasing speed. The desire of the British establishment to submit to Islam appears to be overwhelming.

In a recent report, the Henry Jackson society exposed how the UK used taxpayer funds to support Islamist charities working against British society to the tune of more than six million pounds in 2017 alone. According to the report, “As the case studies in this report are illustrative rather than comprehensive, it is likely that this sum represents only the tip of the iceberg”. The report concludes, “Until more comprehensive action is taken, a network of Islamist extremists operating in the UK will continue to use charities and taxpayer money to fund the spread of divisive, illiberal and intolerant views within our communities”.

Among the charities detailed in the report, are several Islamic charities involved in dawa [outreach, proselytization], such as the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), as well as several charities connected to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the Muslim Charities Forum (MCF) and Islamic Relief.

Deploying taxpayer money to support Islamic charities is not the only way in which the UK embraces Islamization.

St. Stephen’s Primary School in Newham, London, was recently forced to change its ban on hijabs for girls under the age of eight, even though, in Islam, girls are not obliged to cover themselves before they reach puberty.

This reversal happened after a massive coordinated backlash by Islamic organizations, such as the Muslim Council of Britain — which the UK government believes to be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood — and MEND. The campaign against the ban included a petition, signed by more than 19,000 people as well as local councilors. Ten Newham councilors protested that, “To attack an article of faith and clothing in this manner is an outrage and is simply wrong. The argument against allowing school children of whatever age, to wear a hijab actually goes against our fundamental values as a progressive, tolerant and inclusive society. We therefore call upon the school to overturn this decision immediately…” During the coordinated campaign against the hijab ban at the school, teachers were subjected to bullying and abuse, and the head teacher responsible for introducing the ban was compared to Hitler.

The school’s chair of governors, Arif Qawi, who had written in a social media post that he was trying to “limit the Islamisation process, and turn these beautiful children into modern, British citizens”, also had to resign. Miqdaad Versi, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said his organization welcomed Qawi’s resignation, because of his “appalling” statements in support of the ban. “Yet serious questions remain unanswered as to the school leadership’s attitude towards Muslims, which are potentially discriminatory…We hope that future decisions are made carefully and with full consultation with local communities.” Versi said.

This is how Islamization occurs and is made permanent: Other schools will think carefully of the risks before they even attempt to “limit the Islamization process”. According to the former head of the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), Sir Michael Wilshaw, the lack of a national policy on wearing hijabs in schools is due to political correctness, which leaves teachers “alone, isolated and vulnerable”.

“There’s something like 150 schools… which in short make it compulsory for youngsters to wear a hijab — so what’s happening about those schools?”, Sir Michael asked recently , “The country has enormously changed. When heads want to change things, they have now to take into account deep-seated and sincere feeling of communities, some of whom who have conservative views”.

The British state evidently cares less about Islamization — and the oppression of little girls — than about political correctness.

The clerical establishment is also pressing Britons to accept and accommodate the ongoing Islamization more readily. Archbishop Welby cautiously admitted in November 2016 that dealing with the religiously motivated violence in Europe “requires a move away from the argument that has become increasingly popular, which is to say that ISIS is ‘nothing to do with Islam’… Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution.”

Since then, however, he appears dutifully to have returned to the submissive fold and in February 2018, he was once more preaching the politically correct gospel of “Welcoming strangers to our country and integrating them into our culture… We must be generous and allow ourselves to change with the newcomers and create a deeper, richer way of life”. One year ago, in February 2017, Welby suggested that Brexit and the election of Trump were both “in the fascist tradition”.

Britain’s security establishment also seems longing to submit to Islam. Scotland Yard recently warned that hate crimes (“Islamophobia”, in other words, as no other hate crime is taken as seriously) are “hugely underreported”. Chief Superintendent Dave Stringer, Scotland Yard’s head of community engagement said: “The Met has seen a steady increase in the reporting of all hate crime, particularly racist and religious hate crime. Despite this rise, hate crime is hugely underreported and no one should suffer in silence.”

It is virtually impossible for “Islamophobia” to be “underreported” in London. The UK is nothing, if not clinically obsessed with “Islamophobia”. In 2016, London mayor Sadiq Khan’s Office for Policing and Crime announced it was spending £1.7 million of taxpayer money policing speech online. Less than six months ago, London police teamed up with Transport for London authorities to encourage people to report hate crimes during “National Hate Crime Awareness Week”, which ran from October 14-21. The events were mainly targeted at Muslims, with officers visiting the East London Mosque to encourage reporting hate crimes. British police have even been taking lessons about Islam and “Islamophobia” from radical Islamist groups such as Mend. One of the most active Mend figures, Azad Ali, has said that he has “love” for Anwar Al-Awlaki, an influential US-born Islamic terrorist, who was killed by a US drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

Meantime, while the police obsess over “Islamophobia”, regular crime in London is exploding. The latest statistics from the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime show that in the past year, homicides have increased 27.1%, knife crimes have increased 31.3%, and there were 2,551 incidents of gun crime, representing a rise of 16.3%. Police recorded 7,613 rapes in the 12 months through January 2018 compared with 6,392 for the previous year, a rise of almost 20%. As reported by the Evening Standard, the figures also show an 8% increase in other sexual offences in the past year, bringing the total number of reported rapes and sexual assaults in London to almost 20,000. Campaigners have suggested the real figure could be “significantly higher” once unreported attacks are taken into account. British police, meanwhile, say they are at a loss to explain what is causing the rise in rapes.

The Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Sir Craig Mackey was recently asked if he had any idea what was behind the surge. His answer: “No, is the honest answer… there is something going on with sexual offending in London that we don’t fully understand, the causes of it. We see the end of it, [but] we don’t understand the causes.”

Meanwhile, 65,000 cases of child sex abuse reached a record high in 2017, or 177 every day: up 15% from 2016.

In Rotherham alone, after 16 years of dismissing the problem, the number of child abuse cases rose to 1,510. The National Crime Agency (NCA) inquiry, “the biggest of its kind in the UK, has identified 110 suspects, of whom 80% are of Pakistani heritage”, officers said.

In its seeming eagerness to submit to Islam, the security establishment even appears to be willing to compare people responding to Islamization and Islamic terrorism with the Islamic terrorists themselves. In a recent lecture, one of the UK’s top counterterrorism officials, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, outgoing head of counter-terrorism policing, compared Tommy Robinson, an anti-Islamist activist, often described as “far-right,” to Anjem Choudary, a radical terrorist-linked Islamist cleric who has advocated sharia in the UK and is now serving a prison sentence for urging support for ISIS.

Pictured: Anjem Choudary, a radical terrorist-linked Islamist cleric who has advocated sharia in the UK and is now serving a prison sentence for urging support for ISIS. (Photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images)

“Robinson also became a regular fixture in our media, giving him the platform to attack the whole religion of Islam by conflating acts of terrorism with the faith, often citing spurious claims, which inevitably stirred up tensions” Rowe said, “Each side feeds into each other’s extremist rhetoric with the common goal of increasing tensions and divisions in communities”.

Rowe also said,

“The right-wing threat was not previously organized. Every now and then there’s been an individual motivated by that rhetoric who has committed a terrorist act, but we’ve not had an organized right-wing threat like we do now”.

Perhaps Rowley might stop to consider why there is now an organized right-wing threat. The British establishment — people such as Rowley — have categorically embraced the “Islam is peace” narrative. The establishment has even let itself and its police be lectured by radical Islamist organizations such as Mend on what Islam is — and has doggedly refused to listen to any dissident voices. Large parts of the British population, therefore, have nowhere to turn with their frustrations at the rapid Islamization of British society, apart from anti-establishment or far-right organizations. No other organizations appear willing to have an open discussion about the ongoing Islamization. Rowley and other establishment figures, especially political ones, continue to evade responsibility for this upheaval — a situation that seems bound to continue, unless or until the British establishment — political, security, educational, clerical and cultural — begins to address, openly and honestly, the rapidly increasing speed of Islamization into British society.

Unfortunately, that enquiry appears unlikely to happen.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2pExXcX Tyler Durden

According to a recent Eurobarometer survey, at least seven in ten respondents in all 28 EU member states perceive fake news to be a problem in their country.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The share was highest in Cyprus with 91 percent saying “yes, it is definitely a problem” or “yes, it is a problem to some extent”.

 Greece came second, followed by Italy.

In the UK, 84 percent of people said that fake news is a problem in their country.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2G9kFQc Tyler Durden

Authored by Rob Slane via TheBlogMire.com,

There are a lot of issues surrounding the case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal which, at the time of writing, are very unclear and rather odd. There may well be good and innocent explanations for some or even all of them. Then again there may not. This is why it is crucial for questions to be asked where, as yet, there are either no answers or deeply unsatisfactory ones.

Some people will assume that this is conspiracy theory territory. It is not that, for the simple reason that I have no credible theory – conspiracy or otherwise – to explain all the details of the incident in Salisbury from start to finish, and I am not attempting to forward one. I have no idea who was behind this incident, and I continue to keep an open mind to a good many possible explanations.

However, there are a number of oddities in the official narrative, which do demand answers and clarifications. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist or a defender of the Russian state to see this. You just need a healthy scepticism, “of a type developed by all inquiring minds!”

Below are 30 of the most important questions regarding the case and the British Government’s response, which are currently either wholly unanswered, or which require clarification.

1. Why have there been no updates on the condition of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the public domain since the first week of the investigation?

2. Are they still alive?

3. If so, what is their current condition and what symptoms are they displaying?

4. In a recent letter to The Times, Stephen Davies, Consultant in Emergency Medicine at Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, wrote the following:

“Sir, Further to your report (“Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment”, Mar 14) may I clarify that no patients have experienced nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning.”

His claim that “no patients have experienced nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury” is remarkably odd, as it appears to flatly contradict the official narrative. Was this a slip of the pen, or was it his intention to communicate precisely this — that no patients have been poisoned by a nerve agent in Salisbury?

5. It has been said that the Skripals and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey were poisoned by “a military grade nerve agent”. According to some claims, the type referred to could be anywhere between five and eight times more toxic than VX nerve agent. Given that just 10mg of VX is reckoned to be the median lethal dose, it seems likely that the particular type mentioned in the Skripal case should have killed them instantly. Is there an explanation as to how or why this did not happen?

6. Although reports suggested the involvement of some sort of nerve agent fairly soon after the incident, it was almost a week before Public Health England issued advice to those who had visited The Mill pub or the Zizzi restaurant in Salisbury on the day that the Skripals fell ill. Why the delay and did this pose a danger to the public?

7. In their advice, Public Health England stated that people who had visited those places, where traces of a military grade nerve agent had apparently been found, should wash their clothes and:

“Wipe personal items such as phones, handbags and other electronic items with cleansing or baby wipes and dispose of the wipes in the bin (ordinary domestic waste disposal).”

Are baby wipes acknowledged to be an effective and safe method of dealing with objects that may potentially have been contaminated with “military grade nerve agent”, especially of a type 5-8 times more deadly than VX?

8. Initial reports suggested that Detective Sergeant Bailey became ill after coming into contact with the substance after attending the Skripals on the bench they were seated on in The Maltings in Salisbury. Subsequent claims, however, first aired by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Ian Blair on 9th March, said that he came into contact with the substance at Sergei Skripal’s house in Christie Miller Road. Reports since then have been highly ambiguous about what should be an easily verifiable fact. Which is the correct account?

9. The government have claimed that the poison used was “a military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia”. The phrase “of a type developed by Russia” says nothing whatsoever about whether the substance used in the Salisbury case was produced or manufactured in Russia. Can the government confirm that its scientists at Porton Down have established that the substance that poisoned the Skripals and DS Bailey was actually produced or manufactured in Russia?

10. The former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has claimed that sources within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) have told him that scientists at Porton Down would not agree to a statement about the place of origin of the substance, because they were not able to establish this. According to Mr Murray, only under much pressure from the Government did they end up agreeing to the compromise wording, “of a type developed by Russia”, which has subsequently been used in all official statements on the matter. Can the FCO, in plain and unambiguous English, categorically refute Mr Murray’s claims that pressure was put on Porton Down scientists to agree to a form of words and that in the end a much-diluted version was agreed?

11. On the occasion that the FCO did attempt to refute Mr Murray’s claims, the wording they used included a straightforward repetition of the same phrase – “of a type developed by Russia”. Is the FCO willing and able to go beyond this and confirm that the substance was not only “of a type developed by Russia”, but that it was “produced” or “manufactured” in Russia?

12. Why did the British Government issue a 36-hour ultimatum to the Russian Government to come up with an explanation, but then refuse their request to share the evidence that allegedly pointed to their culpability (there could have been no danger of their tampering with it, since Porton Down would have retained their own sample)?

13. How is it possible for a state (or indeed any person or entity) that has been accused of something, to defend themselves against an accusation if they are refused access to evidence that apparently points to their guilt?

14. Is this not a clear case of the reversal of the presumption of innocence and of due process?

15. Furthermore, why did the British Government issue an ultimatum to the Russian Government, in contravention of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) rules governing such matters, to which both Britain and Russia are signatories, and which are clearly set out in Article 9, Paragraph ii of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?

16. Given that the investigation, which has been described by the man leading it as being “an extremely challenging investigation” and as having “a number of unique and complex issues”, and given that many of the facts of the case are not yet known, such as when, where and how the substance was administered, how is it possible for the British Government to point the finger of blame with such certainty?

17. Furthermore, by doing so, haven’t they both politicised and prejudiced the investigation?

18. Why did the British Government feel the need to come forward with an accusation little more than a week into the investigation, rather than waiting for its completion?

19. On the Andrew Marr Show on 18th March, the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, stated the following:

“And I might just say in response to Mr Chizhov’s point about Russian stockpiles of chemical weapons. We actually had evidence within the last ten years that Russia has not only been investigating the delivery of nerve agents for the purposes of assassination, but it has also been creating and stockpiling Novichok.”

Where has this intelligence come from and has it been properly verified?

20. If this intelligence was known before 27th September 2017 – the date that the OPCW issued a statement declaring the completion of the destruction of all 39,967 metric tons of chemical weapons possessed by the Russian Federation – why did Britain not inform the OPCW of its own intelligence which apparently contradicts this claim, which they would have had a legal obligation to do?

21. If this intelligence was known after 27th September 2017, why did Britain not inform the OPCW of this “new” information, which it was legally obliged to do, since it allegedly shows that Russia had been lying to the OPCW and had been carrying out a clandestine chemical weapons programme?

22. Also on the Andrew Marr show, Mr Johnson made the following claim after a question of whether he was “absolutely sure” that the substance used to poison the Skripals was a “Novichok”:

“Obviously to the best of our knowledge this is a Russian-made nerve agent that falls within the category Novichok made only by Russia, and just to get back to the point about the international reaction which is so fascinating.”

Is the phrase “to the best of our knowledge” an adequate response to Mr Marr’s request of him being “absolutely sure”?

23. Is this a good enough legal basis from which to accuse another state and to impose punitive measures on it, or is more certainty needed before such an accusation can be made?

24. After hedging his words with the phrase, “to the best of our knowledge”, Mr Johnson then went beyond previous Government claims that the substance was “of a type developed in Russia”, saying that it was “Russian-made”. Have the scientists at Porton Down been able to establish that it was indeed “Russian-made”, or was this a case of Mr Johnson straying off-message?

25. He also went beyond the previous claim that the substance was “of a type developed in Russia” by saying that the substance involved in the Skripal case “falls within the category Novichok made only by Russia”? Firstly, is Mr Johnson able to provide evidence that this category of chemical weapons was ever successfully synthesised in Russia, especially in the light of the OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board stating as recently as 2013, that it has “insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of ‘Novichoks‘“?

26. As Craig Murray has again pointed out, since its 2013 statement, the OPCW has worked (legally) with Iranian scientists who have successfully synthesised these chemical weapons. Was Mr Johnson aware that the category of “Novichok” chemical weapons had been synthesised elsewhere when he stated that this category of chemical weapons is “made only by Russia”?

27. Does the fact that Iranian scientists were able to synthesise this class of chemical weapons suggest that other states have the capabilities to do likewise?

28. Is the British Government aware that the main plant involved in attempts to synthesise Novichoks in the 1970s and 1980s was based not in Russia, but in Nukus in Uzbekistan?

29. Does the fact that the US Department of Defence decontaminated and dismantled the Nukus site, under an agreement with the Government of Uzbekistan, make it at least theoretically possible that substances or secrets held within that plant could have been carried out of the country and even back to the United States?

30. The connection between Sergei Skripal’s MI6 recruiter, Pablo Miller, who also happens to live in Salisbury, and Christopher Steele, the author of the so-called “Trump Dossier”, has been well established, as has the fact that Mr Skripal and Mr Miller regularly met together in the City. Is this connection of any interest to the investigation into the incident in Salisbury?

*  *  *

If there are any journalists with integrity and inquisitive minds still living in this country, I would be grateful if they could begin doing their job and research the answers to these sorts of questions by asking the appropriate people and authorities.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2GnPJuO Tyler Durden

In the wake of a massive data harvesting scandal, it has emerged that Facebook approached at least two major Australian political parties during the final weeks of their 2016 election in order to help them “microtarget” voters using a powerful data matching tool, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.

Facebook offered “advanced matching” as part of their so-called Custom Audience feature to both the conservative (if not confusingly named) Liberal Party, as well as the “democratic socialist” Labor Party. The tool promised to allow the parties to compare data they had collected about voters – such as names, birth dates, phone numbers, postcodes and email addresses – and match that information to Facebook profiles.

The combination of data sets would then allow political parties to target Australian swing voters with custom tailored ads over Facebook, which advertised a 17% increase in matching rates using a beta version of the service provided to the Liberal Party. 

Fairfax Media reports that while the conservative Liberal Party turned Facebook down over concerns that sending voter data overseas to Facebook servers would violate the Privacy Act and the Electoral Act, the Labor Party took Facebook up on their offer. 

Asked specifically whether Labor used the tool, a Labor spokesman said in a statement: “A range of different campaign techniques and tools are used for campaigning, from doorknocking to phone banking to online. Labor works with different groups to get our message out, including social media platforms like Facebook.“

“All of our work is in complete compliance with relevant laws, including the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which makes it a criminal offence to misuse information on the electoral roll.” –Sydney Morning Herald

Under Australia’s Privacy Act (1988), I have the right to request all data held about me be destroyed or deidentified (reduced to demographic statistics), but given Facebook has shadow-profiles on people who never even used it, that’s kind of useless.

— Michael Vaughan (@Michael_06S) March 24, 2018

There are reports this morning that Facebook approached Australia’s major political parties during the 2016 election, offering a data matching tool which could target voters. #9News pic.twitter.com/A0Jc7ImtGL

— Nine News Australia (@9NewsAUS) March 23, 2018

That said, the Herald reports that the Labor Party (ALP) digital team would have “hashed” – or anonymized, any electoral roll data “on a local browser,” sources tell the Herald. This would have prevented personally identifiable information to be uploaded to foreign servers. 

Both the Labor Party and Facebook sought to downplay the “advanced matching” feature. 

The Custom Audiences tool is widely used by brands and advertisers to target potential customers.

“Lots of people use the custom audience tool. Civil society groups use it too with their massive databases. I don’t think it’s anywhere near as sinister as people think,” a Labor source said.

Facebook said in a statement: “All parties are offered the same training, materials and products – whether existing or new — at the same time. It is a decision for each campaign as to whether and how they choose to use them.”

The company has this week been unable to say whether data of Australian users is hosted locally or offshore. –smh

Facebook has been contacted by Australia’s privacy commissioner to with questions over Australians who may have been caught up in a massive data harvesting scandal which has unfolded over the last week – raising the possibility of sanctions against the social media giant. 

News of Facebook’s attempt to help Australian political parties influence their 2016 election comes days after Mark Zuckerberg told CNN that the possibility of the social media giant influencing the 2016 U.S. election was “a pretty crazy idea.” 

That’s kind of interesting considering that Facebook was also helping the Obama Campaign target voters using harvested data, similar to what Cambridge Analytica was doing for several GOP candidates in the 2016 election. Obama’s former campaign director admitted over Twitter that Facebook not only knew of the campaign’s data harvesting to “suck out the whole social graph,” but that they “didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.” 

And WikiLeaked emails released during the 2016 election revealed that Facebook COO Cheryl Sandberg really wanted “Hillary to win badly,” after Hillary came over to Sandberg’s house and was “magical with her kids.”

Then there’s Sandberg telling John Podesta “Look forward to working with you to elect the first woman President of the United States.” 

Notably, there don’t seem to be any emails from Facebook executives to Trump’s campaign manager with similar sentiments. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2DY6CHm Tyler Durden

Authored by Matt Purple via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

John Bolton is that most ludicrous of creatures: the unreconstructed Bush-era foreign policy thinker

Would that John Bolton were only a clown. The mustachioed alleged diplomat, briefly of the Bush administration – and initially criticized as too controversial even for that team – has now been appointed national security advisor. That position will give him the president’s ear on matters of foreign policy, as well as control over which other administration principals enjoy such access. Donald Trump pledged that if elected he would be a different kind of Republican president, and he’s delivered: under the last GOP administration, Bolton occupied a slightly lower-ranking position than he does now.

Bolton is indeed no circus act: he’s one of the sharpest and most dangerous national security operatives in Washington. To take just one example, last summer, Trump made it known that he was considering pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, a campaign promise he wanted fulfilled but that had been discouraged by his then-secretary of state Rex Tillerson. Sensing an opportunity, Bolton wrote an essay for National Review explaining in breezy (i.e. Trump-digestible) terms just how to abrogate the agreement. The piece is chockablock with nonsense: at one point it claims sans any evidence that the Obama administration believed the JCPOA was “disadvantageous to the United States.” It also offers scant evidence to underpin its claim that Iran was in violation of the deal, an assertion that’s been repeatedly repudiated by the authorities at the IAEA. But the truth wasn’t the point: the piece was meant to water a seed in the president’s mind, to lend expert opinion to Trump’s burning preference that the JCPOA be reversed.

That Bolton did this shouldn’t surprise anyone because this is how Bolton works: shrewdly and always towards the goal of more war. As Gareth Porter detailed in a rigorously reported piece for TAC, during his tenure under Bush, Bolton maneuvered behind the scenes to pump up a pretext for conflict between the United States and Iran. Among his methods was to pretend that satellite images of a military base at Parchin demonstrated Iranian nuclear experimentation. That supposed smoking gun is cited to this day by neocons as proof of Iran’s atomic dreams.

What makes Bolton unique among hawkish operators is that he doesn’t feel the need to hide any of these machinations.

The man wants to pulverize Tehran and he’s not afraid to say so. In 2015, Bolton wrote a piece for the New York Times subtly titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Never mind that the adverbial clause in that sentence had no definitive evidence in its favor; it was off to war because, as Bolton put it, “extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal [Iran’s] ambitions” (imagine if that standard was applied universally). The coming operation, Bolton promised, would be akin to Operation Opera in 1981 when Israel destroyed a single Iraqi nuclear reactor, except that this one would take out multiple installations at Natanz and Fordow and Arak and Isfahan and…

The details never add up because they’re not supposed to. Bolton’s wheelhouse has never been the tactical nitty-gritty; he’s an ideologue whose credo dogmatizes violence against enemies regardless of consequences or cost. On the Iraq war, he declared in 2015, “I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct.”  On Libya, in 2011 before the Obama administration launched its calamitous intervention, Bolton recommended that the United States assassinate Moammar Gaddafi.  On North Korea, he innocently suggested there was a “legal case” for a first strike. On Russia, you will not be surprised to learn that he thinks Trump needs to get tougher, including launching a cyber-attack that would be “decidedly disproportionate” to anything the Russians have done. He also thinks it’s time to revisit the “One-China Policy” that prevents us from antagonizing Beijing by recognizing an independent Taiwan.

There are all manner of vexatious wrinkles amidst those pronouncements. For instance, a foreign policy realist might note that the deposal of Iraq’s regime and the ascendance of Shiite power in Baghdad, which Bolton supported, greatly availed Iran, which Bolton detests. But again, such nuances are dwarfed by the big-picture concepts in which Bolton deals, like American Power and Dictatorships and Strength. Most foreign policy gurus, despite supporting generally hawkish policies, have at least disowned the war in Iraq and made some perfunctory efforts to adjust for its failures. Not Bolton, who is that most ludicrous of creatures: the unreconstructed Bush-era thinker. He belongs behind a glass display in the American History Museum, not enjoying a second wind at the apex of the federal bureaucracy.

But alas, the president himself has spoken. There are conditions to Bolton’s employment. CNN is reporting that Bolton promised Trump—quote—“he wouldn’t start any wars” if he became national security advisor, and surely that’s a promise he’ll keep. Bolton, after all, has never started (or fought in) a war in his life. What he will do is counsel Trump to take the most belligerent course of action possible in every given situation. Up first will be the Iran deal, which, with Bolton now at NSC and Mike Pompeo at State, seems certain to be the subject of a hardened stance from the White House, which will further isolate America from its allies, as the Europeans, more commercially entangled with Tehran than we are, decline to go along.

That brings us back to Trump, the insurgent who won the 2016 election pledging to repudiate the George W. Bush legacy and keep the United States out of foreign wars.

It’s a show of both neocon strength and Trump impressionability that a mere year and a half later the most warmongering personality in Washington has already clambered all the way up to national security advisor.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2pGCzyr Tyler Durden

On Sunday President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced the beginning of Turkish military operations in Iraq’s Sinjar region a week after Turkey and allied Syrian FSA groups captured Afrin from Kurdish fighters. During that prior victory speech immediately on the heels of the Syrian Kurdish retreat from Afrin, Erdogan had promised further “extensions” of his forces in the region, including into Eastern Syria and Iraq, while making repeat historical references to the Ottoman empire.

Erdogan warned at the time that Turkish troops would keep pushing east further into Syrian Kurdish YPG territory (Kurdish “People’s Protection Units” which Turkey considers an extension of the terrorist PKK), which would eventually pit his forces against the US armed and trained Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

During Sunday’s speech he pledged to take Tal Rifaat (northwest of Aleppo) and Manbij: “the U.S. needs to transfer the control of Manbij to its real owners from the terrorist organization as soon as possible,” according to the Turkish daily Hurriyet. US-backed forces are present in both places. 

Erdogan also in typically brazen fashion put Iraq’s government on notice, saying “We have told the central [Iraqi] government that the PKK is establishing a new headquarters in Sinjar. If you can deal with it, you handle it. But if you cannot we will suddenly enter Sinjar one night and clear this region of terrorists.”

It appears he is ready to make good on that promise, as the AP reports:

Turkey’s president has announced the country is conducting operations in northern Iraq against Kurdish rebels it deems “terrorists.”

Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday said “operations” have begun in Sinjar to clear the mountainous area of Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, fighters.

Erdogan later said that if the PKK does not vacate Sinjar and Qandil, where it has its headquarters, “it would be inevitable for us to do so personally.”

Erdogan announced the new engagement to a crowd in the Black Sea province of Trabzon, declaring: “We said we would go into Sinjar. Now operations have begun there. The fight is internal and external.” However, it is unclear to what degree he is merely further reiterating his prior threats and to what degree the mustering of Turkish forces for an Iraq incursion has actually begun on the ground. 

Reuters quickly cast doubt that ground operations had actually been initiated, citing Iraq’s Joint Operations Command which denied that foreign forces had crossed the border: 

Iraq’s Joint Operations Command denied that any foreign forces had crossed the border into Iraq.

“The operations command confirmed that the situation in Nineveh, Sinjar and the border areas was under the control of Iraqi security forces and there is no reason for troops to cross the Iraqi border into those areas,” it said in a statement.

Sources in Sinjar said there was no unusual military activity in the area on Sunday.

Meanwhile, regional Arabic media has reported that a large Iraqi Army contingent has arrived in Sinjar on the heels of a withdrawal of PKK fighters from the region – actions which Erdogan’s threats were clearly designed to precipitate. 

PKK fighters first moved into Sinjar in 2015 and waged an effective campaign against ISIS, but announced their withdrawal last week in the wake of Turkey’s threat of invasion, though it is unclear how many PKK fighters have remained in the area. 

For now, it appears that Erdogan – fresh off the momentum of the Turkish annexation of Afrin – has gotten Baghdad to move on the PKK without firing a single shot. And it appears he is trying the same tactic regarding the US-backed SDF, which is unlikely to move the Americans toward action or realignment of interests.

During the same speech announcing operations in Sinjar, Erdogan said, “Hopefully we will take control of Tal Rifaat in a short span of time.” He also threatened Syrian Kurds in Manbij while naming their US sponsors: “the U.S. needs to transfer the control of Manbij to its real owners from the terrorist organization as soon as possible,” according to the Turkish daily Hurriyet.

In comparison to his rhetoric aimed at the Iraqi government, the Turkish president’s words regarding American forces were softened: “Of course we will not point gun to our allies, but we will not forgive terrorists.”

It will be interesting to see to what degree the ‘mad Sultan’ actually makes good on his threats and promises, especially as his forces inevitably inch closer to American bases in northern Syria.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2pDUwhU Tyler Durden

After all the preparation, all the expectation, cheerleading and doomsaying, China’s Yuan-denominated crude oil futures contract began trading tonight and appears to be off a good start with well over 10 billion yuan notional traded within the first hour.

So far it has tracked WTI futures well, trading at around a $2 premium to WTI (when translated from yuan to USD)…

Additionally, well over 23,000 contracts have traded within the first hour for a notional trading volume of over 10 billion yuan – more than $1.5 billion notional… signaling significant demand.

Offshore Yuan is moving in sync with ‘Petroyuan’ futures – as WTI tends to track the USD.

As we most recently noted, after numerous “false starts” over the last decade,  the “petroyuan” is now real and China will set out to challenge the “petrodollar” for dominance. Adam Levinson, managing partner and chief investment officer at hedge fund manager Graticule Asset Management Asia (GAMA), already warned last year that China launching a yuan-denominated oil futures contract will shock those investors who have not been paying attention.

This could be a death blow for an already weakening U.S. dollar, and the rise of the yuan as the dominant world currency.

But this isn’t just some slow, news day “fad” that will fizzle in a few days.

A Warning for Investors Since 2015

Back in 2015, the first of a number of strikes against the petrodollar was dealt by China. Gazprom Neft, the third-largest oil producer in Russia, decided to move away from the dollar and towards the yuan and other Asian currencies.

Iran followed suit the same year, using the yuan with a host of other foreign currencies in trade, including Iranian oil.

During the same year China also developed its Silk Road, while the yuan was beginning to establish more dominance in the European markets.

But the U.S. petrodollar still had a fighting chance in 2015 because China’s oil imports were all over the place. Back then, Nick Cunningham of OilPrice.com wrote…

Despite accounting for much of the world’s growth in demand in the 21st Century, China’s oil imports have been all over the map in recent months. In April, China imported 7.4 million barrels per day, a record high and enough to make it the world’s largest oil importer. But a month later, imports plummeted to just 5.5 million barrels per day.

That problem has since gone away, signaling China’s rise to oil dominance…

The Slippery Slope to the Petroyuan Begins Here

The petrodollar is backed by Treasuries, so it can help fuel U.S. deficit spending. Take that away, and the U.S. is in trouble.

It looks like that time has come…

A death blow that began in 2015 hit again in 2017 when China became the world’s largest consumer of imported crude…

Now that China is the world’s leading consumer of oil, Beijing can exert some real leverage over Saudi Arabia to pay for crude in yuan. It’s suspected that this is what’s motivating Chinese officials to make a full-fledged effort to renegotiate their trade deal.

So fast-forward to now, and the final blow to the petrodollar could happen starting today. We hinted at this possibility back in September 2017…

With major oil exporters finally having a viable way to circumvent the petrodollar system, the U.S. economy could soon encounter severely troubled waters.

First of all, the dollar’s value depends massively on its use as an oil trade vehicle. When that goes away, we will likely see a strong and steady decline in the dollar’s value.

Once the oil markets are upended, the yuan has an opportunity to become the dominant world currency overall. This will further weaken the dollar.

The Petrodollar’s Downfall Could be a Lift for Gold

Amongst all the trouble ahead for the dollar, there are some good news too. The U.S. might have ditched the gold standard in the 1970’s, but with gold making a return to world headlines… we could see a resurgence.

For the first time since our nation abandoned the gold standard decades ago, physical gold is being reintroduced to the global monetary system in a major way. That alone is incredibly good news for gold owners.

A reintroduction of gold to the global economy could result in a notable rise in gold prices. It’s safe to assume exporters are more likely to choose a gold-backed financial instrument over one created out of thin air any day of the week.

Soon after, we could see more and more nations jump on the bandwagon, resulting in a substantial rise in gold prices.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2G4EQyt Tyler Durden