The following list of demands (which lacks only the crucial criminalising of satanism) seems to have first appeared here on December 5th. You’ll have to click on the image to enlarge it if you want to read it in French. We’ve translated it into English (in summary, not word-for-word) below…
Gilets Jaunes’ List of Demands:
Economy/Work
A constitutional cap on taxes – at 25%
Increase of 40% in the basic pension and social welfare
Increase hiring in public sector to re-establish public services
Massive construction projects to house 5 million homeless, and severe penalties for mayors/prefectures that leave people on the streets
Break up the ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks, re-separate regular banking from investment banking
Cancel debts accrued through usurious rates of interest
Politics
Constitutional amendments to protect the people’s interests, including binding referenda
The barring of lobby groups and vested interests from political decision-making
Frexit: Leave the EU to regain our economic, monetary and political sovereignty (In other words, respect the 2005 referendum result, when France voted against the EU Constitution Treaty, which was then renamed the Lisbon Treaty, and the French people ignored)
Clampdown on tax evasion by the ultra-rich
The immediate cessation of privatisation, and the re-nationalisation of public goods like motorways, airports, rail, etc
Remove all ideology from the ministry of education, ending all destructive education techniques
Quadruple the budget for law and order and put time-limits on judicial procedures. Make access to the justice system available for all
Break up media monopolies and end their interference in politics. Make media accessible to citizens and guarantee a plurality of opinions. End editorial propaganda
Guarantee citizens’ liberty by including in the constitution a complete prohibition on state interference in their decisions concerning education, health and family matters
Health/Environment
No more ‘planned obsolescence’ – Mandate guarantee from producers that their products will last 10 years, and that spare parts will be available during that period
Ban plastic bottles and other polluting packaging
Weaken the influence of big pharma on health in general and hospitals in particular
Ban on GMO crops, carcinogenic pesticides, endocrine disruptors and monocrops
Reindustrialise France (thereby reducing imports and thus pollution)
Foreign Affairs
End France’s participation in foreign wars of aggression, and exit from NATO
Cease pillaging and interfering – politically and militarily – in ‘Francafrique’, which keeps Africa poor. Immediately repatriate all French soldiers. Establish relations with African states on an equal peer-to-peer basis
Prevent migratory flows that cannot be accommodated or integrated, given the profound civilizational crisis we are experiencing
Scrupulously respect international law and the treaties we have signed
We are calling for action on the23rd March. (To tie in with the closure of the Legislative Scrutiny consultation led by the Joint Committee of Human Rights of the UK Parliament on the Police Powers and Protections Bill.)
We want to show solidarity with Travellers who are targeted by this bill that will criminalise trespass with intention to reside. We also stand in defiance with other groups under threat including; squatters, rough sleepers, protesters, hunt saboteurs, van dwellers, ravers, boaters
We demand the right to roam and reside. Our land rights have for too long been eroded by a handful of elites who concentrate land ownership. This bill is a direct threat to our ways of life by criminalising our already limited access to the countryside. The government must drop this bill immediately.
LETS TAKE BACK WHAT IS OURS,
RECLAIM THE LAND & RESIST ANTI-TRESPASS LAWS! Join us for a day of decentralised action against anti-trespass measures to raise awareness and fight this pivotal issue.
TEARING UP THE POST WAR SETTLEMENT – THE 1948 UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS – Police State UK Criminalising Protest & Homelessness: MPs Are Bringing In Priti Patel’s Police Crime Sentencing & Courts Bill
Clause 55 will let police impose start and finish times and maximum noise levels on a wider range of protests in England and Wales.
Officers will be able to do this if they believe the noise may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation nearby.
The power is not limited in the law to noise levels or start times – a police officer can take such conditions as appear necessary to that officer to prevent disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation.
The Home Office argue this is simply widening powers that already exist for moving marches to cover static protests as well. But civil liberties groups say noise and disruption are a key part of making your voice heard.
It will be up to the Home Secretary – currently Priti Patel – to decide the definition of serious disruption.
Serious annoyance will carry up to 10 years jail
Clause 59 will axe the common law definition of public nuisance and replace it with a clear set of words agreed by Parliament.
It will make it a crime to intentionally or recklessly cause public nuisance without a reasonable excuse.
Offenders will get up to a years jail from magistrates or 10 years from a crown court judge if found guilty, in the worst cases.
The government insists this is simply taking the current definition of public nuisance and putting it on a proper footing. This will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden, the Home Office said.
But there is not a clear list of reasonable excuses – the government just say defendants will have to prove that excuse existed in court, on the balance of probabilities.
And two words in this clause have attracted a lot of interest.
Someone will fall foul of the law if they have caused a person serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity. How will serious annoyance be interpreted by police?
Most loudhailers will be banned outside Parliament
Clause 57 will hugely expand the controlled area outside Parliament, where tents and unauthorised loudspeakers or megaphones are banned.
Currently the area only covers the garden and footpaths in the middle of Parliament Square, with other roads around it not under any special anti-protest law.
But the Bill will expand this controlled area to several roads around Parliament after a number of demos stopped traffic. These roads are Canon Row, Parliament Street, Derby Gate, Parliament Square and part of Victoria Embankment.
Those who disobey can be fined up to 5,000.
A similar move was recommended by Parliaments Joint Committee on Human Rights, which warned access to parliament must not be obstructed after a wave of threats against MPs.
However, opposition has united critics from Richard Tice, leader of Nigel Farages anti-lockdown Reform UK party, to Tom Brufatto, former lead organiser of the Peoples Vote marches against Brexit.
In an open letter today they say: As long as laws are made in Parliament, then British people must have a legal right to protest them in Parliament Square. Democracy is not an ‘inconvenience’. Public opposition and dissent are among the hard-won rights that make our democratic and like-minded groups.
One-person protests face a crackdown
One-man anti-Brexit protester Steve Bray (Image: Jeff Mitchell)
Clause 60 has already been dubbed the Steve Bray law, after the man who spent years shouting Stop Brexit! at Parliament.
It will give senior police the power to impose any conditions they see fit on a one-person protest to avoid disruption or impact.
This can only be done if they believe the noise that person is making may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest.
But once again, Home Secretary Priti Patel will be able to define this serious disruption.
One-man-bands who knowingly refuse to comply with police orders can be fined up to 2,500. Someone who incites the one-person protest not to comply could be jailed for up to 51 weeks.
Ardent Remainer AC Grayling tweeted: It’s a great honour to Steve Bray, and an unmistakable sign of the weakness, pettiness, illiberality and unintelligence of this Brexiter ‘government’, that it seeks to pass a Bill that singles him out.
He has humiliated and stung them and they want to shut him up; he should be knighted.
Is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill fit for purpose?
YesNo
Defacing a statue will carry up to 10 years jail
Clause 46 will raise the maximum penalty for criminal damage to a memorial or statue from three months to 10 years.
Currently judges and magistrates have to base their sentence on the monetary value of the damage. In future they will be able to look at the emotional and symbolic value of the damaged statue too, said minister Kit Malthouse.
The Tories are doing this in a culture war after statues including Winston Churchills were attacked or damaged with graffiti.
No10 insisted the focus would be on vile things like anti-Semitic graffiti or attacks on gravestones, war memorials, memorials to people whove been murdered.
But thats not quite how it was trailed in right-wing newspapers. The issue has prompted anger from Labour, who say the move is a distraction and will in theory mean longer sentences for attacking statues than some attacks on women.
People in protest camps can be jailed for three months
Clause 60 will create a new offence of residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle.
This could affect protest camps like Extinction Rebellion, as the law will apply even if their residing is only temporary, and will apply equally to common land and private land.
Protesters can be ordered to leave by police if they are deemed to be causing significant disruption, or even if they havent caused disruption yet but it is deemed likely in future.
If they refuse, they can be fined up to 2,500 or jailed for up to three months.
Police will also be given more powers to remove unauthorised encampments on roads.
A petition signed by more than 130,000 people warned criminalising trespass would be an extreme, illiberal and unnecessary attack on ancient freedoms, adding: For a thousand years, trespass has been a civil offence.
Critics say the law threatens not only protests, but also wild camping, ramblers, new rights of way and Traveller communities.
What else is in the Bill?
The plans include new laws to reform sentencing, the courts and the management of offenders, as well as more powers and protections for the police, some of which will be UK-wide while others may only apply in England and Wales.
All these could in theory still be approved by MPs later, while removing the bits on protest, if the Bill passes second reading.
Whole Life Orders for premeditated murder of a child
Maximum sentence to 18 to 20-year-olds in exceptional cases, like for acts of terrorism leading to mass loss of life.
Powers to halt the automatic early release of offenders who pose a danger to the public
Ending the automatic release halfway through a sentence of serious violent and sexual offenders.
Life sentences for killer drivers.
Expanding position of trust laws to make it illegal for sports coaches and religious leaders to engage in sexual activity with 16 and 17-year-olds in their care.
Officers could also be allowed to stop and search people more if plans for serious violence reduction orders go ahead.
Legal duty on councils, police, criminal justice bodies, health and fire services to tackle serious violence and share intelligence.
Deaf people could sit on juries for the first time.
What does it do for women whove suffered violence?
There are some limited clauses, such as ending early release for serious sexual offenders. But Labour have complained the Bill does not do enough to help women.
Shadow domestic violence minister Jess Phillips said: The Bill is full of divisive nonsense like locking up those who damage statues for longer than those who attack women. Now is a moment to change the criminal justice system so it works for women, not to try and divide the country.
Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy said: In the 20 schedules, 176 clauses and 296 pages of the Conservatives’ Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, “women” are not mentioned even once.
Police minister Kit Malthouse insisted the government had taken steps to protect women.
He said: The domestic abuse bill, which is an extensive bill that will significantly enhance our ability to confront domestic violence and abuse is just finishing its passage through the House and contains enormous provisions to help us with that fight.
The Domestic Abuse Bill is currently in its report stage in the House of Lords – one of the later steps towards it becoming law.
But it has taken three years to get this far – having been delayed in coming to a vote by two successive General Elections.
What is Labours position?
Labour will vote against the entire Bill at second reading. If that succeeded (it wont) it would kill off the entire Bill at the first hurdle.
Realistically, its likely Labour will then try to amend the most controversial bits of the Bill while supporting other bits of it.
The party says it supports several measures contained within the bill, including proposals on dangerous driving, increased sentences for terrorists and other dangerous offenders, a police covenant, reform to criminal records and closing the loophole to criminalise sexual abuse by people in positions of trust.
The Tories claimed Labour was voting against tougher sentences for child murderers, sex offenders, killer drivers. While Labour is voting against the Bill at its first hurdle, this characterisation is misleading to the point of being untrue.
Shadow Domestic Violence Minister Jess Phillips responded: This is a disgusting and untrue statement. The Conservative Governments Bill does absolutely nothing currently to increase sentences for rapists, stalkers, or those who batter, control and abuse women. It does nothing about street harassment and assaults.
IN THIS exclusive excerpt from his new book Why We Are Coming, author Yasin Kakandean international journalist, migrant activist and TED Fellowlays bare the shocking truth about the Western exploitation of Africa that is the root cause of Africans choosing to leave their homelands for the UK, US and other developed nations.
Across Africa many Western investors, including Wall Street bankers and wealthy individuals, are rushing in to acquire agricultural land and are displacing hundreds of thousands of Africans. This shift places the food system in Africa in the hands of a few Western corporations whose interests are, first and foremost, economic gain.
The list of these recent acquisitions is long and still many of these shady deals are going unreported. Here are a few reported cases which are as graphic; The American investor Philippe Heilberg signed a farmland deal with Paulino Matip, a Sudanese warlord, to lease 400,000 hectares of land (an area the size of Dubai ) in South Sudan in July 2008. South Korean conglomorate Daewoo announced it was leasing 1.3 million hectares (3.2 million acres) of Madagascar for 99 years for about $12 an acre in 2008. In Southern Uganda about the 14,000 villagers who were evicted from their land when the Ugandan government leased 8,000 hectares of land to a Norwegian timber company (Green Resources) in the forest area of Bukaleba. Britishs Tullow acquired 102,500 hectares in Lake Albert Rift basin to explore oil.
The west’s acquisition of continental land is a threat to African economies and livelihoods
In 2017, the Ugandan government tabled a land bill amendment proposal on compulsory acquisition of land for public use, and that it may deposit in court a befitting sum for the land it wants to acquire from the owner. President Yoweri Museveni, a western corporate puppet went on broadcast outlets to explain to the citizens that the amendments are framed for the countrys better interests, and that the government taking over land from owners they deem not suitable for agriculture and giving it to investors ultimately will bring in more revenue to Uganda. Designating some parcels as public land has been the easiest way African leaders have facilitated the land grab in their countries and then they would hand over that land to foreign investors with not so much of a fair compensation to the previous African land owners.
The African leaders who are handing over fertile African land with easy access to water to Western corporations are doing the same thing that colonialists did in earlier times when they designated millions of acres as public land. In Kenya after the highlands were declared crown land the British colonialists handed over to Lord Delamere 100,000 acres at a cost of a penny per acre. Lord Francis Scott purchased 350,000 acres and the East African Syndicate Ltd. took 100,000 acres, all at give-away prices. In Liberia in 1926, the Firestone Rubber Company acquired a million acres of forest land at a cost of six cents per acre. And in The Congo King Leopold II issued decrees that designated all free parcels as government land in effect as his own property, sole proprietorship. He amassed all parcels that natives had not cultivated but instead set aside as hunting grounds or as a plentiful source of wood for building, or for mining iron ore to be used in tools and weapons. The 21st century has seen that practice continue, albeit in a different form.
The future is much darker than what even analysts have predicted
Even though it is important to invest in the African agricultural sector, the Wests acquisition of continental land is a threat to African economies and livelihoods. Evidence shows that these land deals often lack transparency and are frequently mismanaged by governments. Smallholder farmers who are the majority in Africa are being displaced in the process. These farmers are starting to realize what the foreign investors are doing to their livelihoods, and with nothing much to do many are resorting to migration to these countries.
In Africa the European and American foreigners own the land, mines, banks, factories, fuel stations, airlines, and all the wealth coming from these sources are shipped or transferred to the West and what is left in Africa for Africans? What do the citizens of African countries have in their countries to keep them home not to emigrate nothing or too little to sustain their families even on the most modest expectations. This is worsened by the fact that even prospective means like employment that would give them the opportunity to own their titles and deeds to land are nonexistent. At least they can see prospects of employment even in menial jobs in the West or in Middle East countries, much less than the potential to collaborate and start their own enterprises.
African resources are fast becoming depleted and its population is growing at a faster corresponding pace. By 2050, it is predicted the population in most African countries will have doubled and the continent will have almost depleted all of its resources. The future is much darker than what even analysts have predicted and, for sure, more African migrants will continue trying to get to Europe or the U.S. where their resources have built stable economies. Europe and America are already definitely concerned about these demographics and more worried because even family planning strategies that have been promoted in the continent for a long time have not had any yields. Europe and the U.S. stand alone to address honestly the exploitation of Africa and demand from their corporations honest and decent trade practices with the continent.
Why We Are Coming by Yasin Kakande is out now, priced 15.43 in paperback and 4.64 as an eBook (4.64). Visit Amazon. For more information, visit www.yasinkakande.com
Whilst marking its 125th anniversary and praising the National Trust as a fantastic institution and part of Britain’s global offer
Derek Thomas, MP for St Ives (West Cornwall & Scilly) used a debate he led in the House of Commons last night to say there is rot in the National Trust and is calling for a review into whether the charity is behaving in accordance with its core guiding principles.
Mr Thomas provided increasing evidence that the National Trust was reaching far beyond what people believe is their purpose and function.
It is acting as a completely unaccountable body that can imposition lives and livelihoods without any right to reply or recourse, taking no concern for how long it takes to engage even when individuals and businesses are seeking to proactively engage and appease NT staff, he said.
The MP said complaints received from his constituents include:
The NT proposing landowners carry out activity (including erecting buildings) on land neither the trust nor the owner owns
House sales either falling though or prices dramatically reduced due to obstructive interventions and/or delays by the NT
Constituents waiting two and a half years for the NT to finalise a covenant
Businesses being charged a levy in return for NT consent to developments on privately-owned land
Appearing to favour the promotion of holiday accommodation over the maintenance of small but important farms along the Cornish coast.
Blocking efforts to install renewable energy solar panels on privately-owned agriculture buildings.
Having a disregard for local sensitivities, listed building regulations and basic planning processes.
Refusing to take responsibility for assets which are unsafe for the general public.
Having already written to the Charity Commission requesting they look into NT practices, Mr Thomas said consideration should be given to creating an Ombudsman for people who believe they are being treated wrongfully or poorly by the NT so that they have a method to be heard and for the NT to be held to account, in particular on the way they interpret their covenants, in some cases preventing farmers from carrying with normal farming practices such as removing stones from fields.
Mr Thomas told the House Only this weekend, I was asked, Please could you ask the National Trust if it is still their policy to support small family farms? Or given their current financial crisis will they opt for the short term financial gain of holiday accommodation over the long term benefit of local employment and better husbandry of the land?
Farmers, business owners and home-owners tell me they need an Ombudsman because the cost of litigating to defend themselves is far too high so they buckle under the pressure, he added.
I have a positive history with the National Trust I have tremendous respect for their volunteers who do good work in West Cornwall, I enjoy a good relationship with many of the staff.
I dont believe the Trust is rotten to the core but there is certainly rot within the organisation. 125 years on there is a need to review how it operates to ensure that it delivers on its primary purpose and charitable aims.
Mr Thomas used further examples from Cape Cornwall Golf Club, Levant Mine and Porthleven slipway as difficulties he had encountered with the trust. He said During my brief time as a MP, I have found that the case load of National Trust-related issues is disproportionate to the many other issues that an MPs office encounters.
Defending the timing of his debate, Mr Thomas went on to say This is about identifying some of the concerns that constituents have, in order to address them, so that we can return to the core values and be reminded of the fantastic work that the National Trust can deliver through a huge army of fantastic volunteers across the United Kingdom. However, it is of great concern if the National Trusts approach to increasing yield is to make as much money as it can, rather than protect and enhance small farms and support the fresh blood introduced into the sector.
The Government has announced new laws that will make trespass with vehicles a criminal offence – in a move that has caused fury among Gypsy and Traveller campaigners.
The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, said yesterday, that the new laws will target trespassers “who intend to reside on any private or public land in vehicles without permission, and where they are causing significant disruption, distress or harm to local communities.”
“This new offence will enable the police to fine or arrest those residing without permission on private or public land in vehicles in order to stop significant disruption, distress or harm being caused to the law-abiding majority,” she added.
The new law also gives the police the powers to seize and impound vehicles whose owners fail to comply with the new law and who refuse – or can’t – leave.
Gypsy and Traveller campaigners reacted with fury saying that the new laws were racist.
“You are criminalising a problem that has been created by the failings of a political will to deliver appropriate accommodation,” said Joseph P Jones from the Gypsy Council, in a Facebook comment left on Priti Patel’s Facebook page.
Joseph P Jones also pointed out that to get planning permission to develop their own permanent legal Traveller site, Gypsies and Travellers have to obtain ‘gypsy status’, the only requirement of which is to prove that they are – and will – continue to travel.
“Travellers are told they have to prove they travel to gain planning permission for their own private sites,” he added.
The Government say that the new offence of criminal trespass will target:
A person aged 18 or over resides or intends to reside on land without consent of the occupier of the land;
They have, or intend to have, at least one vehicle with them on the land;
They have caused or are likely to cause significant damage, disruption or distress;
They, without reasonable excuse:
Fail to leave the land and remove their property following a request to do so by an occupier of the land, their representative or a constable; or
Enter or, having left, re-enter the land with an intention of residing there without the consent of the occupier of the land, and with an intention to have at least one vehicle with them, within 12 months of a request to leave and remove their property from an occupier of the land, their representative or a constable.
Reasonable suspicion that a person has committed this offence confers power on a constable to seize their vehicle/other property [home] for up to three months from the date of seizure or, if criminal proceedings are commenced, until the conclusion of those proceedings.
The new law will affect England and Wales – but not Scotland.
A horse drawn wagon will count as a vehicle. Horse drawn ‘new’ Travellers are worried that their way of life will be destroyed as well. Picture from No Fixed Abode Traveller group
Responding to the news, Abbie Kirkby, Public Affairs and Policy Manager at Friends, Families and Travellers said:
“The Government seems hell bent on introducing tougher police powers for people living on roadside camps, even though all the evidence is stacking up against them – in their own consultation it is clear that most respondents don’t want tougher powers. The views of the majority of consultation respondents have been ignored, opening the door to a harsh and unfair set of proposals which punish some of the UK’s minority ethnic groups, who already face some of the starkest inequalities.
Our research shows that the majority of police respondents are against the proposals and also that there is a chronic national shortage of places to stop. The Government should not imprison people, fine them and remove their homes for the ‘crime’ of having nowhere to go. Another way is possible. Through negotiated stopping and by identifying land where Traveller sites can be built, councils can ensure nomadic families have a safe place to stop, save money on evictions and improve relations between travelling and settled communities. Everybody needs a place to live.”
Responding to the proposals, Jenny, a Romany Gypsy, said:
“My daughter is trying to get a pitch, but loads of families trying, she’s feeling depressed. Her and her partner don’t know where they’re going to go. It’s not right to criminalise us all. We don’t leave any rubbish, we respect the other residents, we clean up after ourselves, but we’re going to be stopped from travelling. There aren’t enough sites for Travellers. We’re being treated like animals. They’re always building more houses but no more sites. She can’t get a site, she can’t stop on the road. She’s tearful, she’s crying a lot. She just wants to settle down and make a life for herself like anyone else.”
The Government promised to bring in the new law in their manifesto for the last election. An image put up on her Facebook page yesterday by Home Secretary Priti Patel
The laws are pretty much what campaigners were fearing and what was promised in the Conservative manifesto at the last election – the criminalisation of trespass with vehicles.
By focusing on vehicles the Government has side-stepped opposition from ramblers and homeless charities. However that makes the new laws easier to challenge under equalities laws as Romany Gypsies and Irish and Scottish Travellers are protected ethnic groups. We understand that lawyers are already geared up to challenge the new laws.
The surprise is that the number of vehicles needed to trigger the new laws has dropped from the promised two to one. This then brings lots of the new single vehicle ‘van-lifers’ parking up on private or public land within the scope of the new law.
On the face of it, the new laws are only triggered if the senior police officer attending the camp believes that the camp “has caused or are likely to cause significant damage, disruption or distress.”
However, “likely to cause” is open to wide interpretations and the powers, and the resulting seizure of vehicles if the camp refuses to disband, will be reliant on the whims and prejudices of the police officers present – and some police officers are more racist than others…
A presentation/discussion by Russell Brand on the subject of the extent of the global asset ownership of Bill Gates – the 4th richest man in the world – in relation to the Global Food System. Brand gets his information from an article by Robert F Kennedy, Jr ‘Bill Gates & Neofeudalism: A closer look at Farmer Bill’. The extent of the global asset ownership of Bill Gates and the extent of power Gates now wields across numerous interconnected facets of what comprises the global food system is staggering. For instance, Gates owns 242,000 acres of farmland across the USA, holds in his grasp increasing concentrations of asset ownership across interconnecting sectors that comprise the structural make-up of the global food system such as large commanding shares in several of the largest food multinationals (Nestle, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Kelloggs, Kraft, General Foods) and chemical (& seed) companies such as Bayer and Monsanto plus investments in seeds companies including seed patents and GMO crops. His asset ownership and influence extends to further interconnecting interests such as aid-projects sponsored by the Gates Foundation – influencing development policies in the South, investments in AI technologies through front-companies such as Digital Green promoting new Green Revolution schemes (propagating the continuation of the predominant convention grounded in intensive agricultural practice, long exposed to cogent critique by the inadequacy of it’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ methodology) utilising cell-phone technologies, and commanding influence within media outlets such as those in big-tech (commanding stakes in Google, Facebook, Apple & Amazon).
Brand tries to unravel the subject, identifying actual consequences of some of the work Gates has been doing (such as poverty increases in Africa after the pursuance of Gates-funded aid-projects to boost agricultural productivity) and stopping just-short of speculating on Gates’ overall agenda. Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdv06jXloD4
