Women sue Catholic Church about sexual abuse


This video from Australia says about itself:

Church admits liability in school sex abuse

12 July 2010

The Catholic Church has admitted liability for the sexual abuse of girls at a primary school at Toowoomba in Queensland’s Darling Downs.

Translated from NOS TV in the Netherlands:

Injunction against church abuse

Added: Saturday 13 Sep 2014 09:10
Update: Saturday Sep 13 2014, 09:30

Six women who have been abused by clergy in their childhood days are taking the Roman Catholic Church to court. In the lawsuit, Thursday in Utrecht, they want to enforce that they and other victims of sexual abuse will still be able to file complaints, the newspaper Trouw reports.

The hotline for sexual abuse complaints has been closed since July 1 for cases which are legally time barred and whose possible perpetrators are no longer alive.

Especially men have used the chance to complain in recent years. The women going to court now want the time for filing complaints to be extended indefinitely.

Shame

According to the Foundation Women’s Platform about Ecclesiastical Child Abuse (VPKK) women “because of feelings of shame about abuse in their childhood (especially in the nineteen fifties and sixties), need more time to come out with their stories.”

The platform says that “we can still expect many cases. The number of women who will report eventually will be perhaps less than with men, but not many less.”

Thailand military dictatorship violates human rights


This video is called The Junta’s Police State: Thailand on the Brink (Dispatch 5). It says about itself:

2 July 2014

It’s been over a month since Thailand’s army overthrew the country’s elected government in a coup d’etat. In that short time, the new ruling junta has secured almost total control over the country and succeeded in silencing most of its critics.

Thailand has quickly come to resemble a police state, as hundreds of people have been detained, “invited to talk,” or “given time to meditate,” as the junta puts it. Most are released after a week — at which point they have signed a document indicating their promise not to oppose the coup, or face years in jail. Others have been sent to military courts for judgment, where no appeal is allowed.

Authorities have offered cash rewards for anyone who can bring them a photo of their fellow citizens taking part in anti-coup activities. Hand salutes, eating sandwiches, and reading controversial books in public are now illegal if they are considered to be motivated by anti-coup sentiments, and the media continues to be heavily censored.

The junta says 90 percent of Thais support the coup — which is a questionable number, having come from their own surveys.

From daily The Morning Star in Britain:

Rights group calls for end to Thai junta’s supression of dissent

Friday 12th September 2014

Amnesty International called on Thailand’s military yesterday to end a “disturbing pattern of repression” since it seized power in May.

The rights group said it had received credible reports that detainees had been tortured.

“Three months since the coup, a picture emerges from our investigations of widespread and far-reaching human-rights violations perpetrated by the military government that are still ongoing,” Amnesty Asia-Pacific director Richard Bennett said.

“The Thai authorities should end this disturbing pattern of repression, end human-rights violations, respect its international human-rights obligations and allow open debate and discussion — all of which are vital to the country’s future.”

The army has justified the May 22 takeover claiming that it had to act to restore stability after months of political protests which paralysed the former government and triggered sporadic violence which had left dozens of people dead and close to 1,000 injured.

Since then, the junta has shown no tolerance for dissent and crushed open debate on the nation’s fate. Martial law is in effect and political assemblies of more than five people are banned.

Amnesty said 665 people have been summoned or detained by the junta so far. A breakdown of those targeted indicated “a clear case of political persecution and an attempt to silence dissent.”

The vast majority were politicians who opposed the coup, along with academics, activists and protesters.

Amnesty said they were held without charge or trials and security forces had revoked passports and threatened family members.

Thai Military Bans Hunger Games Salute: What Protesters Can Take From Hollywood: here.

Michael Brown killed, new video shows truth


This video from the USA is called Two White Construction Workers Saw the Michael Brown Shooting, This Is What They Have To Say.

By Mollie Reilly in the USA today:

Video Shows Witnesses’ Disbelief Following Michael Brown Shooting

A video airing on CNN Wednesday showed witnesses’ immediate reactions to the shooting death of Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager shot and killed by a Ferguson, Missouri police officer last month.

In a cell phone video provided to CNN, two men who were doing construction work on a home near the scene react to seeing Brown shot by Officer Darren Wilson.

“He had his f**king hands up,” one man says in the recording.

The men later spoke to CNN about what they saw. One worker said he heard two gunshots about 30 seconds apart:

“The cop didn’t say get on the ground. He just kept shooting,” the man said.

That same witness described the gruesome scene, saying he saw Brown’s “brains come out of his head,” again stating, “his hands were up.”

The other contractor told CNN he saw Brown running away from a police car.

Brown “put his hands up,” the construction worker said, and “the officer was chasing him.”

The contractor says he saw Wilson fire a shot at Brown while his back was turned.

The two men in the video spoke under the condition of anonymity to CNN. It is not clear if they are the same construction workers who spoke to St. LouisFox 2 and the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

“I saw him staggering and running and when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming OK OK OK OK OK and then the three officers come through the thing and the one just started shooting,” one man told Fox 2 last month.

A friend of Brown’s, Dorian Johnson, has also come forward as a witness. Speaking to KSDK in St. Louis last month, Johnson said Brown had not reached for Wilson’s weapon.

“It was definitely like being shot like an animal,” Johnson said.

Federal investigators stepped in to help probe Brown’s death after protests erupted in the St. Louis suburb following the August 9 shooting. The Justice Department is also investigating the conduct of Ferguson’s police as well as the county police force.

New eyewitness testimony has emerged in the case of the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Accounts given to local media by two construction workers further substantiate already existing evidence that police officer Darren Wilson fired numerous rounds into the unarmed Brown, even as the youth sought to surrender: here. And here. And here.

Over 600 people attended a meeting of the Ferguson, St. Louis City Council Tuesday, demanding the prosecution of Darren Wilson, the police officer who killed unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown on August 9, and expressing opposition to the city’s abusive police practices: here.

German official sabotage of nazi terrorism investigation


This video is called Neo Nazi Killers of Germany (SHOCKING Crime Documentary).

By Sven Heymann in Germany:

Germany: Official report speaks of “deliberate sabotage” by secret service in NSU case

10 September 2014

In mid-July, the Thuringia state parliamentary committee of inquiry into the series of murders by the far-right National Socialist Underground (NSU) presented its final report. It raises serious allegations against the state security authorities.

So far, the actions of the secret services and judicial authorities in relation to the NSU have been mostly described as errors, incompetence, official sloppiness, failures, breakdowns, unfortunate circumstances, accidental shredding, and so on.

The detailed report goes much further. For the first time, it openly says that the behaviour of the authorities involved in the NSU investigation in Thuringia gives grounds for “suspecting deliberate sabotage”. The police, secret service and judiciary had provided so little cooperation in the investigation of the NSU that one can no longer speak of unfortunate circumstances or breakdowns, committee chair Dorothea Marx (Social Democratic Party, SPD) said in Erfurt.

In the opinion of the committee, the series of murders by the neo-Nazi terrorist cell could have been prevented if the investigating authorities had not previously displayed such serious misconduct, Marx said. The alleged perpetrators come from Thuringia; therefore the Thuringia authorities bear “a special responsibility and a special guilt.”

The committee began its work in February 2012, after the NSU was broken up in November 2011. In just 70 sessions, more than 100 witnesses were heard. Its final report comprises more than 1,800 pages and is available online.

The report is of particular importance in many respects. The alleged right-wing terrorists Uwe Böhnhardt, Uwe Mundlos and Beate Zschäpe came from Jena, the second largest city in Thuringia. All three joined the far-right scene there in the 1990s.

Above all, it is clear that in Thuringia, more than in almost any other state, government agencies played a central role in building up this milieu. The undercover operative Tino Brandt received about 200,000 Deutsche Marks from the secret service, which he mainly invested in the construction of the neo-Nazi scene, he said. And Böhnhardt and Mundlos died in the Thuringia city of Eisenach on November 4, 2011, in a motor home, supposedly by committing suicide.

On that day, it came to light that, supposedly undetected over 13 years, the NSU committed 10 murders, at least two bomb attacks and 14 bank robberies. It is also known that at least two-dozen secret service undercover agents were placed in the immediate environs of the NSU.

Through financing these undercover operatives, large sums of money flowed into the far-right scene. Immediately after these close connections between far-right terrorists and the secret service became known, the destruction of thousands of intelligence files began. Police and intelligence officials who were called to testify before inquiry committees and in the Munich NSU trial were either not granted permission to give evidence, refused to testify, or could not remember anything.

The Thuringia committee of inquiry brought together facts exposing overwhelming evidence against the investigating authorities.

In relation to the NSU trio, who went to ground in 1998, the report says: “Seen all together, the history of all those involved in conducting, or not conducting, the manhunt between 1998-2003, is a disaster”. Even if one puts the best case, one must assume the responsible parties displayed “sheer indifference to finding the three fugitives in comparison to other tasks”. It then states: “The accumulation of false or untaken decisions, and the non-observance of simple standards, also lead to the suspicion of deliberate sabotage and deliberate thwarting of the search for the fugitives” (all quotations on p. 1,582 of the report).

The Thuringia State Office for the Protection of the Constitution (TLFV, as the state branch of the secret service is called) had prevented the trio from being found: “By withholding important information…the TLFV has at least indirectly protected the fugitives,” the report finds (p. 1,584).

In several cases, undercover agents had been protected by the secret service against actions by the police or the public prosecutor. In the case of Tino Brandt, “at least one attempt to influence an…investigation…by the TLFV was proven”, as far as the committee was concerned. Furthermore, the committee “came to the conclusion that Tino Brandt was warned—by whomever—about the investigation into him, benefiting from the perverting of the course of justice that resulted (p. 1,580).

It was also established that “the majority of the other undercover operatives and subjects” were “offenders, who committed crimes, in part during their deployment” (ibid).

As became clear, the Thuringia secret service could operate undisturbed and uncontrolled, especially in the 1990s. “With regard to the administrative and technical supervision” of the secret service by the Thuringia Ministry of the Interior, it must “be stated that at least until the year 2000 this did not exist” (p. 1,585).

However, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Thuringia State Office for Criminal Investigation (LKA) also face serious allegations. Their actions had led to “the case only [being] worked on sporadically”.

The LKA had left the search for the NSU trio to the Criminal Investigation Unit and the secret service. Moreover, the “State Security Division, in violation of its duty, had not brought together the results and findings and made all the necessary evaluations.” In the search for the fugitives, the public prosecutor “had also exercised only rudimentary governance and was only involved in individual actions” (p. 1,585).

One of the most controversial elements of the report was almost completely buried in the already extremely sparse media coverage: The report places a question mark over the alleged suicides of Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt in their motor home in Eisenach on November 4, 2011.

The previous official version of events goes something like this: after a bank robbery in the morning, the two had holed up in a rented motor home, on the run from the police. After this was discovered by two police officers at about noon, Mundlos and Böhnhardt had fired shots, set the vehicle on fire from the inside, and then shot themselves. Contrary to their previous ruthlessness, and despite an extensive arsenal of weapons in the vehicle, both made no attempt to escape the situation.

As an essential proof for this version, it has always been stated that soot was found in the lungs of Mundlos during the autopsy, which he had inhaled after setting the motor home on fire; in Böhnhardt’s mouth, however, no soot was found, since he was already dead.

As the Thuringia committee of inquiry has established, this was based solely on the assertion of a police officer from the crime scene, who claims to have received this information by telephone from the pathologist—and it does not correspond with the facts, according to the investigation report. The committee received the autopsy report, which notes that neither Böhnhardt nor Mundlos had inhaled soot before they died.

That posed “the classic question of whether the fire had been started after the deaths of the two, by a third party, who would thus also come into consideration as a perpetrator for the killings”, the report declares (p. 1,574).

Having reviewed the scenario at the crime scene in detail, the report concludes that the involvement of a third party, who could have silently slipped away unnoticed by the police officers, can by no means be ruled out.

Who this unknown third party is, an individual who may have shot the two right-wing terrorists, and his relationship to them or to the secret service, is one of the countless questions about the NSU that are still completely unanswered.

The committee of inquiry in the Thuringia state parliament has clearly shown how deeply government agencies are involved in the development of far-right and right-wing terrorist organisations. Ten years ago, when the attempt to ban the neo-Nazi German National Party (NPD) failed, the judges declared that legal proceedings could not continue because the secret service had flooded the executive level of the NPD so massively with undercover agents that in the court’s view this was an “affair of state”.

In a similar way, the report of the Thuringia NSU Committee shows that secret service authorities, police and other parts of the security apparatus function as a state within a state, aloof from any democratic control and legal remedy.