How would this fly? Did Sting talk about Anaheim? Did Amnesty?

Surely there is reason for such a protest to happen in NYC. I wonder though, would the protesters be praised and feted or arrested and put on trial? What would folks like Amnesty and Sting say if it happened and the protesters got locked up?

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

The Western Onslaught Against International Law

Global Research, August 29, 2012

Bookmark and Share

A new film, “Compliance,” examines “the human desire to follow and obey authority.”Liberal institutions, such as the media, universities, federal courts, and human rights organizations, which have traditionally functioned as checks on the blind obedience to authority, have in our day gone over to power’s side. The subversion of these institutions has transformed them from checks on power into servants of power.  The result is the transformation of culture from the rule of law to unaccountable authority resting on power maintained by propaganda.

Propaganda is important in the inculcation of trust in authority.The Pussy Riot case shows the power of Washington’s propaganda even inside Russia itself and reveals that Washington’s propaganda has suborned important human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Chatham House, and Amnesty International.

Pussy Riot is described in the western media as a punk rock group, but seems in fact to be a group known as Voina (War) that performs lewd or scandalous unannounced public performances such as the one in the Russian cathedral, a sexual orgy in a museum, and events such as these. (see also :

Three of the cathedral performers were apprehended, indicted, tried, convicted of breaking a statutory law, and given two-year prison sentences. The Voice of Russia recently broadcast a discussion of the case from its London studio. Representatives from Human Rights Watch and Chatham House argued that the case was really a free speech case and that the women were political prisoners for criticizing Russian President Putin.

This claim was disingenuous. In the blasphemous performance in the Russian cathedral, Putin was not mentioned. The references to Putin were added to the video posted on the Internet after the event in order to turn a crime into a political protest.

The human rights representatives also argued that the women’s conviction could only happen in Putin’s Russia. However, the program host pointed out that in fact most European countries have similar laws as Russia’s and that a number of European offenders have been arrested and punished even more severely.  Indeed, I recently read a news report from Germany that a copycat group of women had staged a similar protest in support of Pussy Riot and had been arrested. An analysis of these issues is available here:  

The human rights representatives seemed to believe that Putin had failed the democratic test by failing to stop the prosecution. But a country either has the rule of law or doesn’t have the rule of law. If Putin overrides the law, it means Putin is the law.

Whether Washington had a hand in the Pussy Riot event via the Russian protest groups it funds, Hitlery Clinton was quick to make propaganda.  Free expression was threatened in Russia, she said.  

Washington used the Pussy Riot case to pay Putin back for opposing Washington’s destruction of Syria.  The overlooked legal issue is Washington’s interference in internal Russian affairs. The close alignment of human rights organizations with Washington’s propaganda hurts the credibility of human rights advocacy.  If human rights groups are seen as auxiliaries of Washington’s propaganda, their moral authority evaporates.

The prevalence of the English language, due to the British domination of the world in the 18th and 19th centuries and American domination in the 20th and first decade of the 21st century, makes it easy for Washington to control the explanations. Other languages simply do not have the reach to compete.

Washington also has the advantage of having worn the White Hat in the Cold War. The peoples who were constituent parts of the Soviet empire and even many Russians themselves still see Washington as the wearer of the White Hat. Washington has used this advantage to finance “color revolutions” that have moved countries from the Russian sphere of influence into Washington’s sphere of influence.

Tony Cartalucci concludes that “Amnesty International is US State Department Propaganda.”
Cartalucci notes that  Amnesty’s executive director is former State Department official Suzanne Nossel, who conflates “human rights advocacy” with US global hegemony. 

Amnesty does seem like an amplifier for Washington’s propaganda. Amnesty’s latest email to members (August 27) is:  “As if the recent trial and sentencing of three members of Pussy Riot wasn't shameful enough, now Russian police are hunting down others in the band. Make no mistake about it: Russian authorities are relentless. Just how far are the Russian authorities willing to go to silence voices of dissent? Tell the Russian government to stop hunting Pussy Riot!”

Amnesty International’s August 23 email to its members, “Wake Up World,” is completely one-sided and puts all blame for violence on the Syrian government, not on al Qaeda and other outside groups that Washington has armed and unleashed on the Syrian people. Amnesty is only concerned with getting visual images damning to the Syrian government before the public: “We are working to get this damning footage into the hands of journalists around the world. Support our work and help ensure that our first-hand video is seen by influential members of the media.”

At least Pussy Riot got a trial. That’s more than US Marine, Brandon Raub, a veteran of two tours of combat duty, got. Raub posted on Facebook his opinion that he had been misused by Washington in behalf of an illegal agenda. Local police, FBI, and Secret Service descended upon his home, dragged him out, and on the authority of a social worker, committed him to a mental hospital for observation. .  

I did not see any protests from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or Chatham House.  Instead, a Virginia circuit court judge, W. Allan Sharrett, demanded Raub’s immediate release, stating that there was no reason to detain and commit Raub except to punish him for exercising his free speech right. 

Americans are increasingly punished for exercising free speech rights.  A number of videos of police violence against the occupy movement are available on youtube. They show the goon thug gestapo cops beating women, pepper spraying protestors sitting with their heads bowed, truncheons flashing as American heads are broken and protestors beat senseless are dragged off in handcuffs for peacefully exercising a constitutionally protected right. 

There has been more protest over Pussy Riot than over the illegal detention and torture of Bradley Manning or the UK government’s threat to invade the Embassy of Ecuador and to drag out WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

When a Chinese dissident sought asylum in the US embassy in China, the Chinese government bowed to international law and permitted the dissident’s safe passage to the US. But “freedom and democracy” Great Britain refuses free passage to Assange who has been granted asylum, and there is no protest from Clinton at the State Department.

In “China’s Rise, America’s Fall,” Ron Unz makes a compelling argument that the Chinese government is more respectful of the rule of law and more responsive to the people it governs than is Washington.

Today it is Russia and China, not the UK and Europe, that challenge Washington’s claim that the US government is above international law and has the right to overthrow governments of which it disapproves. 

The lawlessness that now characterizes the US and UK governments is a large threat to humanity’s finest achievement--the rule of law--for which the British fought from the time of Alfred the Great in the ninth century to the Glorious Revolution of the 17th century. 

Where are the protests over the Anglo-American destruction of the rule of law?

Why Aren’t Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Chatham House on the case?

Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Russia's "Pussy Riot" Stunt Supported by US State Department

by Tony Cartalucci

Global Research, August 18, 2012 - 2012-08-17

Email this article to a friend Print this article

America's troupe of "activists" continue attempts to divide and undermine Russian society.
When the US is overtly backing the terrorist invasion of Syria, seeing to the death, displacement, and disruption of millions of lives abroad, while hosting a mass murdering fugitive dictator at home, what then is it to back an act of hooliganism in a Russian church targeting a geopolitical rival?

The US State Department-backed so-called "punk band" going by the name of "Pussy Riot," stormed into a Moscow church, defaming the Russian government while mocking the beliefs of churchgoers with vulgarity and disruptive behavior. Marketed as an act of "freedom of expression" by the Western media and the West's collection of foreign ministries, it was in reality what would be called both a hate-crime and disorderly conduct in the West. Furthermore, in the West, such an act would come with it steep fines and lengthy jail sentences.

In fact, similar cases have played out in the West - minus the feigned indignation over the perceived violation of free speech of alleged bigots, racists, and hooligans that have preceded "Pussy Riot." In many cases, the West has actively pursued not only people harassing others and creating public disturbances, but also those distributing material to like minded people who's beliefs are simply perceived as "socially harmful."

The West Has Jailed Many For Similar or Lesser Offenses

3 Years in Jail for Revising History: In 2006, the BBC reported, "British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison." The BBC also reported, "the judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him "an active Holocaust denier... anti-Semitic and racist."" Irving's beliefs, as unpopular as they may be, were expressed in his writings and speeches, not in the middle of a synagogue he had burst into. 4 Years and 2 Years in Jail for Operating "Racist" Website: For the crime of operating a US-based "racist" website and possessing with intent to distribute "racist material," two British men, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were sentenced to 4 years and 2 years respectively in the UK in 2009. The presiding judge, according to the BBC, "told the men their material was "abusive and insulting" and had the potential to cause "grave social harm."" Unlike Pussy Riot, however, these 2 men only crammed their leaflets into the door of a synagogue - instead of bursting in. Still they received 3-4 years in prison. 

5 Years in Jail for Disagreeing With Mainstream History: Also in 2009, a man was jailed for 5 years for "propagating Nazi ideas and Holocaust denial" in Austria, Reuters reported. Gerd Honsik apparently wrote books and magazines which he attempted to distribute in schools, though it was the content of the material, not the manner in which he tried to distribute it that earned him his lengthy jail sentence. Unpopular though his ideas may be, according to the latest tirade by the West, he not only should've been allowed to proclaim them publicly, but do so in a place of worship amongst those he despised. 

3 Years in Jail for Harassing a Jewish Man and Public Hate Speech: In 2011, an Australian man posted an "anti-Semitic" video on YouTube earning him a 3 year jail sentence. The video apparently showed the convicted man insulting a Jewish man before going on a tirade "in front of the Perth Bell Tower," reported ABC of Australia. Clearly insulting someone in Australia and creating a public disturbance is a punishable crime, yet somehow the Australian government sees insulting churchgoers in Russia as "freedom of expression." Equally as clear, is that hypocrisy and selective principles are being liberally exercised. Detainment for "Hateful" Public Disturbance: This year, the British Daily Mail reported in their article, "Elmo in cuffs: Man dressed as Sesame Street character is carried away in Central Park after anti-Semitic rant in front of kids," that "the appearance of a hate-spewing man dressed up as Elmo was a jarring one for many New Yorkers who visited Central Park on Sunday afternoon." The article elaborated by saying that though the man was put in handcuffs and taken away, he was not arrested. While no arrest or sentence was handed down, the story clearly indicates that there is a line drawn as to what is "freedom of speech" and what is "disturbing the peace" in the United States. Arrested for Aggravating "religious and racial" Facebook Comments: For the crime of posting "anti-Semitic" remarks on Facebook, the BBC reported that "five men and a 15-year-old youth" were arrested in May, 2012. The BBC would elaborate by reporting, "the six people arrested were charged with a breach of the peace with religious and racial aggravations."

Politically-Motivated Hypocrisy and Proxy Poseurs

Regardless of what one's beliefs may be on "freedom of expression" and what lines if any exist between responsible and irresponsible use of this freedom, one cannot ignore the astounding hypocrisy exhibited by the West - now wringing their hands in feigned disapproval over the jailing of "Pussy Riot" while their jails are full of "hate speech" perpetrators - many of whom did not even specifically target or disturb the subjects of their perceived scorn.

You can't accuse Pussy Riot of Being Chicken, That's For Sure

The Juicy Stuff Starts at 2:18

If you were shopping for food with your kids and came upon a scene where a naked young lady was inserting a chicken into her vagina would you call a cop?

Monday, August 6, 2012

BBC Lies By Ommission on Pussy Riot "Dance and concert."

The three female members of punk outfit Pussy Riot (20 July 2012)If convicted, the members of punk outfit Pussy Riot could spend up to seven years in jail

Related Stories

Russian president Vladimir Putin says Russian punk trio Pussy Riot should not face tough sentencing for their protest against him in Moscow's main cathedral.
The female musicians are on trial over hooliganism charges after a video of their anti-Putin song appeared online.
"There is nothing good in what they did [but] I don't think they should be judged too severely," Mr Putin told reporters in London.
The musicians reject the charges in the case, which has divided Russia.
Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Mariya Alekhina and Yekaterina Samutsevich have been in jail since February, when they were arrested after storming the pulpit of the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow.
Protest performances
The punk trio danced in the Orthodox church while wearing garish colours and masks, chanting "Mother Mary, drive Putin away".
It was one of a number of performances intended as a protest against Mr Putin in the run-up to Russia's presidential elections in March.
The trial, which began on Monday, has caused major debate in Russia.
The song outraged the Russian Orthodox Church, which accused Pussy Riot of blasphemy and has asked for severe judgement.
Supporters, on the other hand, say the case reflects the state's growing intolerance of government opponents.
On Wednesday, medics were called to the court when the women said they felt unwell.
The defendants say they are being deprived of sleep and are poorly fed, according to a defence lawyer.
If convicted of hooliganism, they could face up to seven years in prison.