Click here to view this media A Fox News interview with Karl Rove ended abruptly Wednesday after the conservative analyst repeatedly suggested potential Republican presidential candidate Sarah Palin had a “thin skin.” Earlier this week, Palin had lashed out at Rove and other pundits for speculating that she may or may not run in 2012. “What is it about Governor Palin that if anyone says her name, someone like you, that it just explodes?” Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked Rove. “Is that the media or is that Governor Palin or is that Karl Rove?” “No, no, that’s Governor Palin,” Rove asserted. “I’m mystified. Look, she is all upset about this saying I’m trying to sabotage her in some way. And how dare I speculate on her future. If she doesn’t want to be speculated about as a potential candidate, there’s an easy way to end the speculation. Say, ‘I’m not running.’” “It is a sign of enormous thin skin if we speculate about her, she gets upset. And I suspect, if we didn’t speculate about her she would be upset and try to find a way to get us to speculate about her.” Van Susteren tried to steer Rove’s rage back toward the subject of the media but he continued to talk about Palin. “End the speculation by saying, ‘I’m not going to be a candidate.’ Until then, I would recommend she might get a slightly thicker skin. If she has this thin a skin now when people are saying, ‘I think she might be a candidate,’ how is she going to react if she does get into the campaign and gets the scrutiny that every candidate does get?” Rove asked. “I mean, that’s not going to be a pretty sight if she’s as thin-skinned in the fray as she is on the edges of it.” After that comment, Rove was quickly interrupted by a “Fox News Alert” about Steve Jobs’ resignation from Apple, news that had been first reported hours earlier.
Continue reading …Deputy prime minister says Liberal Democrats will not let Tories water down human rights laws Nick Clegg has issued a trenchant defence of human rights laws, setting out their strengths and saying his party will not let Conservatives water them down should there be a fresh push to renegotiate legislation. In an article for the Guardian , the deputy prime minister acknowledges much common ground with the prime minister, David Cameron, who in recent weeks has increasingly given voice to the frustrations of cabinet ministers, MPs and his activist base that European human rights legislation has overruled British courts and must be renegotiated. A European ruling earlier this year that prisoners must be given the vote despite parliament voting for the opposite infuriated Conservatives. Writing at the weekend, Cameron said: “Though it won’t be easy, though it will mean taking on parts of the establishment, I am determined we get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights. “We are looking at creating our own British bill of rights. We are going to fight in Europe for changes to the way the European court works and we will fight to ensure people understand the real scope of these rights and do not use them as cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense.” Clegg agrees there is a problem with “misrepresentation” of what rights people enjoy and says he supports government moves to reform the European court of human rights. But his article is different in emphasis from the prime minister’s and represents the first restatement that his party will not brook a profound renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the Strasbourg court. Clegg describes the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic legislation under the human rights act as “a hugely positive step”. He writes: “As we continue to promote human rights abroad, we must ensure we work to uphold them here at home. We have a record we should be proud of and never abandon.” While Cameron was careful to criticise the interpretation, he is under pressure from his activists to go radically further, with some voices calling for a complete withdrawal. The home secretary, Theresa May, said in a speech last month that she would be arguing for a new definition of article 8 of the European convention, which guarantees the right to a private and family life. By contrast, Clegg says: “Court judgements themselves tend to tell a very different story about our rights culture than tabloid papers. The Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights have been instrumental in preventing local authorities from snooping on law-abiding families, in removing innocent people from the national DNA database, in preventing rapists from cross-examining their victims in court, in defending the rights of parents to have a say in the medical treatment of their children, in holding local authorities to account where they have failed to protect children from abuse, in protecting the anonymity of journalists’ sources, and in upholding the rights of elderly married couples to be cared for together in care homes.” Clegg also appears to implicitly criticise Cameron’s satisfaction with tough “exemplary” sentences for those involved in the riots alongside backing families of rioters losing council homes and benefits. Defending the concept of human rights in his article, Clegg says that a view is being pandered to that believes no rights come without responsibilities and that “a criminal ought to forfeit their very humanity the moment they step out of line, and that the punishment of lawbreakers ought not to be restrained by due process”. In November the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, will push for “important operational changes” to the ECHR when Britain takes over the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. Separately, Clarke and Clegg head a commission into the establishment of a British bill of rights which would redefine the UK’s obligation under the ECHR. The commission is thought to be split down the middle over whether or not to repeal the Human Rights Act. In order to sate the desires of the Tory backbench, a separate commission has been set up which will produce a distinctively Conservative position on the ECHR before the next general election. Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition David Cameron Human rights Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …It’s in David Cameron’s backyard – and it’s always had a troubled relationship with the establishment. After the UK riots, the stakes are high for the 46th Notting Hill carnival ‘ Look at them,” instructs Clary Salandy, her voice growing ever more urgent. “Those boys are making hats. Those girls are making costumes. Those over there are welding structures for the costumes. They are creating things. They are not rioting. They like Nike and all that stuff but they are here working until the early hours and then they go to the shop and buy them. We have seen what some kids do. Carnival will show what our good kids do.” It will if Clary has anything to do with it. She’s a veteran, colonel-in-chief of the celebrated “masquerade” band Mahogany . Its vivid designs and brightly coloured processions have been a highlight of every Notting Hill carnival that anyone can remember. That’s no accident. Mahogany know what they are doing and they worry about the details. An instruction here, some encouragement there; from her shop premises on Harlesden High Street in north-west London, Clary runs a tight ship. It is people like Clary who put the spectacle on the street and make carnival happen. It’s hard work, not least because the event carries expectations commensurate with being the biggest street festival in Europe. But this year the stakes could not be higher. The 46th Notting Hill carnival will attract a million people this weekend – more if the sun shines – and, as always, placing that many revellers in such a small space presents particular challenges. But it will also be the first big public event in London since the terrible riots that scarred the capital and other cities just three weeks ago. The first chance for the mob to run amok again, if permitted – and so inclined. For many reasons, that cannot be allowed to happen. One is the future of carnival itself, for the event is popular but never universally so. Another is the reputation of the Metropolitan police, which met such criticism, not least from the prime minister, for the tactics deployed when the rioting spread from Tottenham and the looters appeared to have the upper hand. Another is the reputation of London, with the Olympics barely a year away. Then there is the reputation of the UK itself. No one cares to contemplate more shamefully embarrassing images of disorder making their way around the world. So no chances are being taken. There will be a record 16,000 police officers on duty. Preliminary raids have already been carried out to identify known troublemakers and ban them from carnival. The event itself will provide between 500 and 700 stewards. This year, in an unprecedented move, everything will wind down at 7pm. One senior officer tells me carnival is being seen as a litmus test. “There is definitely a keen perception of the risks involved,” he says. “Not just at carnival but also the risk from those elements who think they might be able to fill their boots in other areas while so many officers are at carnival. We got a bloody nose in Tottenham and in other areas and we can’t afford to have this at carnival. The last thing we need is more pictures that say London isn’t safe.” So the runup is a nervy one. But then, has there ever been a year when malign forces have not been conspiring to derail the Notting Hill carnival? No one can remember one. Consider the money. It is expensive to stage, the direct organising costs alone being around £500,000. Add in the amounts spent by the police and other public services, particularly the council cleaners, and then consider that for much of its life there has been no easy assumption that politicians or donors or individuals or corporations would come forward in sufficient number to fund it. Consider that, even now, the event has no primary commercial sponsor and that much of the most vital work involved in putting the show together is done by volunteers. In recent years it has been relatively tranquil, with new faces at the top and a marked improvement in the management of the event, but money has long been a problem. In 2003 the Arts Council refused to give the organisers a proposed grant of £160,000 because of perceived irregularities in the accounting. The Greater London Authority in response decided to steer its grant for stewarding away from the organisers and to pay the companies concerned directly. Three years ago, the new team took over and discovered that the event was seriously in debt. Consider crime. Even without the backdrop to this year’s event, carnival has been forced each year to answer those who say that in terms of crime and antisocial behaviour, the annual revelry is a price not worth paying. Last year’s event was relatively peaceful. But these things, critics say, are indeed relative. Crime was down by 31% compared with the previous year, and some crime is inevitable, but still there were, at one stage, bottles and missiles thrown at police and 280 arrests. Consider the route, always a point of contention, which one might expect given that last year up to one million people crammed the narrow streets of Notting Hill. Thousands flock to west London. At the same time, scores of residents keen to avoid the noise and disruption move out. “Notting Hill carnival is almost here,” said one press release sent out on Wednesday, a catalyst, “for those toying with the idea of getting away over the August bank holiday.” Jennette Arnold, the chair of the London Assembly and a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, believes carnival has only intermittently enjoyed the sort of support it deserves. “There has been an ambivalence about it. I think it is the jewel in the crown of London’s cultural life. But many throughout its history have seen it as just a black event. They have viewed it negatively, seeing only the potential for trouble.” The event has regularly faced the threat of being taken off the streets, particularly those gentrified Notting Hill streets familiar to residents such as David Cameron and Michael Gove, and being cocooned in a more manageable open space, such as Hyde Park. Had the Royal Parks been more amenable to the idea, few doubt that by now it would have been condemned to such a fate. And to those who see carnival as just another festival – a black lord mayor’s show with dancers and tinsel – that approach might seem to make sense. But there is a history and a philosophy to carnival that sustains it, and frustratingly for politicians who would like to get a better handle on it, makes the event hyper-sensitive and hyper-resistant to change. Claudia Jones, the veteran Trinidadian communist, activist and publisher exiled as a menace from America, is always known as the Mother of Carnival. The first one organised by her in 1959 was largely static, in St Pancras town hall, and was designed as both a comfort and a statement. The race riots in Notting Hill had scarred the area and shocked the nation the year before. The first carnival as we know it in Notting Hill itself took place in 1964 when, spurred on by another pioneer, Rhaune Laslett, marchers and steel bands spilled on to the streets with their artistry. That took chutzpah, for though many embraced the idea and welcomed a dash of colour to what was then a down-at-heel district, race relations in Notting Hill were a constant difficulty. In his new re-investigation of the 1959 murder in the heart of Notting Hill of a black man, Kelso Cochrane, author Mark Olden brilliantly describes a postwar world where feral young white men, drunk on beer, high on bravado, terrified at the emergence of a community they did not recognise or understand, made a statement of their own with regular bouts of “nigger hunting”. So carnival was a pointed response to recent domestic events. But it was more than that. Trace them back – the dances, the rituals – and they transport one back to the West Indies, but don’t stop there. They transport those who know back to the emancipation of forefathers from hundreds of years of slavery. The whole thing, beneath the swaying and the jollity, could not be more historically loaded. Professor Gus John, the historian, author and government adviser says: “People must understand the origins of carnival. It is a festival created by freed slaves in the Caribbean in a period when the only opportunity they had to express themselves and their culture was at the end of the sugar cane crop. The British and French had banned the use of drums, cow horns and conch shells; not only because they were used in traditional religious practices that they wished to outlaw, but because they were also used to organise rebellions. In time, the resourceful workers started making percussion instruments with sticks and with bamboo and with metal implements.” Forerunners of the steel drums. Part of the ritual, he says, was a joyful mocking. “Carnival has always been associated with self-affirmation, assertion of cultural identity and African origins and a parodying of the habits, dress, mores and lifestyle of the oppressor class. The festival has always combined music, drama, costumery and satire.” What happens, Clary tells me, while quality-checking a pointed yellow hat beautifully crafted from gold plastic and white foam, happens for a reason. “It is on the street and it stays on the street because once there were laws forbidding black people to be on the street. No more than 10 were allowed to congregate. We are not taking it to a park behind a fence. No way.” There is a bitter irony this year, he adds. Unsolicited, it falls to carnival to provide some joy to erase the rancour, to show off London’s diversity, to rehabilitate the nation’s reputation as a place where mass events can occur without near anarchy. And yet recently, when there was a chance to truly embrace and promote carnival as part of the Cultural Olympiad for the 2012 Olympics with a widely trailed Festival of Carnivals, the officials responsible decided at the 11th hour not to bother. “One minute the money and the will was there,” Clary says. “We were all preparing to be part of it. The next it wasn’t. When I think of all the good that could have been done with that money, all the young people we could have engaged, doing things, learning things, it makes me disillusioned. What we do is world class. But we don’t get the respect.” There is something unsatisfactory about the establishment’s relationship with carnival. It is liked – a study for the GLA in 2004 suggested it pumps £93m into the London economy. But it isn’t loved in the way that Rio loves its yearly spectacle. It too suffers from crime, sometimes deaths, but these never lead to a questioning of the fundamentals. It is one of the key ways in which the Brazilian city sells itself to the world. For all its longevity, carnival has never enjoyed that status here. As a director of the Notting Hill Carnival Trust for the past three years, it’s now Chris Boothman’s job to change that. It’s a mammoth task, but many feel that so far it’s going well. After two years of internal changes and the forging of new relationships with politicians and the commercial world, this was to be the year carnival showed a new, confident face to the world. The goal is still to make sure everything goes right this weekend. Most believe that will happen. But more than that, it can’t afford to get anything wrong. Pressure aplenty but Boothman, a solicitor, once the legal head of the now defunct Commission for Racial Equality, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and a veteran carnivalist, has the sang-froid of a man who’s coping. “There will be 4,000 extra police a day on duty in the carnival area but they won’t be in the immediate area of carnival,” he tells me. “The look and feel of carnival won’t be much different. But they will be available if needed.” Carnival always weathers the storms, he says. “There are people who annually whip things up; a small and hardcore number of individuals who want it scrapped and talk about violence when in fact the event is getting safer every year.” He loves the traditions, but is unafraid to modernise. “The street parade will never disappear but part of the challenge is getting back to the way it used to feel. It has got so big.” Thinking aloud he wonders if they might extend the six-mile route. Or extend the event itself into a season, like the Edinburgh festival. He hopes and expects to be able to continue that work unimpeded, with the aspiration that next year’s event, in Olympic year, will attract both establishment love and sponsors, creating a new normal. “The 80s riots never impacted carnival. When there was trouble, it was about issues between black youths and the police. But people rioting and looting is not something we expect to see at carnival. We have worked hard to get this far. Whatever happens, we’ll be here.” Murder in Notting Hill by Mark Olden is published by Zero Books on 25 Nov, price £11.99. Notting Hill carnival Festivals UK riots Hugh Muir guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …North Carolina expected to bear brunt of Irene, which is heading towards wide swathe of eastern seaboard Officials are considering whether to evacuate low-lying areas of Manhattan after hurricane Irene barrelled out of the Bahamas towards a wide swath of the eastern US. Irene, which achieved gusts of up to 128mph over Cat Island on Thursday, is forecast to maintain or even increase its intensity as it progresses. The slow-moving but powerful storm could hit North Carolina’s Outer Banks on Saturday morning with winds of around 115mph. It is predicted to travel up the east coast, spewing rain over parts of Virginia and Washington DC, New Jersey and New York City before reaching Maine on Monday afternoon. North Carolina is expected to bear the brunt of Irene, and most of the coast was on hurricane watch with the National Hurricane Centre warning to expect dangerous storm surges where the storm makes landfall. But a much greater swath of the eastern US, from the Carolinas up to Maine, could also feel Irene’s effects, federal officials warned. “North Carolina looks like the greatest threat right now,” Craig Fugate, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema), told reporters. “But the rest of the eastern seaboard is well within the path of the storm. It is going to bring in all of the north-east corridor for heavy rains, high winds and potential flooding.” Residents were warned to expect power outages from fallen trees as well as flooding. “You can expect at a minimum 5 to 10 inches of rain, and with hurricane force winds inland you are going to get a lot of treefall and a lot of flooding,” Bill Read, the director of the National Hurricane Centre, said in a conference call with reporters. As of Thursday, Irene was the strongest storm to threaten the Atlantic coast since 2005. It is also cutting a course that could take it much farther inland than any other storm since 1985. Even if it decreases in intensity, Fugate warns Irene could still cause significant disruption and damage to property. “You don’t really need hurricane force winds. Even winds blowing 40mph, or 50 and 60mph if they are blowing for hours can cause trees to come down and widespread power outages,” he said. As the storm travels north, federal officials from North Carolina to Maine began warning residents in low-lying and coastal areas to prepare to evacuate. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg told a news conference that officials would make a decision on Friday on whether to evacuate low-lying areas in downtown Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, and offer people places in storm shelters. “The timing is a bit up in the air, as it is with all these things. Sometime on Friday, late in the day. How many depends on how severe we think the storm is going to be,” Bloomberg said. He advised residents to begin packing small bags with food and water, medicines, important documents and other essentials in case they are ordered to evacuate. Hospitals began running checks on emergency generators, medicines and other supplies. City police mobilised 50 small boats to use in the event of floods. Hurricane Irene has already caused considerable damage in the southern Bahamas as it made its way to the US. Officials reported that at least 40 homes were badly damaged on the island of Mayaguana. Natural disasters and extreme weather United States North Carolina Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Former Vice President Dick Cheney tells NBC’s Jamie Gangel that he has “no regrets” about authorizing the waterboarding of terror suspects. “In your view, we should still be using enhanced interrogation?” Gangel asks Cheney. “Yes,” Cheney replies. “No regrets?” Gangel presses. “No regrets,” Cheney agrees. “Should we still be waterboarding terror suspects?” Gangel wonders. “I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk,” the former Vice President explains. Though many consider waterboarding torture, Cheney argues that the technique should still be a “tool.”
Continue reading …Rep. Paul Ryan is so afraid of his constituents he had his office doors locked against those who came to get some answers. Daily Kos: Afraid of the protesters he would draw for his plan to slash the social safety net in order to make the rich richer, this month Rep. Paul Ryan cancelled public town halls in favor of events requiring paid tickets . In response, unemployed constituents in Ryan’s district are asking for face-to-face meetings by conducting sit-ins at his local offices . So far, Ryan’s staff has twice threatened to call the police on those protesters. The protests are continuing despite these threats, and so is the escalation from Paul Ryan’s office. Yesterday, cameras were banned at one of his local offices, as Wisconsin Jobs Now showed through the photo on the right. Further, one of the protesters, Andrew Cole, was told by the police that Ryan’s office has now restricted parking , with tickets and towing threatened. Now today, numerous reports have emerged that the protesters have been locked out of the office . Wisconsin Jobs Now has more: Long story short, the protest will go on outside for the moment. But why is the Congressman bringing in the police to kick a bunch of peaceful and unemployed constituents that want nothing more than for the representative to schedule a public town hall like he has dozens of times before. Is he just tired of them asking? Or is he somehow offended by the their message: that we need real job-creation legislation and not just tax breaks for corporations and billionaires. Indeed. Without a House of Representatives that takes job creation seriously, there isn’t a lot the President can do on his own. As long as Paul Ryan and his gang of Republican thugs thinks the economy will grow by gutting the social safety net while transferring even more of this nation’s wealth to the wealthy, jobs will remain on the back burner. We’re on the fifth day of the protests. How long will Paul Ryan duck his own constituents’ concerns?
Continue reading …Critics say Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng’s views on gender and equality ‘make mockery’ of South Africa’s progressive constitution Civil rights groups in South Africa have condemned Jacob Zuma’s choice for the role of the country’s top judge, arguing that the nominee’s views on gender equality and marital rape “make a mockery” of the country’s constitutional rights. Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng was a surprise pick for the position of chief justice, with many critics arguing that he lacked the experience and qualifications of rival candidates. His apparently socially conservative views have also come under scrutiny because, as the head of South Africa’s constitutional court, he will be responsible for upholding one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. Documents seen by the Guardian detail appeal cases at the superior court over the past decade in which Mogoeng’s judgments are being questioned by gender and legal activists. One was a 2001 appeal by a man named Mathibe who tied a woman to the bumper of his car and “drove that vehicle at a fairly high speed over a distance of about 50 metres”. Mogoeng ruled that the two-year sentence imposed was “too harsh by any standards”. Among his reasons were that the accused had been “provoked” and “the complainant did not sustain serious injuries”. Three years later a Mr Moipolai appealed against his sentence for the rape of his common law wife. She was eight months pregnant, and another person was present during the attack. Court records show Mogoeng upheld the conviction but reduced the 10-year sentence, meaning half was suspended for five years. Marital rape is a crime in South Africa, but Mogoeng felt there were “mitigating factors”. He listed these as: The appellant was a first offender; the appellant and complainant were no strangers to each other (they were lovers) and said: “But for the presence of [another person], the appellant and complainant would probably have had consensual intercourse.” Another case was the 2007 appeal of a man named Modise, who had been jailed for five years for attempted rape. He and his victim were undergoing a divorce and had not shared the same bed for almost a year. One night, Modise went to the marital bedroom and later the complainant went to bed, where the incident took place. Mogoeng was among the judges who suspended the man’s sentence, stating: “The desire to make love to his wife must have overwhelmed him, hence his somewhat violent behaviour. He, however, neither smacked, punched nor kicked her. Minimum force, so to speak, was resorted to in order to subdue the complainant’s resistance.” The judges added: “The case is not comparable to a case where a lady comes across a stranger on the street who suddenly attempts to rape her.” The documents – which also raised concerns over Mogoeng’s attitude to sexual orientation – are likely to intensify pressure on Zuma, who was cleared of a rape charge before his election as president, to rethink the nomination. Louise Olivier, the law programme manager at the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, said: “The South African constitutional court has been regarded by jurists both internationally and on the continent as a model, socially and legally progressive and providing jurisprudence that protects and promotes human rights. “To appoint judge Mogoeng Mogoeng as its chief justice makes a mockery of the substantial constitutional advances made by the court. His previous judgments on gender equality and marital rape indicate that he has scant regard for legal protections that most South Africans hold dear.” Olivier added: “It also shows either that President Zuma’s legal counsel have not done their homework in finding these judgments, as it is unlikely that after reading them they would have advised him to recommend Mogoeng’s appointment, or his views on women’s rights and marital rape find resonance within the presidency.” South African media have reported that Mogoeng belongs to the Winners Chapel International church, which preaches that homosexuality is a perversion that can be cured. The City Press newspaper said Mogoeng is a member of the Johannesburg branch and provides “pastoral services”, such as house visits, but does not preach. There has already been a strong backlash against Zuma’s decision to overlook the deputy chief justice Dikgang Moseneke, widely seen as a formidable legal mind. Pierre de Vos, an expert in constitutional law, said: “It is as if president Zuma, acting like a spoilt child who could not get his way with the extension of the term of office of the outgoing chief justice because he relied on a clearly unconstitutional provision to do so, is now trying to get back at critics by indicating a wish to appoint one of the less suitable candidates to that post.” Jacob Zuma South Africa Africa David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Critics say Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng’s views on gender and equality ‘make mockery’ of South Africa’s progressive constitution Civil rights groups in South Africa have condemned Jacob Zuma’s choice for the role of the country’s top judge, arguing that the nominee’s views on gender equality and marital rape “make a mockery” of the country’s constitutional rights. Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng was a surprise pick for the position of chief justice, with many critics arguing that he lacked the experience and qualifications of rival candidates. His apparently socially conservative views have also come under scrutiny because, as the head of South Africa’s constitutional court, he will be responsible for upholding one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. Documents seen by the Guardian detail appeal cases at the superior court over the past decade in which Mogoeng’s judgments are being questioned by gender and legal activists. One was a 2001 appeal by a man named Mathibe who tied a woman to the bumper of his car and “drove that vehicle at a fairly high speed over a distance of about 50 metres”. Mogoeng ruled that the two-year sentence imposed was “too harsh by any standards”. Among his reasons were that the accused had been “provoked” and “the complainant did not sustain serious injuries”. Three years later a Mr Moipolai appealed against his sentence for the rape of his common law wife. She was eight months pregnant, and another person was present during the attack. Court records show Mogoeng upheld the conviction but reduced the 10-year sentence, meaning half was suspended for five years. Marital rape is a crime in South Africa, but Mogoeng felt there were “mitigating factors”. He listed these as: The appellant was a first offender; the appellant and complainant were no strangers to each other (they were lovers) and said: “But for the presence of [another person], the appellant and complainant would probably have had consensual intercourse.” Another case was the 2007 appeal of a man named Modise, who had been jailed for five years for attempted rape. He and his victim were undergoing a divorce and had not shared the same bed for almost a year. One night, Modise went to the marital bedroom and later the complainant went to bed, where the incident took place. Mogoeng was among the judges who suspended the man’s sentence, stating: “The desire to make love to his wife must have overwhelmed him, hence his somewhat violent behaviour. He, however, neither smacked, punched nor kicked her. Minimum force, so to speak, was resorted to in order to subdue the complainant’s resistance.” The judges added: “The case is not comparable to a case where a lady comes across a stranger on the street who suddenly attempts to rape her.” The documents – which also raised concerns over Mogoeng’s attitude to sexual orientation – are likely to intensify pressure on Zuma, who was cleared of a rape charge before his election as president, to rethink the nomination. Louise Olivier, the law programme manager at the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, said: “The South African constitutional court has been regarded by jurists both internationally and on the continent as a model, socially and legally progressive and providing jurisprudence that protects and promotes human rights. “To appoint judge Mogoeng Mogoeng as its chief justice makes a mockery of the substantial constitutional advances made by the court. His previous judgments on gender equality and marital rape indicate that he has scant regard for legal protections that most South Africans hold dear.” Olivier added: “It also shows either that President Zuma’s legal counsel have not done their homework in finding these judgments, as it is unlikely that after reading them they would have advised him to recommend Mogoeng’s appointment, or his views on women’s rights and marital rape find resonance within the presidency.” South African media have reported that Mogoeng belongs to the Winners Chapel International church, which preaches that homosexuality is a perversion that can be cured. The City Press newspaper said Mogoeng is a member of the Johannesburg branch and provides “pastoral services”, such as house visits, but does not preach. There has already been a strong backlash against Zuma’s decision to overlook the deputy chief justice Dikgang Moseneke, widely seen as a formidable legal mind. Pierre de Vos, an expert in constitutional law, said: “It is as if president Zuma, acting like a spoilt child who could not get his way with the extension of the term of office of the outgoing chief justice because he relied on a clearly unconstitutional provision to do so, is now trying to get back at critics by indicating a wish to appoint one of the less suitable candidates to that post.” Jacob Zuma South Africa Africa David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media The mainstream media in Ohio (specifically around Cincinnati) seem to have latched onto the story that ThinkProgress broke by showing the lengths some Congressmen will go to avoid looking bad on YouTube. Well, Steve Chabot just made himself look a whole worse with these sleazy tactics. They seized citizen journalists’ cameras in front of news cameras. Now Chabot is accusing ThinkProgress of having organized the protest to make him look bad. TP has found an unlikely defender in the form of that other TP, the tea party. Chabot didn’t just take flak for his filming crackdown from the left. Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips discussed the matter in an article entitled “America’s dumbest Republican Congressman“ : I don’t know any other way to put this. Chabot is a moron. First, you cannot confiscate the property of a private citizen without a warrant or some other due process. Second, and I will type this slowly just in case Chabot is reading this so he will understand this. PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME. Here is the report and video from WLWT in Cincinnati. Below the fold are the original YouTube videos by ThinkProgress and ProgressOhio which have caused this commotion, and that Chabot will likely regret. (WLWT) NORTH AVONDALE — A meeting between Rep. Steve Chabot and constituents on Monday included confrontations over cameras at the event. Two protesters had their cameras taken from them by a Cincinnati police officer at the event at the North Avondale Recreation Center. When one pulled out a camera phone to shoot a photo, he was escorted to the back of the room. The officer pointed out that a sign had been placed at the door to the meeting stating that cameras weren’t allowed, while the protesters said that it was a public meeting space and they had a right to use cameras. Protesters complained that unlike previous Chabot events, the public was not allowed to speak, but had to submit questions in writing that Chabot would answer. Think Progress Progress Ohio
Continue reading …Click here to view this media The mainstream media in Ohio (specifically around Cincinnati) seem to have latched onto the story that ThinkProgress broke by showing the lengths some Congressmen will go to avoid looking bad on YouTube. Well, Steve Chabot just made himself look a whole worse with these sleazy tactics. They seized citizen journalists’ cameras in front of news cameras. Now Chabot is accusing ThinkProgress of having organized the protest to make him look bad. TP has found an unlikely defender in the form of that other TP, the tea party. Chabot didn’t just take flak for his filming crackdown from the left. Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips discussed the matter in an article entitled “America’s dumbest Republican Congressman“ : I don’t know any other way to put this. Chabot is a moron. First, you cannot confiscate the property of a private citizen without a warrant or some other due process. Second, and I will type this slowly just in case Chabot is reading this so he will understand this. PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME. Here is the report and video from WLWT in Cincinnati. Below the fold are the original YouTube videos by ThinkProgress and ProgressOhio which have caused this commotion, and that Chabot will likely regret. (WLWT) NORTH AVONDALE — A meeting between Rep. Steve Chabot and constituents on Monday included confrontations over cameras at the event. Two protesters had their cameras taken from them by a Cincinnati police officer at the event at the North Avondale Recreation Center. When one pulled out a camera phone to shoot a photo, he was escorted to the back of the room. The officer pointed out that a sign had been placed at the door to the meeting stating that cameras weren’t allowed, while the protesters said that it was a public meeting space and they had a right to use cameras. Protesters complained that unlike previous Chabot events, the public was not allowed to speak, but had to submit questions in writing that Chabot would answer. Think Progress Progress Ohio
Continue reading …