Earlier today around 40,000 people gathered in an Oslo square to sing Children of the Rainbow , a popular peace song which mass killer Anders Breivik has condemned during his trial.
Breivik had accused Lillebjoern Nilsen, the singer of Children of the Rainbow, of being a Marxist intent on brainwashing children with his music.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
100 Days to the London Olympics
Today marks 100 days until the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
To me, the Olympics are a tremendous event, something which is inspirational, something which will be remembered for a lifetime, and something which will have a physical and emotional legacy on future generations.
Yes, I accept there are issues about the Olympics.
Some point to the cost of staging the games, whilst ignoring the increased tourism they will bring.
Some point to the potential for terrorism, or to what they consider to be OTT restrictions on civil rights during the Games - but i'd rather the Games went off without incident with everyone safe.
Some point to the corporate sponsors and say that a few of the companies giving money to the Games have questionable backgrounds and records - and I, for one, have some sympathy for their view. I wish it wasn't necessary to have any corporate sponsorship at all. I wish that fast food and confectionary companies couldn't link their names with sports events. I wish that companies with bad human rights records couldn't try to make themselves look good by linking to the Games. It is an unfortunate by-product of the economic system the West has chosen.
Some point to the transportation delays possible during the Games but ignore that there's been plenty of warning and it's up to individuals to make sensible arrangements. Remember, it is only for a couple of weeks.
Some dismiss the sportsmen and women as over paid prima donnas and mostly drug cheats. Yes, that may be the case for a few, and the Okympucs need to look seriously at whether drugs cheats are ever allowed to compete again, but the vast majority are examples of humanity excelling in sporting endeavours.
Some, including me, are hoping the Olympics doesn't become a tasteless orgy if nationalistic jingoism - but fear that our tabloid press will fuel such unpleasant fervour.
But, even if all of those things were true, even if all of them were as bad as they could get, I think the Olympic Games is a fantastic event and one which the UK, an historically important sporting nation, should be looking forward to hosting.
To me, the Olympics are a tremendous event, something which is inspirational, something which will be remembered for a lifetime, and something which will have a physical and emotional legacy on future generations.
Yes, I accept there are issues about the Olympics.
Some point to the cost of staging the games, whilst ignoring the increased tourism they will bring.
Some point to the potential for terrorism, or to what they consider to be OTT restrictions on civil rights during the Games - but i'd rather the Games went off without incident with everyone safe.
Some point to the corporate sponsors and say that a few of the companies giving money to the Games have questionable backgrounds and records - and I, for one, have some sympathy for their view. I wish it wasn't necessary to have any corporate sponsorship at all. I wish that fast food and confectionary companies couldn't link their names with sports events. I wish that companies with bad human rights records couldn't try to make themselves look good by linking to the Games. It is an unfortunate by-product of the economic system the West has chosen.
Some point to the transportation delays possible during the Games but ignore that there's been plenty of warning and it's up to individuals to make sensible arrangements. Remember, it is only for a couple of weeks.
Some dismiss the sportsmen and women as over paid prima donnas and mostly drug cheats. Yes, that may be the case for a few, and the Okympucs need to look seriously at whether drugs cheats are ever allowed to compete again, but the vast majority are examples of humanity excelling in sporting endeavours.
Some, including me, are hoping the Olympics doesn't become a tasteless orgy if nationalistic jingoism - but fear that our tabloid press will fuel such unpleasant fervour.
But, even if all of those things were true, even if all of them were as bad as they could get, I think the Olympic Games is a fantastic event and one which the UK, an historically important sporting nation, should be looking forward to hosting.
Saturday, 14 April 2012
Oslo's Trial of the Century - some facts about the trial of Anders Breivik
Anders Breivik's trial for killing 77 people and injuring a further 151 on July 22nd last year is due to start in he next few days in Oslo, Norway.
*Both the Justice Minister and the Chief of Security Services were forced to resign following heavy criticism of the way they had handled the terror attacks.
*The police, security services and the Prime Minister apologised about the mis-handling of the case in March.
*Police errors on the day is are under investigation and will form a substantial part of the independent public inquiry due to be published in August.
*Oslo District Court has built a new, custom-made courtroom specially for Breivik's trial.
*The new courtroom is No. 250.
*Additionally, they have refurbished 2 floors to for the media and other affected parties to follow the trial.
*The trial is estimated to cost around £10m (12.1m euros, $15.9m), according to Geir Engebretsen, President of the Court.
*Between 1,000-1,400 people will be in the court building for each day of the trial.
*There are only 190 seats in the main courtroom and these will be reserved for the victims and members of the press.
*2,500 people will follow the trial via video link in 18 local courts around Norway.
*Breivik will be protected in court by a bulletproof screen as he has received a number of death threats whilst in prison awaiting trial.
*There will be a panel of five judges instead of a jury.
*The five judges will include two professional judges and three lay judges (general members of the public).
*The trial is expected to end on 22 June.
*The verdict will not be heard for several weeks after that, and could be appealed.
*The trial will start with the indictment read by the prosecution.
*Breivik is expected to take several days to testify beginning on Tuesday 17 April when he will take the stand.
*The prosecution will call more than 90 witnesses.
*The defence will call around 40 witnesses including a prolific far-right Norwegian blogger, Fjordman.
*Also expected to be called are members of the Labour Party and Progress Party, terrorism experts and psychiatrists. Several public figures have said they will refuse to appear.
*Breivik's dwarning has warned that his client is likely to say things many will find offensive and shocking.
*Breivik has said: "I am not sorry and I would do the same thing all over again."
*Two psychiatric reports ordered by the court came up with opposite conclusions. The first report (November 2011) concluded that Breivik was a paranoid schizophrenic and was psychotic at the time of the crime. The second report (April 2012) concluded that Breivik was sane and showed no signs of psychosis.
*Breivik considers himself a political activist and a soldier trying to save Norway and Europe from being taken over by Islam.
*Both the Justice Minister and the Chief of Security Services were forced to resign following heavy criticism of the way they had handled the terror attacks.
*The police, security services and the Prime Minister apologised about the mis-handling of the case in March.
*Police errors on the day is are under investigation and will form a substantial part of the independent public inquiry due to be published in August.
*Oslo District Court has built a new, custom-made courtroom specially for Breivik's trial.
*The new courtroom is No. 250.
*Additionally, they have refurbished 2 floors to for the media and other affected parties to follow the trial.
*The trial is estimated to cost around £10m (12.1m euros, $15.9m), according to Geir Engebretsen, President of the Court.
*Between 1,000-1,400 people will be in the court building for each day of the trial.
*There are only 190 seats in the main courtroom and these will be reserved for the victims and members of the press.
*2,500 people will follow the trial via video link in 18 local courts around Norway.
*Breivik will be protected in court by a bulletproof screen as he has received a number of death threats whilst in prison awaiting trial.
*There will be a panel of five judges instead of a jury.
*The five judges will include two professional judges and three lay judges (general members of the public).
*The trial is expected to end on 22 June.
*The verdict will not be heard for several weeks after that, and could be appealed.
*The trial will start with the indictment read by the prosecution.
*Breivik is expected to take several days to testify beginning on Tuesday 17 April when he will take the stand.
*The prosecution will call more than 90 witnesses.
*The defence will call around 40 witnesses including a prolific far-right Norwegian blogger, Fjordman.
*Also expected to be called are members of the Labour Party and Progress Party, terrorism experts and psychiatrists. Several public figures have said they will refuse to appear.
*Breivik's dwarning has warned that his client is likely to say things many will find offensive and shocking.
*Breivik has said: "I am not sorry and I would do the same thing all over again."
*Two psychiatric reports ordered by the court came up with opposite conclusions. The first report (November 2011) concluded that Breivik was a paranoid schizophrenic and was psychotic at the time of the crime. The second report (April 2012) concluded that Breivik was sane and showed no signs of psychosis.
*Breivik considers himself a political activist and a soldier trying to save Norway and Europe from being taken over by Islam.
Monday, 6 February 2012
OPINION: Abu Qatada should not be released
The radical Muslim cleric, Abu Qatada, who is accused of posing a grave threat to Britain's national security, will be released within a matter of days after a court granted him bail. This is despite the Home Office arguing he remains a risk to national security.
Qatada has spent six and a half years in prison and his defence team successfully argued that, as there was no sign of an imminent deportation to Jordan, where he is wanted to stand trial for alleged terror offences, his continued imprisonment was unlawful.
The UK won't extradite him unless the Jordanian authorities guarantee that no evidence gained through the use of torture will be used in his trial.
So, Qatada, once described as Osama bin Laden's "right hand man" and with links to many terrorist atrocities, will be released.
Sometimes the law is an ass. This is one such instance.
Qatada clearly shouldn't be let loose. He's far too dangerous for that, and his involvement in major terrorist activity is undeniable. Perhaps, if Jordan isn't a sufficiently civilised country (doesn't the UK sell tgem lots of arms?) international courts need to be used to try and, ultimately, incarcerate this evil man.
It's not just Qatada. Surely the same principle should be applied to all criminals; if they still pose a threat to society, if they are likely to reoffend, they shouldn't be released. Some people are just too evil and should never be released.
Seriously, if the crime is bad enough to warrant a prison sentence, and the authorities consider it more than likely that the crime will be repeated, why should they be allowed out?
I strongly suspect that most incarcerated criminals are repeat offenders and, while the cost of keeping the behind bars would fall on the taxpayer, the cost of further police investigations and court cases, plus the effect on victims of crime, would be reduced.
Qatada has spent six and a half years in prison and his defence team successfully argued that, as there was no sign of an imminent deportation to Jordan, where he is wanted to stand trial for alleged terror offences, his continued imprisonment was unlawful.
The UK won't extradite him unless the Jordanian authorities guarantee that no evidence gained through the use of torture will be used in his trial.
So, Qatada, once described as Osama bin Laden's "right hand man" and with links to many terrorist atrocities, will be released.
Sometimes the law is an ass. This is one such instance.
Qatada clearly shouldn't be let loose. He's far too dangerous for that, and his involvement in major terrorist activity is undeniable. Perhaps, if Jordan isn't a sufficiently civilised country (doesn't the UK sell tgem lots of arms?) international courts need to be used to try and, ultimately, incarcerate this evil man.
It's not just Qatada. Surely the same principle should be applied to all criminals; if they still pose a threat to society, if they are likely to reoffend, they shouldn't be released. Some people are just too evil and should never be released.
Seriously, if the crime is bad enough to warrant a prison sentence, and the authorities consider it more than likely that the crime will be repeated, why should they be allowed out?
I strongly suspect that most incarcerated criminals are repeat offenders and, while the cost of keeping the behind bars would fall on the taxpayer, the cost of further police investigations and court cases, plus the effect on victims of crime, would be reduced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)