Connect with us

NEWS

Richard Medhurst: Britain has legalised rape, torture and war crimes by the state

Published

on

Across Britain people are protesting against a proposed bill which restricts that very right, but two other laws have already passed, allowing undercover agents to commit crimes, and giving British troops immunity from war crimes.

At the heart of current protests in Britain is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. This controversial new law, dubbed the “anti-protest bill,” would impose severe restrictions on protests and slap those who fail to comply with harsh sentences. The ‘Kill the Bill’ movement, a coalition of activist groups, seeks to stop this legislation while it’s still in passage through Parliament. It sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for civil liberties, undermining any supposed democracy the UK may have. In addition, in recent months the United Kingdom has passed two other laws, one which allows undercover agents to commit any crime, and another which gives British troops immunity from war crimes prosecutions. These have gone largely unnoticed by the British public.

In March 2021, Britain’s Conservative government under Boris Johnson introduced a new act into Parliament titled the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. This mammoth piece of legislation aims to shake up the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It gives police sweeping new powers, allowing them to decide whether or not a protest is justified, impose a start and finish time, and shut down a protest on the spot. The criteria proposed for shutting down a protest includes vague, arbitrary language like being “too loud” or a “nuisance” – effectively neutering any significant public protest. Asked to explain the meaning of a “noisy protest,” equally vague and unclear answers were given by Home Secretary Priti Patel.

As governments seek to make photographing police a crime, our art puts them back in the frame & accountable for their actions

Under the proposed law, failure to comply with police orders could result in a fine of up to £2,500. The punishment for defacing or damaging memorials has been increased from three months to 10 years; this comes in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 which saw a statue of slave trader Edward Colston thrown into the Bristol dock.

Activists in the UK called the bill a “blatant attempt to create an authoritarian police state,”undermining the right to free speech and peaceful assembly – the pillars of a supposed liberal democracy. Since March 2021, protests have erupted all over Britain, including in London, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool and other major cities, with hundreds being arrested and detained by police.

The United Kingdom goes around the world lecturing other countries about freedom and human rights abuses. It bombed and destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of ‘democracy’ – and in its absolute hypocrisy it persecutes Julian Assange for exposing the crimes of those wars. Now, it seeks to trample on the very democratic values and liberties it claims to uphold.

The Police and Sentencing Bill has already passed first and second readings and now sits at the committee stage, and protests against it continue. Yet two other laws have already been passed under Boris Johnson’s government: The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) Act and the Overseas Operations Bill. Despite their authoritarian nature, plus their threat to civil liberties and international law, their passage through Parliament has gone largely unnoticed.

Leaked docs reveal how Reuters charity secretly serves as a tool for British influence across the world
State-sanctioned murder

The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) Bill (nicknamed the ‘SpyCops’ Bill) gives undercover agents permission to commit crimes through a “Criminal Conduct Authorisation.” This includes rape, torture, murder, and other violent crimes. The bill applies to MI5, Britain’s security service, but also extends to any police force in Britain and other agencies like the Gambling Commission, Food Standards Agency, Home Office, and Ministry of Justice. In the name of preventing crime, or in the interests of national security or the ‘economic interests’ of the UK – which could mean anything – officers would be allowed to commit some of the most heinous crimes with impunity. The SpyCops Bill has already become law.

Many fear that worker unions, activists, and organisations opposed to the government and other power centres in the UK will be targeted. Previously, police have infiltrated such groups, disproportionately targeting left-wing organisations, activists, and protesters. The Guardian also disclosed in 2018 that London Met had used over two dozen officers to infiltrate left-wing groups as part of an undercover spying campaign that spanned 37 years.

With the Tories guaranteed to vote overwhelmingly in favour of their legislation, Labour leader Keir Starmer naturally did what one expects of the opposition: nothing. Labour MPs were whipped into abstaining – only 34 of them choosing to rebel – gifting Conservatives with an unopposed passage of the bill. In the Lords, an attempt to remove the most heinous crimes from the bill, such as rape, murder, and torture, was subsequently shot down in the Commons. The bill received Royal Assent on March 1, 2021.

This carte blanche to commit crimes – essentially a license to kill – can be devastating in the wrong hands. Giving the state such extraordinary powers over the lives of ordinary citizens is authoritarian at best and madness at worst – and the government isn’t stopping there.

Revealed: How Britain is putting its child spies in extreme danger… by a former top undercover cop
War crimes allegations? They’re just annoying

Another worrying piece of legislation that has already become law is the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act. It proposes a so-called “presumption against prosecution” for service members overseas, essentially giving British troops immunity from war crimes prosecutions. It introduces a statute of limitation of five years, meaning that if an alleged crime took place more than five years ago, it will not be considered by the courts and the Ministry of Defence.

The government claims this law protects British troops from what Defence Secretary Ben Wallace called “vexatious” claims and “endless investigations” into war crimes and other atrocities – dismantling any hopes of justice for the many victims of Britain’s war crimes. The government is essentially dismissing war crimes allegations as annoying.

Previous UK investigations into war crimes by British troops, such as Operation Northmoor and the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), resulted in no convictions or cases being brought forward – despite damning emails detailing the executions of Afghan civilians and cover-up by Britain’s elite special forces, the Special Air Service.

The government is using the fact that these inquiries did not result in any prosecutions (something it made sure of), and the case of Phil Shiner, as an excuse to give British soldiers blanket immunity from prosecution for war crimes, torture, and other heinous crimes older than five years. This is like saying that anyone who committed murder five years ago cannot be prosecuted anymore because a few people were wrongly accused of murder at some point.

The bill has been criticised, albeit nowhere near enough, for its violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Making the illegal legal

Keir Starmer’s Labour is no opposition party. Usurped by Zionists who character-assassinated former leader Jeremy Corbyn, plus corporatists, and Britain’s political establishment, Labour is an empty shell that allows the Tories to dictate government policy unimpeded. Similar to how the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States represent two sides of the same coin, the same is true of the Conservative and Labour parties in Britain.

While the Kill the Bill protests are significant and important, opposition to the aforementioned laws must increase, because the British public is largely ignorant of what is unfolding. How many Britons know that their government just legalised torture and war crimes? The media has done an excellent job of leaving these issues underreported, shielding the government from scrutiny and criticism. Where are the crusaders of regime change who feign so much concern for human rights, civil liberties, and democracy?

The United Kingdom loves meddling in other countries’ affairs, giving lectures about democracy and human rights while violating these very same things at home. Not that the United Kingdom was ever a model of equality to begin with: the British Empire, the largest in history, is responsible for untold amounts of suffering and killing through colonisation, slavery, and occupation. Now the only difference is that the gloves are off and the facade is lifted.

Leaked files show how UK govt spent millions exploiting Syrian women in cynical PR offensive

The first British soldier ever to be convicted for war crimes was Donald Payne. He spent just one year in prison after beating Baha Mousa to death, a 26-year-old Iraqi from Basra in 2003. Even when the British find someone guilty of war crimes, they just give them a slap on the wrist, so why would anyone now expect them to take them seriously? That’s not justice.

The United Kingdom dares to lecture other countries about human rights, while violating its own Human Rights Act or amending it to make the illegal legal whenever possible. Britain has legalised state-sanctioned murder for undercover agents, given its troops immunity from war crimes, and now it wants to ban protesting. A country that gives harsher sentences for defacing the statue of a slave trader than for murdering Iraqis has no place lecturing anyone about human rights.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

NEWS

China is raising its retirement age, now among the youngest in the world’s major economies

Published

on

Starting next year, China will raise its retirement age for workers, which is now among the youngest in the world’s major economies, in an effort to address its shrinking population and aging work force.

The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the country’s legislature, passed the new policy Friday after a sudden announcement earlier in the week that it was reviewing the measure, state broadcaster CCTV announced.

The policy change will be carried out over 15 years, with the retirement age for men raised to 63 years, and for women to 55 or 58 years depending on their jobs. The current retirement age is 60 for men and 50 for women in blue-collar jobs and 55 for women doing white-collar work.

“We have more people coming into the retirement age, and so the pension fund is (facing) high pressure. That’s why I think it’s now time to act seriously,” said Xiujian Peng, a senior research fellow at Victoria University in Australia who studies China’s population and its ties to the economy.

The previous retirement ages were set in the 1950’s, when life expectancy was only around 40 years, Peng said.

The policy will be implemented starting in January, according to the announcement from China’s legislature. The change will take effect progressively based on people’s birthdates.

For example, a man born in January 1971 could retire at the age of 61 years and 7 months in August 2032, according to a chart released along with the policy. A man born in May 1971 could retire at the age of 61 years and 8 months in January 2033.

Demographic pressures made the move long overdue, experts say. By the end of 2023, China counted nearly 300 million people over the age of 60. By 2035, that figure is projected to be 400 million, larger than the population of the U.S. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences had previously projected that the public pension fund will run out of money by that year.

Pressure on social benefits such as pensions and social security is hardly a China-specific problem. The U.S. also faces the issue as analysis shows that currently, the Social Security fund won’t be able to pay out full benefits to people by 2033.

“This is happening everywhere,” said Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. “But in China with its large elderly population, the challenge is much larger.”

That is on top of fewer births, as younger people opt out of having children, citing high costs. In 2022, China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that for the first time the country had 850,000 fewer people at the end of the year than the previous year , a turning point from population growth to decline. In 2023, the population shrank further, by 2 million people.

What that means is that the burden of funding elderly people’s pensions will be divided among a smaller group of younger workers, as pension payments are largely funded by deductions from people who are currently working.

Researchers measure that pressure by looking at a number called the dependency ratio, which counts the number of people over the age of 65 compared to the number of workers under 65. That number was 21.8% in 2022, according to government statistics, meaning that roughly five workers would support one retiree. The percentage is expected to rise, meaning fewer workers will be shouldering the burden of one retiree.

The necessary course correction will cause short-term pain, experts say, coming at a time of already high youth unemployment and a soft economy.

A 52-year-old Beijing resident, who gave his family name as Lu and will now retire at age 61 instead of 60, was positive about the change. “I view this as a good thing, because our society’s getting older, and in developed countries, the retirement age is higher,” he said.

Li Bin, 35, who works in the event planning industry, said she was a bit sad.

“It’s three years less of play time. I had originally planned to travel around after retirement,” she said. But she said it was better than expected because the retirement age was only raised three years for women in white-collar jobs.

Some of the comments on social media when the policy review was announced earlier in the week reflected anxiety.

But of the 13,000 comments on the Xinhua news post announcing the news, only a few dozen were visible, suggesting that many others had been censored.

Continue Reading

NEWS

Russia warns NATO of ‘direct war’ over Ukraine

Published

on

Moscow’s envoy to the UN has reiterated where the Kremlin’s red line is

Granting Kiev permission to use Western-supplied long-range weapons would constitute direct involvement in the Ukraine conflict by NATO, Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, has said.

Moscow will treat any such attack as coming from the US and its allies directly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday, explaining that long-range weapons rely on Western intelligence and targeting solutions, neither of which Ukraine is capable of.

NATO countries would “start an open war” with Russia if they allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons, Nebenzia told the UN Security Council on Friday.

“If such a decision is made, that means NATO countries are starting an open war against Russia,” Moscow’s envoy said. “In that case, we will obviously be forced to make certain decisions, with all the attendant consequences for Western aggressors.”

Putin issues new warning to NATO

“Our Western colleagues will not be able to dodge responsibility and blame Kiev for everything,” Nebenzia added. “Only NATO troops can program the flight solutions for those missile systems. Ukraine doesn’t have that capability. This is not about allowing Kiev to strike Russia with long-range weapons, but about the West making the targeting decisions.”

Russia considers it irrelevant that Ukrainian nationalists would technically be the ones pulling the trigger, Nebenzia explained. “NATO would become directly involved in military action against a nuclear power. I don’t think I have to explain what consequences that would have,” he said.

The US and its allies placed some restrictions on the use of their weapons, so they could claim not to be directly involved in the conflict with Russia, while arming Ukraine to the tune of $200 billion.

Multiple Western outlets have reported that the limitations might be lifted this week, as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy visited Kiev. Russia has repeatedly warned the West against such a course of action.

 

Continue Reading

NEWS

China makes its move in Africa. Should the West be worried?

Published

on

Beijing maintains a conservative economic agenda in its relations with the continent, while finding it increasingly difficult to avoid a political confrontation with the West

The ninth forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the FOCAC summit held in Beijing on September 4-6 marked a significant phase in Africa’s relations with its global partners in the post-Covid era. China is the last major partner to hold a summit with African nations following the end of the pandemic; Africa summits were held by the EU and the US in 2022, and by Russia in 2023. The pandemic, coupled with rising global tensions, macroeconomic shifts, and a series of crises, underlined Africa’s growing role in the global economy and politics – something that China, which has undergone major changes (both internal and external) as a result of the pandemic, is well aware of.

It is clear that the relationship between China and Africa is entering a new phase. China is no longer just a preferential economic partner for Africa, as it had been in the first two decades of the 21st century. It has become a key political and military ally for many African countries. This is evident from China’s increasing role in training African civil servants and sharing expertise with them, as well as from several initiatives announced at the summit, including military-technical cooperation: officer training programs, mine clearing efforts, and over $100 million which China will provide to support the armed forces of African nations.

In the political arena, however, Beijing is proceeding very cautiously and the above-mentioned initiatives should be seen as the first tentative attempts rather than a systematic strategy.

While China strives to avoid political confrontation with the West in Africa and even closely cooperates with it on certain issues, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. Washington is determined to pursue a policy of confrontation with Beijing in Africa – this is evident both from US rhetoric and its strategic documents.

Dirty tactics: How the US tries to break China’s soft power in Africa

A “divorce” between China and the West is almost inevitable. This means that Chinese companies may lose contracts with Western corporations and won’t have access to transportation and logistics infrastructure. Consequently, China will need to develop its own comprehensive approach to Africa, either independently or in collaboration with other global power centers.

An important sign of the growing confrontation between the US and China in Africa was the signing of a trilateral memorandum of understanding between China, Tanzania, and Zambia regarding the reconstruction of the Tanzania-Zambia Railway (TAZARA), which was originally built by China in the 1970s. If it is expanded, electrified, and modernized, TAZARA has the potential to become a viable alternative to one of the key US investment projects in the region: the Lobito Corridor, which aims to enhance logistics infrastructure for exporting minerals (copper and cobalt) from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia by modernizing the railway from the DR Congo to the Angolan port of Lobito.

In inland regions such as Eastern Congo, transportation infrastructure plays a crucial role in the process of mineral extraction. Considering the region’s shortage of rail and road networks, even a single non-electrified railway line leading to a port in the Atlantic or Indian Ocean can significantly boost the operation of the mining sector and permanently tie the extraction and processing regions to specific markets.

It appears that China’s initiative holds greater promise compared to the US one, particularly because Chinese companies control major mines both in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia. This gives them a clear advantage in working with Chinese operators and equipment, facilitating the export of minerals through East African ports. Overall, this indicates that East Africa will maintain its role as the economic leader on the continent and one of the most integrated and rapidly developing regions for imports.

A former colonial European power returns to Africa. What is it after now?

The highlight of the summit was China’s pledge to provide $50 billion to African countries over the next three years (by 2027). This figure echoes the $55 billion commitment to China made by the US (for 3 years) at the 2022 US-Africa Summit and the $170 billion that the EU promised to provide over seven years back in 2021. Consequently, leading global players allocate approximately $15-20 billion annually to Africa.

In recent years, there has been noticeable growth in such promises. Nearly every nation is eager to promise Africa something – for example, Italy has pledged $1 billion annually. However, these large packages of so-called “financial aid” often have little in common with actual assistance, since they are typically commercial loans or corporate investments. Moreover, a significant portion of these funds is spent in the donor countries (e.g. on the procurement and production of goods), which means that they contribute to the economic growth of African nations in a minimal way.

As for China, it will provide about $11 billion in genuine aid. This is a substantial amount which will be used for developing healthcare and agriculture in Africa. Another $30 billion will come in the form of loans (roughly $10 billion per year) and a further $10 billion as investments.

The overall financial framework allows us to make certain conclusions, though it’s important to note that the methodology for calculating these figures is unclear, and the line between loans, humanitarian aid, and investments remains blurred. In terms of investments (averaging around $3 billion per year), Beijing plans to maintain its previous levels of activity – in recent years, China’s foreign direct investments (FDI) have ranged from $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Financial and humanitarian aid could nearly double (from the current $1.5 billion-$2 billion per year) while lending is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels (which would still be below the peak years of 2012-2018).

Can Africa seize control of its own energy?

China’s economic plan for Africa seems to be quite conservative. It’s no surprise that debt issues took center stage during the summit. During the Covid-19 pandemic, macroeconomic stability in African countries deteriorated, which led to challenges in debt repayments and forced Africa to initiate debt restructuring processes assisted by the IMF and the G20. Starting in 2020, a combination of internal and external factors led China to significantly cut its lending to African countries – from about $10-15 billion down to $2-3 billion. This reduction in funding has triggered economic reforms in several African countries (e.g. Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria), which have shifted toward stricter tax and monetary policies. While promises to increase lending may seem like good news for African nations, it’s likely that much of this funding will go toward interest payments on existing obligations and debt restructuring, since China wants to ensure that its loans are repaid.

Despite China’s cautious approach to Africa, its interaction with the continent will develop as a result of external and internal changes affecting both Africa and China. Africa will gradually become more industrialized and will reduce imports while the demand for investments and local production will increase. China will face demographic challenges, and its workforce will decrease. This may encourage bilateral cooperation as some production facilities may move from China to Africa. This will most likely concern East African countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania, considering China’s current investments in their energy and transportation infrastructure. Additionally, with Africa’s population on the rise and China’s population declining, Beijing is expected to attract more African migrant workers to help address labor shortages.

Continue Reading

Trending