Armed Canadian Coast Guard Storms Conservation VesselIndymedia UK - 13 Apr 2008The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessel Farley Mowat was attacked by armed officers from the Canadian Coast Guard on 12th April. The 1st officer and the captain of the ship have been arrested and will be brought before a court in Canada charged with offences related to coming too close to the seal hunt. One woman allegedly sustained a head injury when was roughed up and received a blow to the head by an officer. The ship has been impounded and is currently being towed to a nearby port.The Sea Shepherd has been documenting the Canadian seal hunt since the middle of March. On the 30th March, the Coast Guard rammed the Sea Shepherd ship twice, in an attempt to keep it away from the seal hunt. On 5th April, the ship was attacked by a mob of 30-40 angry seal hunters while anchored in the French island of St. Pierre. The crew of the Farley Mowat has been documenting violations of the humane regulations and gathering proof that seals are still being killed in an inhumane manner. The EU Parliament will be voting on an import ban on seal products later this year. The Canadian goverment has been actively lobbying to show that the hunt has become ‘humane and sustainable’.On the newswire: Armed Canadian Coast Guard Storms Sea Shepherd Ship and Arrests Crew | Canada To Charge Sea Shepherd Crew For Documenting Seal Hunt | Sea Shepherd Crew Attacked By Mob Of Seal Hunters | Interview With Captain Onboard Sea Shepherd Ship On Current Seal Hunt | Canadian Coast Guard Rams Sea Shepherd Ship (twice) | Sea Shepherd Moves In On Canadian Seal SlaughterPrevious features: Nottingham Activist Returns From Whale Saving Mission In Antartica | Injured Among Sea Shepherd Crew As Japanese Military Open Fire | Activists Held Hostage By Japanese Whalers In Southern OceanLinks: Sea Shepherd Conservation Society | Canadian Seal Hunt | Harpseals.org | Wikipedia on Seal Hunt
Iran’s Struggle for a More Equitable World OrderCampaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 13 Apr 2008Summary: Rostam PourzalIran does not deserve the hostility of, and is no threat to, the United States. In fact, the West’s current obsession with Iran is fueled by little more than Iran’s rejection of double standards in international relations. Accusations that Iran will develop nuclear weapons come most forcefully from sources that lied about Iraq. Even the US intelligence agencies’ claim that Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons project until 2003 fails for lack of evidence. source: CASMIIread more
Corporate Manslaughter Laws Come Into ForceUKWatch.net - 13 Apr 2008The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 finally came into force this week. Following years of campaigning, the implementation of the legislation will make it easier to prosecute companies for deaths that they have been accused of causing.
.
When considering the criminal liability of a corporation it is necessary to establish the mens rea (mental element) to make it possible to prosecute for any wrongdoing. The attribution of mens rea to a corporation for manslaughter has for a long time been difficult to prove. The concept of culpability could be viewed as being solely a human attribute, and impossible to ascribe to an obviously ?artificial? company that would, in theory, be unable to manifest such action. The absence of an identified person has been the main dilemma in pinpointing the blame for corporate wrongdoing. An individual within the company hierarchy would need to be acknowledged as being responsible for the incident, for example a manager or other controlling officer. The problem in recognising such a person is particularly challenging with respect to the chain of command of a large corporation. Within such a company the safety policy can become unclear due to the business having a scattered structure, and it may become impossible to identify a specific individual who embodies the directing mind of the company and possesses the necessary mens rea for the crime. The new law means that the joint actions of an organisation?s management team can now be considered when attempting to find blame. The company as a whole, or a group of senior managers can now be found to hold culpability for the offence. Although a person cannot be imprisoned under the legislation, an unlimited fine can be imposed on the company. It is hoped that any fine obligated will be of a considerable amount in comparison to the corporation?s annual turnover ? possibly up to 10% of their annual turnover. The fine will be enforced alongside a publicity order that will require the company to publicise particular details of their offence and their subsequent conviction. Adrian Bever, a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard told The Times newspaper that the new measures were the ?most significant change in health and safety law for 30 years?. Tom Sheffield, technical director at risk management firm Aeon told the press: ?MPs such as David Blunkett have argued that numerous public disasters and workplace accidents caused by companies? gross failings have gone without punishment because the government has not previously had good tools to prosecute effectively. This inability to convict has been the largest driving force behind the new Act. Armed with this new law, prosecutors could be eager to put these weapons to the test. As such, this really serves as a wake-up call to business to update their health and safety controls for the well-being of their employees and the public.? Disturbingly, according to the British Safety Council many businesses remain ignorant of the new law. Leaving them open to serious charges, awareness of the act is as low as 53% in some regions. In their research, employment law firm Peninsula found evidence to suggest that as much as 79% of businesses have not taken any steps to prepare for the new law. Workplace deaths are not as uncommon as some may perceive. Between 2006 and 2007 there were 241 employee deaths. Ninety members of the public also lost their lives due to accidents that had occurred in workplaces. Under the new law, breach of the company?s responsibility to protect the health and safety of its employees and the public will occur if there has been a failure in: -Ensuring all staff have adequate health and safety training
-Making sure all lifts are properly maintained and adequate fire precautions have been taken
-Checking all equipment is in a safe condition It is hoped that the act will, through practice, become easier to work with than its predecessor. The earlier law had, on occasion, been over-interpreted by the courts and in turn caused additional nuisances. Following the years of injustice in cases throughout the years (the most high-profile being the Zeebrugge disaster), it is anticipated that the new law will bring about a higher level of health and safety in the workplace, and deter companies from neglecting their responsibilities.
Extra Zero: An Exchange With The Independent?s John RentoulUKWatch.net - 13 Apr 2008In the wake of the July 7, 2005 London bombings, the Independent?s John Rentoul commented: ?A Muslim friend of mine in the East End of London says that the sense of victimisation and injustice goes so deep among his fellow religionists that he sometimes despairs. ‘This all goes back to the burning of The Satanic Verses,’ he says. It was in 1988 that we should have realised that we were up against a culture – he doesn’t like the term ‘Muslim community’ – that tended to irrationalism and self-pity. Salman Rushdie did not create that culture, but he provided a focus for it and fed its sense of grievance. ?The Iraq issue serves much the same purpose today.? (Rentoul, ‘Islam, blood and grievance,’ The Independent, July 24, 2005) According to Rentoul, then, the invasion of Iraq and the mass slaughter that followed was feeding irrational self-pity in Muslims. He added: ?The worst succour that the anti-war left in Britain can give to the terrorists, however, is to entertain the idea that there is a moral equivalence between the deliberate killing of civilians and the casualties of military action in Iraq. Of course, people who think the war was unjustified feel passionately about civilian deaths. But let us get two things straight. First, even Iraq Body Count, an anti-war campaign, puts the total attributable to coalition forces at under 10,000, rather than the figure with an extra zero that is the common misconception of anti-war propaganda. And second, the purpose of the invasion of Iraq, whatever you think of George Bush’s motives, was not to kill civilians.? Noam Chomsky commented on the recurring theme of ?moral equivalence? in a rare BBC interview: “The term moral equivalence is an interesting one. It was invented, I think, by Jeane Kirkpatrick [former US ambassador to the United Nations] as a method of trying to prevent criticism of foreign policy and state decisions. It is a meaningless notion, there is no moral equivalence whatsoever.” (BBC Newsnight interview with Chomsky, May 21, 2004; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3732345.stm) Rentoul?s ?extra zero that is the common misconception of anti-war propaganda? had of course been provided by the 2004 Lancet study of mortality in Iraq, which estimated that 100,000 more Iraqis had died since the March 2003 invasion than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. We were to believe that the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School, Columbia University, Baghdad’s Al-Mustansiriya University, and The Lancet (and its peer-reviewers) – the organisations behind the 2004 study – were all anti-war propagandists. It is easy to understand why Rentoul would be so perturbed, now, by the suggestion that an additional ?extra zero? should be added to the 100,000 figure – because it is now likely that one million Iraqis have died as a result of the war. On April 4, we wrote to Rentoul in response to his piece, ?Truth and myth on the death toll in Iraq.? (Independent blog, April 2; http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/04/truth-and-myth.html) Hi John Hope you’re well. You wrote on April 2: “It is surprising, to put it gently, that the question of whether or not the 1 million figure is right arouses such little interest.” You added: “If a million people have died in violence in Iraq since the invasion, you might have thought this shocking enough for The Independent, or any other national newspaper, to report it when the survey was published in January. But there was nothing in the British press at all.” In fact it’s not at all surprising. Typically, very little attention is paid in the Western media to the victims of Western violence. A study by the University of Maryland last year found that most Americans believed that less than 10,000 Iraqis had died because of the invasion. That’s a reflection of media indifference. After all, a poll last year found that about half the American public were able to correctly identify the number of US soldiers killed. And how many people know that senior UN diplomats described US-UK sanctions on Iraq from 1990-2003 as “genocidal”? In 2006, Hans von Sponeck, the former UN humanitarian coordinator in Baghdad who ran the oil-for-food programme, wrote a book called A Different Kind Of War – The UN Sanctions Regime In Iraq (Bergahn Books, 2006). The book describes in meticulous detail the complete US-UK indifference to the mass death caused by sanctions. The book has never been reviewed in the UK press. Again, that’s very standard. You wrote “One group that is certainly not interested is the absolutist opponents of the invasion, whose representatives will no doubt soon appear in the Comments below. For them, 1 million is a fact ? indeed, it is an under-estimate ? regardless of the evidence. Just as the invasion was a ‘crime’ based on ‘lies’, so the minimum death toll is the highest number that any remotely authoritative source has ever come up with. For some time that was The Lancet?s 655,000, and never mind that 54,000 of that was heart attacks, strokes and other illnesses, or that the survey methods had been challenged.” Most legal experts are clear on the criminality of the invasion, and you’d have to have been living on Mars not to have noticed the lies. But who has asserted the 1 million figure as “a fact”? Certainly we at Media Lens haven’t. We have simply reported the most credible scientific advice on the most credible numbers. And as you know, science is not about offering certainty – it’s about offering the most reasonable view in light of the currently available facts. Your link to the ‘challenge’ is to ?Data Bomb,? by Neil Munro and Carl Cannon (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm). It’s inappropriate to suggest that serious, peer-reviewed science by some of the world’s leading epidemiologists and published in the world’s premier science journal, has been “challenged” by a couple of hacks writing in a right-wing American magazine. The most serious charge involved Professor John Tirman, Executive Director and Principal Research Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for International Studies (MIT). Munro and Cannon wrote: ?Tirman commissioned the Lancet II survey with $46,000 from George Soros’s Open Society Institute and additional support from other funders.? (Munro and Cannon, ?Data Bomb,? National Journal, January 4, 2008; http://news.nationaljournal.com/ articles/databomb/index.htm) Tirman told us: “Open Society Institute funded a public education effort to promote discussion of the mortality issue. The grant was approved more than six months after I commissioned the survey, and the researchers never knew the sources of funds. As a result, OSI, much less George Soros himself, had absolutely no influence over the conduct or outcome of the survey. This was told to the authors of the National Journal article at least twice. One must conclude that their misrepresentation of this—among many other issues—-was intended to sensationalize their version of the story and color the readers’ opinion about ‘political bias.’ This is contemptible malpractice on their part. It is also a grotesque injustice to Mr. Soros, whose philanthropy has braced and enlivened whole regions of the world.” (Email to Media Lens, January 15, 2008) Tirman commented elsewhere: “I told this to Munro on the telephone and in an email. He nonetheless implied that Soros money had funded the survey from the start, possibly at Soros’ behest. That is a disgraceful lie, and Munro knows it.? (?John Tirman on Munro and Soros,? January 11, 2008; http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/01/john_tirman_on_munro_and_soros.p…) You can see Tirman’s demolition of ‘Data Bomb’ (a truly awful article) here: http://www.johntirman.com/Bombs%20Away%20-%20a%20dull%20hatchet%20job.pd… We offered an analysis here: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080122_all_smoke_no.php By the way, I wouldn’t make too much of the fact that Les Roberts and co are “anti-war”. Most sane people are “anti-war”. Many scientists are also anti-malaria and anti-famine – it doesn’t stop them doing good science. Best wishes David Edwards Rentoul replied the same day: Mr Edwards
Grateful for the confirmation that you are not interested in the methodological basis of the Opinion Business Research survey either.
Yours
John Rentoul We also responded on the same day: Hi John Thanks, that’s also an important subject. The Lancet authors seem to find corroboration in the ORB results. See here: http://www.medialens.org/downloads/pdfs/les_roberts_germany_briefing.pdf My understanding is that ORB is a respected polling organisation used by the BBC and so on (of course we can argue about how respectable the BBC is). I think we “generalists” need to be very careful before pronouncing on issues of epidemiological methodology – we have a habit of ending up in ditches in the way of Munro and Cannon. Curious that you would focus on finding confirmation of what I think on something I didn’t discuss in a fairly long email about what I do think on a variety of important issues. I recommend you have a careful read of Tirman’s demolition of ‘Data Bomb’. Settle in with some tea and biscuits and really give it some thought – it might change your view on this issue. It’s vital that we examine the suffering we’ve brought to the Iraqi people as honestly and carefully as we can – it’s that suffering that really matters. Best wishes David We have received no further response from Rentoul. John Tirman had previously posted a comment on Rentoul?s blog on April 2: ?Rendel [sic – Rentoul] misses a point all journalists do: the five surveys of mortality in Iraq show significant congruence. The Iraq Ministry of Health survey he cites (as a WHO survey) did estimate 151,000 violent deaths, but their data also shows more than 400,000 ?excess? deaths overall. Many experts see in the data tables evidence of ambiguous categories where those fearful of the Sadrist MoH interviewers would attribute deaths to ?non-violent? causes. In any case, the 400,000+ as of June 2006 would translate into 600-700,000 today. The MoH also could not survey 11 of its sample, because those places were too dangerous. It demonstrates not inconsistencies between the surveys, but, more important, just how difficult it is to do such surveys in Iraq, precisely because it is so violent. “As for plausibility of the high mortality figures, consider this: five murders per day in the 80 ?urban centers? of Iraq (pop.>20k) would equal 730,000. The high deaths also track with what we know from many other conflicts regarding the ratio of displaced to death—-that ratio is rarely more than 6-1, and there are 4.5 million Iraqis displaced from their homes. See analysis at http://mit.edu/humancostiraq “
Public Transport: How to Get Back on TrackUKWatch.net - 13 Apr 2008The market has failed. The Tory privatisation of the railways has been a disaster. The Hatfield derailment exposed the failure of Railtrack and the fundamental flaw in the “separate the wheel from steel” strategy – in which railway operations are split from infrastructure. More rail disasters, from Ladbroke Grove to Potters Bar, further illustrated that public services left to the dictates of the market cost lives. In July 1999 even the Economist magazine had to admit that “the Tories preferred to see the railways privatised badly than not at all. And that was what they got.” This was an important admission, but it merely shifted the debate from why privatisation doesn’t work to the problem of its implementation. Thus, despite party manifesto pledges, New Labour continued with the privatisation agenda until, under intensified public pressure, then transport minister Stephen Byers was forced on 5 October 2001 to bring Railtrack into administration under a “not for profit company”, Network Rail. Nevertheless, New Labour pressed full steam ahead, not only continuing Tory policies but actually extending the privatisation agenda. It was Gordon Brown who forced through the Public Private Partnership (PPP) on London Underground. This time “separating wheel from steel” has already witnessed five derailments, two in one weekend. The East London Line extension, due to be finished in 2010, will be run by a complex hybrid of eight different companies. Two will be responsible for signalling, two for infrastructure maintenance, two for infrastructure renewals, one for train and station operations and one for train maintenance. PPP really put the con in contract. Most spectacularly, Metronet, representing two thirds of the contract, was forced into administration on 18 July last year when it ran up debts of 2 billion – a debt that Gordon Brown has written off with public money. The madness of the market and the sheer greed of the privateers were well illustrated during the Mayor of London’s Question Time on the day Metronet went into administration. Transport for London (TfL) managing director Tim O’Toole and TfL managing director of finance Steve Allen accompanied Ken Livingstone on the day. When asked about the potential liability on either TfL or London Underground Ltd as its subsidiary, for a considerable chunk of Metronet’s debts, O’Toole confirmed that “the Metronet debt is guaranteed by us”. And again, when the mayor’s team was further pushed for answers to whether it was true that TfL or the subsidiary could be liable for up to 95 percent of the debt, Allen explained, “That is correct. That is a feature of the PPP contracts.” Brown paid out over 500 million to accountancy firms to draw up the failed PPP contracts. One of the firms, Ernst & Young, took over as administrator, charging 750 per person per hour – and there are 45 of them. Just like the collapse of Northern Rock although the mess is not of our making, the rich are determined that we pay. The argument is simple: if it’s the public who pay, then it should be the public who own and control. A fully integrated, publicly owned, democratically accountable and environmentally sustainable transport system is not only possible but necessary. Climate change is a major issue facing humanity. However, it is also a class issue. This was starkly exposed when a young delegate from the RMT union asked David Miliband, environment minister, the following question at the TUC Congress in 2006: “If we are serious about greening Britain and reducing harmful emissions, then railways must be a key part of the solution. So is it not time that we took some serious steps towards making rail travel attractive, affordable and available to all?” The minister’s shameful response was, “I was absolutely dreading a question about transport because I do not know anything about transport. Do we need to make the railways affordable and attractive? Yes. How do we do it? I do not know.” Yet transport policy will play a major part in the Climate Change Bill’s target to reduce carbon emissions by 60 percent by 2050. Road transport currently contributes over 21 percent of Britain’s carbon emissions, with a predicted rise to 30 percent from 1990 to 2020. Moreover, in 2002 189 million passengers used Britain’s airports, with a projected increase of between 350 and 460 million by 2020. Just creating a high speed rail link between London and Scotland would cut demand for internal flights. There is an alternative. The madness of the free market in transport must be ended to allow for a sustainable public transport system integrating principally rail, buses and shipping. There is a convergence of interest between transport workers and the public to achieve this. For the public, any modal shift from roads, private car use and aviation, must take the cost of travel into account. Figures since 1975 indicate that up to 2004 the cost of motoring fell by 11 percent, while during the same period rail fares rose by 70 percent – probably accounting for the fact that rail currently only accounts for 6 percent of all transport journeys. In 2004 rail unions commissioned the labour movement thinktank Catalyst to investigate the financial structure and performance of the railway industry post-privatisation. One report concluded that receipts from fares increased from 2.94 billion to 4.39 billion in 2003. In the same year train-operating companies also received 1.2 billion in public subsidy. They then paid shareholders 160 million. The profits of the private companies are dependent on massive state handouts and expensive fares. If the drive for profits was removed, the cost of travel by rail and bus could be slashed. Furthermore, tickets could be made interchangeable between rail, tube, light rail, buses and trams. A coordinated timetable between different modes of an integrated public transport system could then be created. This would require massive investment in public transport to deal with the problems of overcrowding and to enhance safety equipment. For example, if 5 percent of people travelling by car turn to rail it would require a 50 percent increase in rail capacity. For rail workers we expect decent terms and conditions and an end to attacks on health and safety. Privatisation and the fragmentation of the railways have led to a concerted and continual drive to casualise the workforce with the introduction of agency and security staff at minimum wage and often zero-hour contracts in place of licensed and qualified railway staff. This economic race to the bottom lies behind the current dispute on London Underground. The privateers are continually seeking ways of skirting around, undermining and plain cutting corners when it comes to safety. Any mass transport system needs to be run to the highest safety standards with staff present at all locations with pay and conditions that reflect the important role they play. For the planet, an integrated transport system is not only necessary for public use. It is also necessary environmentally for the passage of freight. The percentage of freight moved by road in Britain is higher than the European Union’s average. Carbon emissions in Britain from heavy goods vehicles increased from 6.3 million tonnes of carbon in 1994 to 7.6 in 2004. Freight volumes are projected to expand in the aviation sector from 2.2 million tonnes in 2003 to 14 million tonnes in 2030 (south east of England). In 2005, 585 million tonnes of foreign and domestic cargo were moved through British ports – the additional volume can be readily accommodated. In 2005, 90,000 tonnes of domestic cargo and mail were uplifted at British airports. This could be moved by rail, inland waterway and coastwise traffic. All this is achievable. All it requires is the political will to shift from blind faith in the free market policies of successive Tory and Labour governments. Transport workers and members of the public are best situated to determine what kind of transport system we want. Together we can run a system paid for by the public, democratically accountable to the public and served by public sector workers in our interest. Unjum Mirza is the secretary of the RMT Stratford No.1 Branch. He writes in a personal capacity
Did Burger King Target and Spy on Tomato Pickers Rights Groups?Democracy Now - 13 Apr 2008In Florida, groups organizing for tomato pickers’ rights say they might have been spied on and vilified online by the fast-food conglomerate Burger King. The Fort Myers News-Press traced threatening emails directed at the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and the Student/Farmworker Alliance to Burger King’s corporate headquarters in Miami, Florida. We speak with the reporter who broke the story and with the coordinator of the Student/Farmworker Alliance who says he received a call from the owner of a private security company posing as a student. [includes rush transcript]
Black Ops on Green Groups: Private Security Firm Run by Fmr. Secret Service Officers Spied on Environmental Orgs for Corporate ClientsDemocracy Now - 13 Apr 2008A private security firm spied on Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and several other environmental organizations, from the late 1990s until at least the year 2000, according a new investigation by Mother Jones magazine. The security firm was run by former Secret Service officers who infiltrated environmental groups, collected their phone records and confidential internal documents, and even went through their trash. The information was then passed on to public relations firms and corporations involved in environmental controversies. We speak with the rporter who broke the story, James Ridgeway.
Headlines for April 14, 2008Democracy Now - 13 Apr 2008Iraq Fighting Worsens With Killing of Top Sadr Aide, Iraq Dismisses 1,300 Troops Over Basra Desertion, U.S. Suffers Deadliest Week of 2008, Bush Admin: Iran Poses ?Primary Threat? to Iraq, Iraq OKs 35 Firms for Oil Bids, Bush Admits Knowledge of White House Meetings on Interrogation Techniques, Group: U.S. Military Prisoners Sent to Unfair Trials in Afghanistan, Venezuelans Mark 6th Anniversary of U.S.-Backed Coup, Venezuela to Send Food Aid to Haiti, Haiti Announces Rice Subsidy as P.M. Removed, World Bank Launches Emergency Food Plan, Cuba Eases Restrictions on Wages, Home Ownership, 2 Women Journalists Slain in Oaxaca, Dalai Lama: Protest, But Don?t Boycott, Beijing Olympics, 14 Palestinians Killed in Week of Israeli Attacks, Outgoing HUD Secretary Accused of Ignoring Housing Crisis, 2007 Record Year for Lobbying in U.S., Admin Rejects Congressional Challenge to Satellite Surveillance, Jailed Professor Sami-al-Arian Moved to Solitary Confinement Days Before Scheduled Release
