British government persecutes LGBT refugees


This 1 July 2017 Dutch video from Amsterdam in the Netherlands is called Sports day for LGBT refugees.

Unfortunately, not all news about LGBTQ refugees in the Netherlands is good news. Sometimes, the Dutch government tries to deport them to war zones.

Unfortunately, bad news about LGBTQ refugees in Britain as well.

By Leila Zadeh in Britain:

Why is Britain still punishing LGBT asylum seekers?

Thursday 27th July 2017

People fleeing homophobic persecution too often find themselves subject to ill-treatment and discrimination here, says LEILA ZADEH

As we mark 50 years since the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality, LGBTQI+ people who seek sanctuary in Britain from persecution in other countries are subjected to invasive questioning and risk being detained indefinitely.

More than 70 countries in the world criminalise same-sex acts and many LGBTQI+ people are at risk from persecution for being who they are.

It is not unusual for LGBTQI+ people attending asylum interviews to be asked questions based on assumptions of what it is to be LGBTQI+, that focus on intimate details of their sexual conduct, or that re-traumatise individuals.

One person was recently asked what it felt like when they were being raped. Another was asked when they first had sex with their partner.

Others end up having to explain why they are not heterosexual. One man was recently told that the caseworker did not believe he was gay since some cross-dressers identify as straight.

The Home Office also puts some LGBTQI+ people seeking asylum into detention. Britain has one of the largest detention estates in Europe and, shockingly, is alone in detaining people for indefinite amounts of time.

At the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group, we regularly visit people who have been detained for several months: people who have applied to stay in this country for fear of persecution — including beatings, rape and death — in their countries of origin.

Our joint research with Stonewall has found that in detention, LGBTQI+ people who are seeking asylum suffer discrimination, harassment and violence from other detainees.

People are made to share rooms with people who share similar prejudices and abusive behaviours to those they are trying to flee: people who are homophobic, biphobic or transphobic.

One person reported feeling as unsafe in the detention centre as they did in Pakistan.

“He was in the gallery and he called: ‘Hey! Mr Gay, I love you! I want to fuck you.’ I was so scared. I just went in my room. Here in detention it is the same as where I came from. I was so scared.”

Many have reported that detention centre staff have failed to act on such bullying. Detention can have serious effects on the physical well-being of LGBTQI+ people.

In detention, some have reported not receiving medication for heart conditions or HIV. Trans people on gender-affirming hormones are denied continued access to treatment, adversely affecting their mental and physical wellbeing.

The detrimental impact on mental health can also be long-lasting. LGBTQI+ people can suffer depression or panic attacks, or self-harm. Some detainees have attempted suicide.

After being released from detention, LGBTQI+ people seeking asylum often experience flashbacks, suffer memory loss or find themselves unable to sleep.

LGBTQI+ people are often excluded from communities from their countries of origin because of prejudice against them. Identifying and accessing LGBTQI+ support networks is challenging.

The experience of detention makes it hard for them to settle into society even when they have regained their freedom.

Detention can also restrict the ability of LGBTQI+ people to gather evidence in support of their asylum claims. LGBTQI+ people frequently need to provide evidence from witnesses in their countries of origin to testify to their sexual orientation or gender identity as part of their asylum applications.

In detention, they can find it almost impossible to contact people in their countries of origin discreetly to gather such evidence. Many of their contacts at home also fear persecution if they are associated with someone who identifies as LGBTQI+.

Restrictions on smartphones and social networking sites in detention can also stop LGBTQI+ people from gathering the evidence they need to pursue their cases and get written records of their past relationships.

Britain has made great strides in protecting and promoting the rights of LGBTQI+ people in the last 50 years. Our government also seeks to promote the rights of LGBTQI+ people in other countries.

Yet its treatment of people from those same countries who seek protection on British soil stands in sharp contrast.

LGBTQI+ people from countries where they are persecuted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity hope that Britain’s record in respecting human rights will protect them.

They want to enjoy the freedoms that other LGBTQI+ people in Britain enjoy. Yet often they encounter a system that refuses to believe they are LGBTQI+ or that they face persecution, and adds to their trauma by putting them into detention for an indefinite amount of time.

More training is needed of Home Office caseworkers so that asylum interviews treat people with dignity.

Decision-makers also need to be better trained in assessing sexual orientation in asylum claims. The government should also aim to issue guidance soon on gender identity in asylum claims.

The government should ensure that vulnerable people like LGBTQI+ asylum-seekers are not put into detention centres and that all immigration detention has a time limit of 28 days.

Leila Zadeh is executive director of the UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group.

English sexually abusive Conservative politician not resigning


This video from England says about itself:

Channel 4 News Andy Coles 12 05 2017

Channel 4 News film on Andy Coles aka Andy “Van” Davy, undercover police officer with the Special Demonstrations Squad, who infiltrated the animal rights movement in the 1990s. Features interviews with “Jessica“, an activist with whom he had a longterm relationship and Paul Gravett from ARspycatcher, who campaigned alongside him and first publicly outed him as a spy in 2013. On 15 May 2017 Coles resigned as Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Cambridgeshire.

A YouTube comment on this video says:

Andy Coles, crime commissioner, has now resigned after he was exposed as being a member of a police intelligence squad in the 90’s. Andy, who operated under false ID and employment background, lured young woman he was spying on for sex. Some of the unit apparently got girls pregnant, then vanished from the face of the earth. Coles was caught due to media photographs and exposed as being a member of the highly secretive spy unit. During the 80’s and 90’s police operated a number of these controversial units, including some in Northern Ireland. Even fellow police did not know of their existence. The IPCC is now investigating after a previous investigation they derailed.

Andy Coles infiltrated the peace movement before moving on to animal rights: here.

By Steve Sweeney in Britain:

Hard-pressed Tories won’t ditch spycop

Thursday 27th July 2017

Labour calls on discredited undercover lothario to resign seat

SPYCOP Andy Coles faced calls to resign as a Tory councillor in Peterborough last night, a week after a council meeting was shut down because of angry protests.

Peterborough City Council Labour leader Ed Murphy said allegations against Mr Coles were so serious that he should either refute them or resign, and Mr Murphy accused the Tories of refusing to sack Mr Coles in “a desperate attempt to cling on to power.”
Mr Coles was forced to step down from his role as Cambridgeshire & Peterborough deputy police and crime commissioner in May after being exposed as a former undercover police officer who spied on political activists.

His activities came to light after an eagle-eyed member of the public spotted a passing reference to Mr Coles’s double life by his brother, the former pop star Richard Coles, in his autobiography.

He pretended to be “Andy Davey,” a removal van driver from south London, when he started a relationship with a 19-year-old woman known as “Jessica.” She is taking action against the police as she feels she was groomed by Mr Coles.

“Although not legally underage, I feel that my youth and vulnerability were used to target me,” she said.

“I was groomed by someone much older, and far more experienced … I was manipulated into having a sexual relationship with him. I didn’t even know his real name.”

Mr Coles also stepped down from governor positions at two local schools following the revelations but he has refused to stand down as a Tory councillor.

A heated council meeting was closed down last week after protesters refused to take down a banner made by Mr Coles’s victim. They were angry that a public question asking for clarity over Mr Coles’s position as a councillor was ruled out of order.

The banner made by Coles' victim Jessica on display outside Peterborough Town Hall. It was later hung from the public gallery in full view of the council meeting, including Andy Coles himself

Last night’s meeting was held in closed session.

Mr Murphy told the Star that the council’s beleaguered Tory group was refusing to withdraw the whip from the discredited ex-cop.

“If they had a large enough majority, they would have got rid of him,” he said. And he revealed that councillors had been threatened with a gagging order from lawyers.

“The bottom line is that if he doesn’t stand down voluntarily, then a public campaign will force him to.”

Peterborough Conservatives had not responded to the Star’s request for comment as we went to press. However, their press officer is believed to be Andy Coles.

Over 1,000 organisations targeted by UK police undercover spying operations: here.

British Conservative government covers up Saudi export of terrorism


This video says about itself:

Saudi Arabia fueling extremism in UK, Europe: Ex-UK ambassador

13 July 2017

A former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia says the kingdom is directly involved in funding extremism in Europe.

William Patey accused the Saudis of funding and promoting the Salifist Wahhabi ideology urging Britain to address the matter with Riyadh. The ideology has inspired Takfiri terrorists across the globe including Daesh [ISIS] and Al-Qaeda. Patey’s revelations came a day after London said it would not publish, in full, a report on extremist funding in the country, citing security reasons. Britain’s opposition parties said the government was trying to protect its ally, Saudi Arabia, by not fully publishing the report that was commissioned by former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2015.

By Jean Shaoul in Britain:

May government conceals UK-Saudi terror connections

25 July 2017

Survivors and bereaved relatives of the 9/11 terror attacks in the United States have demanded that Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May finally publish a report dealing with the foreign funding of Islamist extremism in Britain.

The report is believed to highlight the role of Saudi Arabia in sponsoring Islamist extremism and terrorism.

Last week, Home Secretary Amber Rudd said the investigation had been concluded, but would not be published for reasons of “national security.” Both Rudd and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had earlier indicated that the contents of the report would never be made public.

The report will, however, be made available to privy councillors, including Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, who will be sworn to secrecy about its contents.

The report was commissioned by David Cameron and approved by May, as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats to secure the party’s support before a crucial vote to carry out airstrikes on Syria in December 2015.

The survivors’ letter adds to the growing number of voices accusing May of suppressing the report due to incriminating evidence relating to Saudi Arabia. There are powerful commercial, but also political, reasons why this is necessary.

Saudi Arabia is the biggest market for UK arms and there are reports that Tory politicians have received nearly £100,000 in gifts, trips and fees from Riyadh. The scandal over the report follows opposition to the government’s refusal to criticise Saudi Arabia for its human rights record and its approval of £3.5 billion of arms sales to the country, which has used these weapons in attacks on civilians in the war against neighbouring Yemen.

Then there is the vital role of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states in funding Islamist groups that provide essential proxy forces for the imperialist powers in Libya, Iraq and Syria. To acknowledge how blow-back from these filthy imperialist adventures leads to terror attacks in the UK and elsewhere would not only threaten lucrative trade deals, but also expose the war propaganda emanating from London, Washington and other Western capitals that they are backing democratic and “moderate” movements in their efforts to engineer regime change to secure control of the oil-rich Middle East.

Rudd was therefore forced to play down the suggestion that foreign funding was a factor in fomenting Islamist extremism in Britain. She issued a statement, based upon a 585-word summary of the report, saying that most of extremist funding in the UK came from “small, anonymous public donations, with the majority of these donations most likely coming from UK-based individuals.”

Some extremist organisations posed as charities in order to “increase their credibility and to take advantage of Islam’s emphasis on charity,” while being “purposefully vague about their activities and their charitable status.”

The statement acknowledged, “For a small number of organisations with which there are extremism concerns, overseas funding is a significant source of income.” But Rudd refused to say where the money was coming from and insisted that overseas funding was not a significant source for the vast majority of extremist groups in the UK.

Her statement flies in the face of widespread reports from the US and other official sources that Riyadh has spent $50 billion since the 1970s promoting its particular brand of Islamism—Wahhabism—around the globe, in what one think tank described as the “largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted.”

Although these annual expenditures are now believed to be about $4 billion, it is unknown how much is sent to Britain. There are believed to be 110 mosques associated with Wahhabism.

To underscore the degree of Western collusion with such forces, no less than 15 of the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudi citizens who were allowed to fly in and out of the US without hindrance. The now deceased leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, is a member of a billionaire Saudi family with close ties to the Saudi royal family. Relatives of 9/11 victims have filed claims for billions of dollars in damages from Saudi Arabia, citing King Salman and other members of the ruling family as defendants.

Rudd’s statement is contradicted by an email written by former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, released by WikiLeaks, describing Saudi Arabia and Qatar as direct supporters of ISIS and other groups. This funding was part of Saudi Arabia’s broader strategy of promoting political Islam as a means of countering the growth of any progressive political tendencies within the working class.

Britain supported Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s use of Islamist terrorist groups for covert operations in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Chechnya, the location of the huge energy resources of Central Asia, facilitating its energy corporations’ access to the region. It gave the nod to Islamabad’s and Riyadh’s funding and arming of the Taliban, which in turn gave succour to Al Qaeda, originally funded by Saudi Arabia and the CIA, and worked closely with them and similar forces as it suited their interests.

In the 1990s, London gave sanctuary to numerous Islamist groups, with several leading figures saying that Whitehall had given them a “green light” so long as they only carried out terrorist activities overseas. Among those involved were Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, the Jordanian cleric sentenced in absentia for terrorist activities who reportedly worked as a double agent for MI5. The security forces used the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), based in London, in an unsuccessful MI6-sponsored attempt on the life of Libya’s then leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and then again in the war for his removal and murder in 2011.

The most recent UK terror attacks two months ago in Manchester and London testify to the closest relations with these Islamist forces.

One of the attackers in the London Bridge killings, Yousseff Zaghba, was stopped at an Italian airport while attempting to travel to Syria, freely admitting that he “wanted to be a terrorist” and carrying ISIS literature. Another was featured in a British television documentary that chronicled his confrontation with and detention by police after he unfurled an ISIS flag in Regent’s Park in London.

The authorities were equally familiar with Manchester suicide bomber, Salman Abedi. In 2011, they allowed his parents, members of the LIFG, to return to Libya to assist the US-NATO regime-change operation against Gaddafi. Abedi himself met Islamic State operatives in Libya, veterans of the Syrian civil war, with whom he maintained close connections in Manchester.

Despite the 16-year-long “war on terror,” these elements move freely in and out of Britain, Europe, the Middle East and the US under what amounts to state protection. They are never stopped at passport control because they are vital intelligence “assets.”

Terrorist attacks by these “assets” also provide the pretext for further repression, surveillance, attacks on democratic rights and the deployment of troops and armed police on the streets.

British authorities are looking with increasing interest at their neighbour across the Channel, where France has declared a state of emergency and is seeking to embed it into law. These measures are of little value in preventing future attacks, but are indispensable for controlling the working class and suppressing social unrest.

Theresa May parody on Bob Marley music


This parody music video from Britain is called Theresa May – “No Majority No Cry”.

It is a parody of Bob Marley‘s song No Woman No Cry.

It says about itself:

13 July 2017

Theresa May blubs her way through tear-jerking new single “No Majority No Cry”. Sob!

LYRICS:

Do you remember when we used to run
Through the fields of wheat
in Oxfordshire
Trampling all the farmer’s crops
As they shouted at us, “Oi, get off my land, you little bastards
That’s criminal damage, I’m gonna smash your fucking skulls in!”
Yeah
Do you remember when Dimbleby announced
The exit polls, yeah, on the BBC
And there was Georgie with his shit-eating grin

No majority, no cry
No majority, no cry
Everything’s gonna be alright
No majority, no cry