A message from Dr. Colin Brewer

A message from Dr. Colin Brewer to Prof. Arnold Trebach during the ‘Stapleford four’ case at the GMC, London in 2006.

We learn this morning that Dr. Tovey, whom the GMC conceded his diligence & experience within the addiction field, and was left in charge with a NHS doctor, to create ‘checks & balances’ has been suspended by the GMC of Manchester.

This once again leaves many hundreds of patients in anxiety about their future lives and what that means.

irra

 

 

“Addicts are the scapegoat of our age.”
Reverend Terence E. Tanner, London, 1979

 

Message from Dr. Colin Brewer

October 2006

“The verdict in the record-breaking saga of The General Medical Council vs The Stapleford Centre is expected tomorrow, Nov 9th, at around midday. I attach a copy of the statement that I made to the GMC at their last hearing of evidence in July this year. It is difficult to believe that this process actually began in October 2004 and has involved around 100 days of hearings spread over two years. As you will see from the statement, I shall be very surprised if the GMC do not strike me off. It is pretty normal in cases involving ‘prescribing’ doctors held to be too generous. (The large number of doctors who cause many deaths through under-prescribing never get troubled by the GMC.) Since I retired from clinical work some three years ago, that would be of little practical importance though naturally, I would have preferred my retirement to be a quieter period than it has turned out to be.

We may hold a press conference at some stage. Several TV networks have expressed interest in doing a serious background piece involving the wider issues of prohibition and drug abuse and in case you have the time and the interest, I also attach a draft chapter for a multi-author international textbook that should be published next year, though please don’t quote directly from it without discussing it with me, simply because it is unfinished and would be against the conventions of academic publishing.

I am coping pretty well with the strain and my MA European History course at Birkbeck is a powerful and pleasant distraction. (Of no conceivable relevance but a simple coincidence, today’s date is a conjunction in the German calendar with enormous historic, cultural and symbolic connotations. Nov 9th apparently marks the abdication of the Kaiser in 1918, Kristallnacht in 1938 and the end of the Berlin Wall in 1991; and Nov 10th was the birthday of Martin Luther. I do not imply that the GMC’s decisions are of comparable importance.)

My email address-book is playing hard-to-get, so please forgive errors of exclusion, inclusion or duplication and also delays in transmission. Those privileged to be on our modest and very secular Christmas-card list will get a fuller account of life on Bankside eventually. I hope to be spending the last two weeks of 2006 in and around Mozambique but much depends on decisions about what happens to the clinic – and to its several hundred long-term and generally well-functioning maintenance patients who are naturally rather anxious at the moment.

My thanks to all of you who have given support and help.”

The GMC verdict was delivered on time and as expected, my name was erased. What was unexpected – and rather nice – was that they recognised my contributions to addiction medicine, hard work, absence of financial motivation etc and even criticised the poor standard of many NHS clinics. I can live with that, especially as they allowed Ron Tovey to continue working at the clinic, subject to supervision from an NHS consultant who shares many of our aims and views. This almost certainly means the continuation of the clinic and enormous relief for our patients (and staff).

Press comment has been surprisingly scanty and not notably hostile – nothing in the Guardian, Telegraph, Mail or Express. ( I decline to recognise lower forms of journalistic life but I haven’t heard of anything in the Red Tops.) There were only short, factual pieces on the radio and TV news, all quite balanced, as were items in the Times and Independent. I think some of the broadsheets are also interested in doing a more comprehensive treatment. We have had lots of supportive messages and – so far – no hate-mail. We also have offers of practical help and support.

The only official response so far has been a routine letter from BUPA informing me that they will no longer pay the fees of patients seen by me. Since, as they concede, I don’t see patients and haven’t invoiced them for about three years, this is no great hardship. I’m told that the Royal Society of Medicine removes one’s membership but I hardly ever visit the place and if I need to use its excellent library, I can re-join much more cheaply as a member of the Medical Journalists’ Association. Meanwhile, I have thirty days left to savour the privileges of medical life. (‘Make way. I’m a doctor!’) Perhaps I will take my cue from Churchill and style myself ‘Former Medical Person’.

All good wishes. Colin. V.iii

Search

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Leave a comment

ByzantineFlowers

Save money on household cleaning sprays and make your own natural solution.

Add orange peels (or any citrus peel) to a quart of white vinegar in a closed container and let it set for two weeks. Combine citrus-vinegar solution with half water in a spray bottle and use for cleaning. Works on floors, tiles, fixtures, kitchen & bath etc. It’s antibacterial, smells good and tough on scum! Best of all there are no chemicals. ♥

Today’s modern home is loaded with toxic and polluting substances designed to make domestic life easier.
The cost of these commercial, chemical-based products can be high — long term health concerns for the family, and environmental pollution caused by their manufacture and disposal. In the US, for example, 1 in 3 people suffer from allergies, asthma, sinusitis or bronchitis (US National Center for Health Statistics). Treatment for these conditions should include reducing synthetic chemicals in…

View original post 2,983 more words

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Leave a comment

Drug Equality Alliance

NewsPermission Awaited to Judicially Review ACMD and SSHD Regarding Alcohol and Tobacco PolicyDrug Equality Alliance
(19th January 2011)
All documents are now before the High Court in Casey Hardison’s applications for permission to judicially review the separate decisions by the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to abdicate power and duty under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (the Act) with regards to alcohol and tobacco control. Permission to proceed to full judicial review is now in the hands of the law as applied by the High Court judges. The decision is entirely for them.
The cases, brought by the imprisoned ‘cognitive liberty’ advocate and entheogenic chemist, US citizen Casey William Hardison, set out how the Home Secretary has failed in her legal duty to actively consult the ACMD on the possibility of bringing drinkers and smokers under the protection and control of the Act and how the ACMD have failed in their legal duty to actively recommend to the Home Secretary that possibility.
Currently, drinkers and smokers are accorded special status by government and the ACMD through the mistaken belief that alcohol and tobacco are exempted from the operation of the Act. This error of law leads the Home Secretary to another false notion: that the Act is ‘not a suitable mechanism for regulating alcohol and tobacco [users]’, and the ACMD to a similar false notion: that ‘the Misuse of Drugs framework is not appropriate for the regulation of alcohol and tobacco [users]’. These false notions are themselves provided for by a pernicious public belief that the Act mandates the ‘prohibition’ of non-medical and non- scientific commerce and use of controlled drugs. This belief couldn’t be further from legal truth. But it is a belief the Government does not want undermined.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 requires the Home Secretary and the ACMD apply relevant criteria and disregard irrelevant criteria concerning drugs misuse and social harm to their decision making process; yet the Home Secretary and the ACMD have allowed irrelevant criteria to impact their respective decisions not to speak directly to each other about controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Act.
This ‘hear no, see no, speak no’ control policy has lead to a collective decision to exclude alcohol and tobacco from the Act’s protections on the grounds of ‘historic and cultural [factors/precedents] that lack a consistent and objective basis’. And even though both the ACMD and the Home Secretary recognise ‘that alcohol and tobacco do pose health risks and may have anti-social effects’ when misused, they accord these dangerous drugs special status because ‘their use is embedded in society and their responsible use is possible and commonplace’. These irrelevant factors have led the ACMD to acquiesce in, and the government to institute, a separate system for regulating the commerce and use of the drugs alcohol and tobacco.
This ‘artificial divide’ between drugs defined as ‘controlled’ under the Act, and the so- called ‘legal’ drugs is arbitrary and unreasonable. It favours the non-medical and non-scientific misuse of alcohol and tobacco relative to any non-medical or non- scientific use of any controlled drug – a poisoned chalice not provided for by the Act. This policy is biased in favour of producers and consumers of these socially- problematic products, and ignorant of statutory duty.
Again, the control and classification of alcohol and tobacco alongside other dangerous drugs ‘controlled’ under the Act would not of necessity equate to prohibition; a full range of regulatory options are available under the Act for a lawful and rational commerce of any controlled drug for peaceful use purposes. Said another way, the Act is not a blunt instrument intended to ‘prohibit’ drugs, rather it is a beautifully nuanced ‘mechanism’ or ‘framework’ for the ‘suitable’ or ‘appropriate’ regulation of the import, export, production, supply and possession of dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs so as to reduce harm from their potential misuse.
Hardison shows that the Act is a well- crafted and intricate tool that can easily regulate the lawful, responsible commerce and use of alcohol and tobacco.
The decisions under challenge are the Home Secretary’s refusal to consult the ACMD on the ‘possibility’ of bringing alcohol and tobacco users under the Act’s control, and the ACMD’s refusal to recommend that possibility. This refusal is based on overly-rigid policies that have prevented the ACMD and the Home Secretary from considering even the merits of the possibility. Hardison finds this unacceptable; will the Court?
DOWNLOADS:
R(Hardison) v ACMD R(Hardison) v SSHD
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Reply to ACMD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 26, December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – ACMD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 20 December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Draft Statement of Facts, 15 November 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Draft Statement of Grounds, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
ACMD’s letter of response expressing their intention to defend against a judicial review of its refusal to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 , 4 October 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter to the ACMD, 25 August 2010 expressing his intention to judicially review the decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
ACMD letter confirming their decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 16 August 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request of the ACMD to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 9 July 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Reply to SSHD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 16 December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – SSHD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 9 December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Statement of Facts, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Draft Statement of Grounds, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response concerning the government’s intention to defend a judicial review of its refusal to seek advice on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 24 September 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter before claim to the Home Secretary, expressing his intention to judicially review her decision not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response deciding not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 10 August 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request that Home Secretary consult the ACMD on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 1 July 2010 (PDF)

Please Note: The Home Secretary and the Advisory Council refer to an Order of the Appeal Court dated 3 December 2007 in their decision letters. This Order was about the then Home Secretary’s decision not to follow through on the promised consultation on a review of the drug classification system as stated in paragraph 12 of Cm 6941. (Casey secured the release of this consultation document in July 2010 after three year battle). The u-turn on the consultation and the review was said to be a purely political decision beyond the reach of the court: a policy choice within the bounds of discretion as opposed to a decision made by either surrendering or abdicating discretionary statutory power or assuming power that one does not possess. In the current cases both the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council assume they can abdicate their respective powers and duties under the Misuse of Drugs Act respecting alcohol and tobacco. This is a legal question for the court as to their powers and duties. It has nothing to do with the merits of the policy as stated in the Treasury Solicitor’s 24 September response on behalf of the Home Secretary, which recycles the policy stated in paragraph 10 of the 2007 judgment Casey was appealing and which resulted in the Order. At the time, this policy statement was not the issue and it was not understood that this policy shows errors of law on its face, ignores legally relevant criteria: ‘health risks’ and ‘anti-social effects’, and considers legally irrelevant criteria: ’embedded in society’, ‘responsible use possible’, etc. And as the Appeal Court Judge was not asked to determine whether the policy statement accords with the law, this opportunity was missed. The repetition of this policy by the Treasury Solicitor at this late stage is a boost to the claim against the Home Secretary. This time, the policy will be properly tested for its legality not its merits.

Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs set for embarrassment over alcohol and tobacco policyDrug Equality Alliance
(15th November 2010)
Separate proceedings have been initiated at the High Court against both the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for their respective abdication of power and duty under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (the Act) with regards to alcohol and tobacco control. The cases, brought by the imprisoned ‘cognitive liberty’ advocate and entheogenic chemist, US citizen Casey William Hardison, set out how the Home Secretary has failed in her legal duty to actively consult the ACMD on the possibility of bringing drinkers and smokers under the protection and control of the Act and how the ACMD have failed in their legal duty to actively recommend to the Home Secretary that possibility. Currently, drinkers and smokers are accorded special status by government and the ACMD through the mistaken belief that alcohol and tobacco are exempted from the operation of the Act. This error of law then leads the Home Secretary to another false notion: that the Act is ‘not a suitable mechanism for regulating alcohol and tobacco [users]’, and the ACMD to a similar false notion: that ‘the Misuse of Drugs framework is not appropriate for the regulation of alcohol and tobacco [users]’. These false notions are themselves provided for by a pernicious public belief that the Act mandates the ‘prohibition’ of non-medical and non-scientific commerce and use of controlled drugs. This belief couldn’t be further from legal truth. But it is a belief the Government does not want undermined.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 requires the Home Secretary and the ACMD to apply relevant criteria and disregard irrelevant criteria concerning drugs misuse and social harm to their decision making process; yet the Home Secretary and the ACMD have allowed irrelevant criteria to impact their respective decisions not to speak directly to each other about alcohol and tobacco control. This ‘hear no, see no, speak no’ control policy has led to a collective decision to exclude alcohol and tobacco from the Act’s protections on the grounds of ‘historic and cultural [factors/precedents] that lack a consistent and objective basis’. And even though both the ACMD and the Home Secretary recognise ‘that alcohol and tobacco do pose health risks and may have anti-social effects’, they accord these dangerous drugs special status because ‘their use is embedded in society and their responsible use is possible and commonplace’. These irrelevant factors have led the ACMD to acquiesce in, and the government to institute, a separate system for regulating the commerce and use of the drugs alcohol and tobacco. However the artificial divide between drugs defined as ‘controlled’ under the Act, and the so-called ‘legal’ drugs is arbitrary and unreasonable. It favours the non-medical and non-scientific misuse of alcohol and tobacco relative to any non-medical or non-scientific use of any controlled drug – a poisoned chalice not provided for by the Act. This policy is biased in favour of producers and consumers of these socially-problematic products, and ignorant of statutory duty.
Again, the control and classification of alcohol and tobacco alongside other dangerous drugs controlled by the Act would not necessarily equate to prohibition; a full range of regulatory options are available under the Act for a lawful and rational commerce of any controlled drug for peaceful use purposes. Said another way, the Act is not a blunt instrument intended to ‘prohibit’ drugs, rather it is a beautifully nuanced ‘mechanism’ or ‘framework’ for the ‘suitable’ or ‘appropriate’ regulation of the import, export, production, supply and possession of dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs so as to reduce harm from their potential misuse. Hardison shows that the Act is a well- crafted and intricate tool that can easily regulate the lawful, responsible commerce and use of alcohol and tobacco.
The decisions under challenge are the Home Secretary’s refusal to consult the ACMD on the ‘possibility’ of bringing alcohol and tobacco users under the Act’s control, and the ACMD’s refusal to recommend that possibility. This refusal is based on overly-rigid policies that have prevented the ACMD and the Home Secretary from considering even the merits of the possibility. Hardison finds this unacceptable; will the Court?

Government set for embarrassment over alcohol and tobacco control Drug Equality Alliance
(1st November 2010)I
Today at the High Court proceedings were initiated against the Home Secretary for her abdication of power under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 with respect to alcohol and tobacco control. The case, brought by the imprisoned ‘cognitive liberty’ advocate, US citizen Casey William Hardison, sets out the Home Secretary’s legal duty to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the possibility of bringing drinkers and smokers under the protection and control of the Act.
Currently, drinkers and smokers are accorded special status by government through the mistaken belief that alcohol and tobacco are ‘legal drugs’ exempted from the operation of the Act. This error of law then leads the Home Secretary to another false notion: that the Act is ‘not a suitable mechanism for regulating alcohol and tobacco [users]’.
The Misuse of Drugs Act says government must apply relevant criteria concerning social harm to their decision making process; yet the Home Secretary has allowed irrelevant criteria to impact her decision not to consult the Advisory Council and the policy that excludes alcohol and tobacco from the Act, citing ‘historic and cultural precedents’ whilst asserting that ‘alcohol and tobacco are embedded in society and their responsible use is possible and commonplace’. This has led the government to instead institute a separate system for regulating users of the drugs alcohol and tobacco.
However the artificial divide between drugs defined as ‘controlled’ under the Act, and so-called ‘legal’ drugs is arbitrary and alleged to be illegal. It favours the misuse of alcohol and tobacco relative to any use of any controlled drug – a poisoned chalice not provided for by the Act. The current policy is biased in favour of consumers of these socially-problematic products, and ignorant of statutory duty.
The classification of alcohol and tobacco alongside other dangerous drugs does not equate to prohibition; concerns about this are grounded in the Home Secretary’s mistaken belief that the Act is a blunt instrument intended to ‘prohibit’ drugs rather than regulate people so as to reduce harm from the misuse of drugs. But It can be shown that the law is a well-crafted and intricate tool for the regulation of persons likely to misuse any dangerous drug, and can easily provide a framework to permit the responsible production, supply and use of alcohol and tobacco from within the Act itself, exactly as intended by the parliamentarians who drafted it.
The decision under challenge is the Home Secretary’s refusal to consult the ACMD on the ‘possibility’ of bringing alcohol and tobacco users under the Act’s control. This refusal is based on persistent misunderstandings of the Act, its structure, function and purpose; and also on taking irrelevant factors into account and disregarding relevant factors. The Home Secretary’s overly rigid policy has prevented the consideration of even the merits of the possibility.

Continued exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from misuse of drugs legislation to be judicially reviewedDrug Equality Alliance
(13th October 2010)
On the 1st and 15th of November 2010 separate applications will be submitted to the High Court seeking permission to judicially review the Home Secretary’s and the Advisory Council’s continued exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Drug Equality Alliance co-founder Casey Hardison has taken it upon himself to challenge the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in the Administrative Court for what he asserts is their unlawful exclusion of alcohol and tobacco, and thus persons concerned with these dangerous drugs, from control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA).
Casey has worked tirelessly over the last 6 years to establish the evidence and apply the legal principles to it to show that the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the MDA is based on persistent misunderstandings about the MDA’s structure, function and purpose, above all an erroneous belief that the the MDA “is not a suitable mechanism” for regulating the production, commerce and possession of alcohol and tobacco.
These persistent misunderstandings have led the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council to take into account legally irrelevant matters and disregard legally relevant matters when making decisions under the MDA regarding alcohol and tobacco, in particular that the public would find it “unacceptable” if alcohol and tobacco were put in the same ABC classification system as other controlled drugs. Perhaps this is because the decision-makers and the public generally believe to do so would be to apply so-called “prohibition” to alcohol and tobacco.
But as prohibition is a policy option under the Act, not mandated by it, this presents a moral and a legal problem: Government acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco cause more deaths and harm than all other known drugs combined, so why is it acceptable to apply a “policy of prohibition” to LSD, MDMA and cannabis but not to alcohol and tobacco? The Government believes that this is acceptable on the grounds of “historical and cultural precedents”. This shows that decisions regarding alcohol and tobacco are arbitrary and not based on rational and objective factors, it just happens to be the way it is because the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council shirk their powers under the MDA to please the “vast majority”. This is unreasonable and ultimately unfair to persons whose conduct is regulated by the MDA.
The Rule of Law principle of Equal Treatment suggests that either the Home Secretary and ACMD must implement “prohibitive controls” on those concerned with alcohol and tobacco for non-medical or non-scientific use purposes, or they must fully implement a rational, evidence-based system of regulation, via the MDA, similar to that suggested by Transform Drug Policy Foundation’s “After the War on Drugs – Blueprint for Regulation”, for all controlled drugs.
On the 25th of August Casey submitted to the Home Secretary and the ACMD letters before claim for judicial review of their decision. In the last two weeks both have responded, repeating the policy line:
“Government’s policy is to regulate controlled drugs – more commonly referred to as ‘illegal drugs’ – through the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the availability of alcohol and tobacco separately. This stance recognises that whilst alcohol and tobacco pose health risks and may have anti-social effects, their use is embedded in society, and responsible use of alcohol and tobacco is possible and commonplace.”
Hardison will be filing papers at the Administrative Court on the 1st of November. See below for the exchanged letters.
DOWNLOADS:
ACMD’s letter of response expressing their intention to defend against a judicial review of its refusal to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 , 4 October 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response concerning the government’s intention to defend a judicial review of its refusal to seek advice on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 24 September 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter to the ACMD, 25 August 2010 expressing his intention to judicially review the decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter before claim to the Home Secretary, expressing his intention to judicially review her decision not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
ACMD letter confirming their decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controllingalcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 16 August 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response deciding not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 10 August 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request of the ACMD to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 9 July 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request that Home Secretary consult the ACMD on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 1 July 2010 (PDF)
Please Note: The Home Secretary and the Advisory Council refer to an Order of the Appeal Court dated 3 December 2007 in their decision letters. This Order was about the then Home Secretary’s decision not to follow through on the promised consultation on a review of the drug classification system as stated in paragraph 12 of Cm 6941. (Casey secured the release of this consultation document in July 2010 after three year battle). The u-turn on the consultation and the review was said to be a purely political decision beyond the reach of the court: a policy choice within the bounds of discretion as opposed to a decision made by either surrendering or abdicating discretionary statutory power or assuming power that one does not possess. In the current cases both the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council assume they can abdicate their respective powers and duties under the Misuse of Drugs Act respecting alcohol and tobacco. This is a legal question for the court as to their powers and duties. It has nothing to do with the merits of the policy as stated in the Treasury Solicitor’s 24 September response on behalf of the Home Secretary, which recycles the policy stated in paragraph 10 of the 2007 judgment Casey was appealing and which resulted in the Order. At the time, this policy statement was not the issue and it was not understood that this policy shows errors of law on its face, ignores legally relevant criteria: ‘health risks’ and ‘anti-social effects’, and considers legally irrelevant criteria: ’embedded in society’, ‘responsible use possible’, etc. And as the Appeal Court Judge was not asked to determine whether the policy statement accords with the law, this opportunity was missed. The repetition of this policy by the Treasury Solicitor at this late stage is a boost to the claim against the Home Secretary. This time, the policy will be properly tested for its legality not its merits.

DOWNLOADS:
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Reply to ACMD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 26, December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – ACMD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 20 December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Reply to SSHD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 16 December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – SSHD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Draft Statement of Facts, 15 November 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Draft Statement of Grounds, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Statement of Facts, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Draft Statement of Grounds, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
ACMD’s letter of response expressing their intention to defend against a judicial review of its refusal to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 , 4 October 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response concerning the government’s intention to defend a judicial review of its refusal to seek advice on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 24 September 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter to the ACMD, 25 August 2010 expressing his intention to judicially review the decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter before claim to the Home Secretary, expressing his intention to judicially review her decision not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
ACMD letter confirming their decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controllingalcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 16 August 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response deciding not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 10 August 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request of the ACMD to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 9 July 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request that Home Secretary consult the ACMD on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 1 July 2010 (PDF)

Unique visitors to this page:

Mission Statement
Background
Legal Arguments
Essential Reading
Cases
DEA In The Media
News
Video / Audio
Contact Us
Links
Donate
Knowledge Base
Mission Statement
Background
Legal Arguments
Essential Reading
Cases
DEA in the Media
News
Video / Audio
Contact Us
Links
Donate
Knowledge Base

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Tagged , | 1 Comment

LBBDCivilSociety in dAgEnhaM: HIDDEN SECRETS

LBBDCivilSociety in dAgEnhaM: HIDDEN SECRETS

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Leave a comment

Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union

Lest anybody still be in any doubts as to the Brussels EU’s intention to replace democracy with dictatorship, let’s examine the truth behind some of its claims.
Posted on December 4, 2010 by irrahayes
Brussels EU calls for curbs on citizen petitions
June 2010 – Brussels EU officials recently announced that they want to limit the demands European citizens can make in petitions by bringing in tougher rules on the amount of personal data required to be given by people signing them. Under the plans, citizens’ proposals that go “against the values of the union” – which, let’s not forget, are actually determined by the Brussels EU itself – will not be accepted.

As such, by setting burdensome rules such as each signatory of a petition being required to provide a wide variety of personal data – including name, street address, email address, date and place of birth, nationality and personal identification numbers (passport; ID card; and social security) – it can be seen that the real intention of the Brussels EU in making this announcement is to set severe limits on the ability of European citizens to exert their democratic will. This is further proven by the fact that all petitions are to be subjected to an admissibility check once they reach a total of 300,000 signatures, with officials being given powers to stop any petition they decide does not meet the requirements.

Lest anybody still be in any doubts as to the Brussels EU’s intention to replace democracy with dictatorship, let’s examine the truth behind some of its claims.

The aims of the Brussels EU
The Brussels EU claims that its aims are “peace, prosperity and freedom for its 498 million citizens – in a fairer, safer world.”

THE FACTS: Operating outside the basic principles of freedom and democracy, the Brussels EU – by definition – is a dictatorship. The power of the people to determine their government has been transferred to corporate interests.

Click here to read more.

Far from ensuring peace and prosperity for the inhabitants of Europe, the corporate interests behind the Brussels EU have previously been the economic driving forces behind two world wars.

Click here to read more.

Following the failure of WWI and WWII to achieve world conquest for the interests behind the cartel, the Brussels EU project has become the bridgehead for their next attempt to conquer and control Europe – and from there the rest of the world. The strategic goal of the financial groups behind the oil and drug cartel is to control giant global markets that affect literally every human life.

Click here to read more.

The basic nature of Europe
The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty does not alter the basic nature of Europe.

The Lisbon Treaty created the posts of EU President (to which Herman van Rompuy was appointed without any public vote) and EU Foreign Minister (to which Catherine Ashton was appointed without any public vote).
THE FACTS: Article 1 of the Lisbon Treaty states that “The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community”. In addition to this, article 47 states that “The Union shall have legal personality.” Thus, it is absolutely clear that the post-Lisbon Union is a totally new constitutional and legal entity and that the European Community, of which the 27 member states were previously members, has ceased to exist.

In addition, articles 207, 216, 217 and 218 of the treaty make it clear that the Brussels EU can now sign treaties with other countries or international organizations, on behalf of its member states, in all areas of its competence.

And of course, let us not forget that the Treaty also created the posts of EU President (to which Herman van Rompuy was appointed without any public vote); EU Foreign Minister (to which Catherine Ashton was appointed without any public vote); and an EU diplomatic corps. In reality, therefore, it can be seen that “the basic nature” of Europe has actually been substantially altered.

The role of national parliaments in the Brussels EU
The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty facilitates increased democratic control from national parliaments.

THE FACTS: To all intents and purposes, Article 7 of the treaty’s Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality only gives national parliaments the power to complain about things they disagree with. In effect, it merely provides a mechanism whereby an objection can be raised if a complaint is supported by one third of all national parliaments. However, the Brussels EU is under no obligation to change or cancel any of its actions and can simply choose to override such a complaint if it wishes to do so.

Moreover, should even the majority of national parliaments raise an objection to a legislative proposal brought by the European Commission, there is still no obligation for the Commission to change or cancel any of its actions. In such a situation, it can simply choose to override the complaint and refer it to be resolved by the European Council and the European parliament. As such, rather than increasing democratic control from national parliaments, it can be seen that, in practice, the bureaucratic nature of the hoops to be jumped through makes it extremely unlikely that the dictatorial nature of the Brussels EU can be restrained via these mechanisms.

The Brussels EU decision-making process

The 27 members of the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, are all appointed without any public election taking place to select them. Even the Commission’s president, José Manuel Barroso, above, took his post without European voters having any say in his appointment whatsoever.
The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty makes its decision-making process more democratic.

THE FACTS: Of all the Brussels EU’s deceptions, this statement is arguably one of the most disingenuous of all. For one thing, unlike in a true democracy, the European parliament remains unable to freely initiate and enact legislation in all areas of its choosing and of its own accord. For another, and as described above, the Lisbon Treaty created the posts of EU President and EU Foreign Minister and mandated that both were to be appointed without any public vote. And in addition, of course, the 27 members of the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, will continue to be appointed without any public vote.

To make matters worse, article 48 of the treaty makes clear that it is self-amending, in that in future it may be amended without having to hold an Intergovernmental Conference or consult citizens via referendums.

Bearing these facts in mind, it can be seen that, far from being “democratic”, the executive decision-making machinery of the Brussels EU is essentially that of an unelected dictatorship.

Concerns raised by European citizens
The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty responds to concerns raised by European citizens and will increase legitimacy in its functioning.

THE FACTS: Given that concerned citizens in France and the Netherlands comprehensively rejected the so-called “European Constitution” in national referendums in 2005, the fact that 96 percent of the text of the Lisbon Treaty is identical to that of the Constitution, and that over 99 percent of European voters were not given any chance to vote on it, makes it absurd for the EU to make these claims.

EU ELECTIONS 2009

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that 57 percent of the people of Europe who were eligible to vote in the EU elections in June 2009 protested against the Brussels EU by deliberately abstaining, whilst a further 4 percent of the eligible electorate cast deliberate votes against the EU dictatorship by voting for parties that are anti-EU and/or opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. As such, any notion that the Lisbon Treaty addresses the concerns of these people is delusional, to say the least.

The creation of a European army
The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty does not create a European army.

THE FACTS: Article 42.1 of the Lisbon Treaty states the following:

The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

Article 42.3 of the treaty states the following:

Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.

This clause also further militarizes the EU by stating that “Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities” and making clear that the European Defence Agency will be incorporated into the amended treaties.

Article 42.6 of the treaty states the following: Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework.

Article 43.1 of the treaty states the following: The tasks referred to in Article 42(1), in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation.

To all intents and purposes, the phrase “permanent structured cooperation”, which is used several times in articles 42-46 of the treaty in the context of military actions, can only be taken to mean a European army. The following newspaper/media articles support this view:

German minister calls for Lisbon treaty EU army
The Irish Times – Monday, February 8, 2010

GERMAN FOREIGN minister Guido Westerwelle has called for the EU to proceed with plans for a European army under the Lisbon ‘Treaty, which he dubbed “the beginning and not the end” of a common security and defence policy.

German foreign minister backs idea of European army
france24.com, February 6, 2010 (AFP)

Germany supports the creation of a European army in the long term so that the EU can be a “global player,” Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told the Munich Security Conference on Saturday. “The long-term goal is the establishment of a European army under full parliamentary control.

“The concept of a European army was set out in the 27-nation EU’s reforming Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

President Sarkozy presses case for unified military in Europe
The Times, London, June 7, 2008

A confidential five-page document, detailing France’s enthusiasm for common EU funding of military operations, has been circulated to European governments, it was reported last night. The proposals

Continue reading

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lest anybody still be in any doubts as to the Brussels EU’s intention to replace democracy with dictatorship, let’s examine the truth behind some of its claims.

Brussels EU calls for curbs on citizen petitions

Brussels EU calls for curbs on citizen petitionsJune 2010 – Brussels EU officials recently announced that they want to limit the demands European citizens can make in petitions by bringing in tougher rules on the amount of personal data required to be given by people signing them. Under the plans, citizens’ proposals that go “against the values of the union” – which, let’s not forget, are actually determined by the Brussels EU itself – will not be accepted.

As such, by setting burdensome rules such as each signatory of a petition being required to provide a wide variety of personal data – including name, street address, email address, date and place of birth, nationality and personal identification numbers (passport; ID card; and social security) – it can be seen that the real intention of the Brussels EU in making this announcement is to set severe limits on the ability of European citizens to exert their democratic will. This is further proven by the fact that all petitions are to be subjected to an admissibility check once they reach a total of 300,000 signatures, with officials being given powers to stop any petition they decide does not meet the requirements.

Lest anybody still be in any doubts as to the Brussels EU’s intention to replace democracy with dictatorship, let’s examine the truth behind some of its claims.

The aims of the Brussels EU

The Brussels EU claims that its aims are “peace, prosperity and freedom for its 498 million citizens – in a fairer, safer world.”

THE FACTS: Operating outside the basic principles of freedom and democracy, the Brussels EU – by definition – is a dictatorship. The power of the people to determine their government has been transferred to corporate interests.

‘Brussels EU’ Dictatorship

Click here to read more.

 

Far from ensuring peace and prosperity for the inhabitants of Europe, the corporate interests behind the Brussels EU have previously been the economic driving forces behind two world wars.

The economic driving forces behind the World Wars

Click here to read more.

 

Following the failure of WWI and WWII to achieve world conquest for the interests behind the cartel, the Brussels EU project has become the bridgehead for their next attempt to conquer and control Europe – and from there the rest of the world. The strategic goal of the financial groups behind the oil and drug cartel is to control giant global markets that affect literally every human life.

The Global Multi-Billion-Dollar Markets of the Chemical/Petrochemical/Drug Cartel

Click here to read more.

 

The basic nature of Europe

The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty does not alter the basic nature of Europe.

The Lisbon Treaty created the posts of EU President (to which Herman van Rompuy was appointed without any public vote) and EU Foreign Minister (to which Catherine Ashton was appointed without any public vote).

The Lisbon Treaty created the posts of EU President (to which Herman van Rompuy was appointed without any public vote) and EU Foreign Minister (to which Catherine Ashton was appointed without any public vote).

THE FACTS: Article 1 of the Lisbon Treaty states that “The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community”. In addition to this, article 47 states that “The Union shall have legal personality.” Thus, it is absolutely clear that the post-Lisbon Union is a totally new constitutional and legal entity and that the European Community, of which the 27 member states were previously members, has ceased to exist.

In addition, articles 207, 216, 217 and 218 of the treaty make it clear that the Brussels EU can now sign treaties with other countries or international organizations, on behalf of its member states, in all areas of its competence.

And of course, let us not forget that the Treaty also created the posts of EU President (to which Herman van Rompuy was appointed without any public vote); EU Foreign Minister (to which Catherine Ashton was appointed without any public vote); and an EU diplomatic corps. In reality, therefore, it can be seen that “the basic nature” of Europe has actually been substantially altered.

The role of national parliaments in the Brussels EU

The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty facilitates increased democratic control from national parliaments.

THE FACTS: To all intents and purposes, Article 7 of the treaty’s Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality only gives national parliaments the power to complain about things they disagree with. In effect, it merely provides a mechanism whereby an objection can be raised if a complaint is supported by one third of all national parliaments. However, the Brussels EU is under no obligation to change or cancel any of its actions and can simply choose to override such a complaint if it wishes to do so.

Moreover, should even the majority of national parliaments raise an objection to a legislative proposal brought by the European Commission, there is still no obligation for the Commission to change or cancel any of its actions. In such a situation, it can simply choose to override the complaint and refer it to be resolved by the European Council and the European parliament. As such, rather than increasing democratic control from national parliaments, it can be seen that, in practice, the bureaucratic nature of the hoops to be jumped through makes it extremely unlikely that the dictatorial nature of the Brussels EU can be restrained via these mechanisms.

The Brussels EU decision-making process

The 27 members of the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, are all appointed without any public election taking place to select them. Even the Commission’s president, José Manuel Barroso, above, took his post without European voters having any say in his appointment whatsoever.

The 27 members of the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, are all appointed without any public election taking place to select them. Even the Commission’s president, José Manuel Barroso, above, took his post without European voters having any say in his appointment whatsoever.

The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty makes its decision-making process more democratic.

THE FACTS: Of all the Brussels EU’s deceptions, this statement is arguably one of the most disingenuous of all. For one thing, unlike in a true democracy, the European parliament remains unable to freely initiate and enact legislation in all areas of its choosing and of its own accord. For another, and as described above, the Lisbon Treaty created the posts of EU President and EU Foreign Minister and mandated that both were to be appointed without any public vote. And in addition, of course, the 27 members of the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, will continue to be appointed without any public vote.

To make matters worse, article 48 of the treaty makes clear that it is self-amending, in that in future it may be amended without having to hold an Intergovernmental Conference or consult citizens via referendums.

Bearing these facts in mind, it can be seen that, far from being “democratic”, the executive decision-making machinery of the Brussels EU is essentially that of an unelected dictatorship.

Concerns raised by European citizens

The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty responds to concerns raised by European citizens and will increase legitimacy in its functioning.

THE FACTS: Given that concerned citizens in France and the Netherlands comprehensively rejected the so-called “European Constitution” in national referendums in 2005, the fact that 96 percent of the text of the Lisbon Treaty is identical to that of the Constitution, and that over 99 percent of European voters were not given any chance to vote on it, makes it absurd for the EU to make these claims.

EU ELECTIONS 2009

EU ELECTIONS 2009: 4% voted against EU, 57% didn't vote for EU

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that 57 percent of the people of Europe who were eligible to vote in the EU elections in June 2009 protested against the Brussels EU by deliberately abstaining, whilst a further 4 percent of the eligible electorate cast deliberate votes against the EU dictatorship by voting for parties that are anti-EU and/or opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. As such, any notion that the Lisbon Treaty addresses the concerns of these people is delusional, to say the least.

The creation of a European army

The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty does not create a European army.

THE FACTS: Article 42.1 of the Lisbon Treaty states the following:

The creation of a European army

The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

Article 42.3 of the treaty states the following:

Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.

This clause also further militarizes the EU by stating that “Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities” and making clear that the European Defence Agency will be incorporated into the amended treaties.

Article 42.6 of the treaty states the following: Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework.

Article 43.1 of the treaty states the following: The tasks referred to in Article 42(1), in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation.

To all intents and purposes, the phrase “permanent structured cooperation”, which is used several times in articles 42-46 of the treaty in the context of military actions, can only be taken to mean a European army. The following newspaper/media articles support this view:

German minister calls for Lisbon treaty EU army
The Irish Times – Monday, February 8, 2010

GERMAN FOREIGN minister Guido Westerwelle has called for the EU to proceed with plans for a European army under the Lisbon Treaty, which he dubbed “the beginning and not the end” of a common security and defence policy.

German foreign minister backs idea of European army
france24.com, February 6, 2010 (AFP)

Germany supports the creation of a European army in the long term so that the EU can be a “global player,” Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told the Munich Security Conference on Saturday. “The long-term goal is the establishment of a European army under full parliamentary control.

“The concept of a European army was set out in the 27-nation EU’s reforming Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

President Sarkozy presses case for unified military in Europe
The Times, London, June 7, 2008

A confidential five-page document, detailing France’s enthusiasm for common EU funding of military operations, has been circulated to European governments, it was reported last night. The proposals were supported by a speech made by President Sarkozy last night in Athens, in which he emphasised his desire to push forward his plans for military integration in Europe. These include the establishment of a permanent operational headquarters in Brussels and development exchange training for officers.

Posted in Dagenham News, Health & Wellbeing, News&Politics, The Shape of Things To Come., UNODC,CND,UNGASS,ENCOD,Civil-Society,News,Politic's, | Leave a comment

Conned Again! Are we all just plain stupid or What?

We are a stupid nation if we allow this lobsided Coalition continue. If the ordinary people are to suffer, then so must the parliamentarians past and present, for they have negoiated us into this mess.  Vince cable MP (LEB-DEM), promised that Bankers who recieved over £1million bonus would be made public. This  was promised by Vince cable before the election, yet now that the Coalition is formed, our chancellor George Osborne MP(Con), has revoked this promise. So now all those Bankers getting from £1million upwards ( remember Sir Fred recieved something above £12million), we will not hear of individuals recieving obscene sums of money even though they did a bad job. Sir Freds mess is still being sorted out by bank officials todate – 23/11/2010

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Leave a comment

Voter Suppression in Midterm Elections: Robocalls, ID Confusion, Voter Roll Purges

November 06, 2006

Voter Suppression in Midterm Elections: Robocalls, ID Confusion, Voter Roll Purges

Voting11-6

In Virginia, Democratic Senatorial candidate James Webb’s last name does not appear on the voting summary sheet. In Indiana, African American congresswoman Julia Carson was told her congressional ID was not sufficient to vote. In Broward County, Florida early voting, a vote for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate registered as a vote for the Republican candidate. Adam Cohen, editorial writer for The New York Times, joins us to discuss voter disenfranchisement. [includes rush transcript]

On Tuesday, millions of voters will cast their vote in the mid- term elections. Many are calling this the most high-stakes election in recent years with the possibility of a Democratic takeover of Congress. But some are warning that voters could be subject to intimidation and a variety of suppressive tactics meant to keep them from casting a ballot. Some of these tactics have been mandated by the government like new rules requiring government-issued voter identification cards. Others have been perpetrated by unofficial sources such as the bogus letters sent to thousands of Latino voters in California telling them it was illegal to vote.

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate$25, $50, $100, More…

AMY GOODMAN: Adam Cohen is an editorial writer with the New York Times. His piece in today’s paper is called “Protecting the Right to Vote.” We welcome you to Democracy Now!

ADAM COHEN: Thank you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Adam, you’ve been following the whole issue of voting for quite a long time now. What are the issues, the key issues you see right now?

ADAM COHEN: Well, the first issue is electronic voting. About 80% of Americans will be voting on electronic voting machines on Tuesday, and we don’t really have a lot of confidence that those votes will necessarily be accurately recorded. We’ve already seen some problems in the early voting. In Montgomery County, Maryland, in the primary, there was absolute chaos when they failed to include a necessary part for the electronic voting machines, so people were literally casting ballots that they wrote on scraps of paper. Poll workers were reading the candidates’ names, and voters were just writing names literally on pieces of paper. The machines weren’t working.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait. So, the machines, they had to put them aside.

ADAM COHEN: They weren’t working. They were missing a key part. So there was actually—the word “chaos” was used. That’s Montgomery County, Maryland. In Virginia, we already know that on the summary sheet in some Virginia electronic voting machines, Jim Webb, the Democratic candidate for Senate, his full name will not appear. It cuts off after his middle name. So, “Webb” does not appear on the summary page?

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean by “summary page”?

ADAM COHEN: Well, when you vote on an electronic voting machine, often you make your choices by hitting various buttons, and then at the end you get a summary of all the choices you’ve made, and you confirm that that’s correct. So that summary page should have all the candidates you chose.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s not actually a piece of paper, it’s the screen.

ADAM COHEN: It’s the screen, but for some reason the electronic voting machine manufacturer that made a lot of machines for Virginia was unable to fit Jim Webb’s entire name on there. They admit that it was a mistake. They say they’ll do better next year, but people are actually going to be voting with this flawed technology that has the full Republican name and only half of the Democrat’s name.

AMY GOODMAN: Isn’t there a law against this?

ADAM COHEN: Well, everyone says, “We’re going to try better next year,” but those are not even the worst problems. I would say the worst problem we’ve seen so far in early voting is in Broward County, Florida, where people are reporting that when they’ve chosen the Democratic candidate for governor—they’ve made that choice—when they get to the summary page and need to confirm that their choices were, you know, correctly recorded, they see that they’ve actually voted for the Republican. The name has flipped. And that’s something that people have brought to the attention of the election officials, and they say that they have a way of re-jiggering the machine. They actually admit that when the machines are heavily used, they get out of sync, and sometimes they do flip the vote from, in this case, Democrat to Republican.

AMY GOODMAN: But explain how this is happening. This goes to the issue of early voting.

ADAM COHEN: Yeah, well, people are voting now in many states. More than 20% of all votes have already been cast around the country. They’re voting on electronic voting machines. And you would think that an electronic voting machine would have to absolutely accurately reflect the choices a voter made, before it could be used in an election. That’s not true. It’s a very, very imprecise science. These electronic voting machine companies are really not very good at making these machines.

AMY GOODMAN: But in the case of Broward County, if you cast your vote for the Democratic governor and it shows up as a Republican governor on the computer screen, what do you do? You then have to walk out to one of the poll workers and say, “Can you come in and look at my computer?” And then they also see what are you choice is.

ADAM COHEN: Yeah, and you say, you know, “I chose the Democrat, but actually on the summary page it’s showing me that I’m voting for the Republican. Could you please do something about that?” And then they will recalibrate the machine. They may take the machine out of service. I actually talked with someone from the Broward County Elections Office last week, and I said, “I hear you’re having some problems with electronic voting down there.” And she said, “No, there are no problems, because if the voters tell us that there’s a mistake on the summary page, we can fix it.” Now, to my mind, that’s a problem, if the voter needs to catch that. Otherwise, their Democratic vote will become a Republican vote. But apparently, they don’t consider that a problem.

AMY GOODMAN: Aren’t there issues about privacy in voting?

ADAM COHEN: There are issues about—I mean—

AMY GOODMAN: Aside from aren’t there issues of casting your vote and having it not counted?

ADAM COHEN: You should absolutely not have to bring an elections official to say, “I’ve chosen a Democrat, and it’s coming up as a Republican,” because you’re telling them your vote. You also shouldn’t have to be voting on a scrap of paper in Montgomery County. You know, in San Diego, actually, we just learned that they ran out of absentee ballots, so the official ballots that they mailed to some people in San Diego are Xeroxes, which you vote on this Xerox, and then when you send it in, election workers will transfer your choice onto a proper ballot, which will then be scanned properly. That’s crazy, but they’ve just run out of proper ballots.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, in Maryland, the governor said they will not use electronic voting machines tomorrow, is that right?

ADAM COHEN: No, they are using them. He’s discouraging people from using them, and you have the choice not to, but they’re—no, I mean, they were one of the states that went earliest to all Diebold voting machines. They and Georgia, they hopped on the bandwagon very early, and now there’s a lot of buyer’s remorse, because people realize that these Diebold voting machines, which do not have paper trails, are not reliable. Even if they have all the parts on Election Day, you’re not sure that they’re working properly.

AMY GOODMAN: In the case of Virginia, can Webb simply challenge the vote, because his name will not appear?

ADAM COHEN: I think the theory is that at least his name is fully represented on the first page, where you make the choice, and that maybe it’s not so important that it be correct on the summary ballot, although since we know that sometimes the votes are flipping in Broward, you would like to be sure that your full name is there on the summary so that people can catch it. You know, these are the imperfections that someone could try to challenge. I don’t know if a judge would set aside an election because of it.

AMY GOODMAN: What about what’s coming out of Memphis: the early memory cards being lost? There was some rumor of this.

ADAM COHEN: Yeah, the “Drudge Report” online made a big deal last week about some voter cards going missing, and I think that we still don’t know exactly what is going on there and who took them, or whether—how many votes can be voted with these, I believe, twelve cards that are missing.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean by cards?

ADAM COHEN: These are cards that a voter uses to actually—you have a card when you go to vote that you put into the machine, and some of these are missing. It doesn’t appear to be a large number. It doesn’t seem like it’s a number that would really change the election, but it’s definitely feeding into people’s anxieties.

AMY GOODMAN: And you’re saying 20% of the votes will be cast by tomorrow already, people who are in states where there is early voting.

ADAM COHEN: At least that many have already been cast, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the issue of voter suppression?

ADAM COHEN: Well, it’s an issue every year. And it’s—we saw it this year with 14,000 letters that were sent out in Southern California in Loretta Sanchez’s district to voters with Latino names, saying that if you’re an immigrant, you’re not allowed to vote, which is absolutely untrue, of course. If you’re an immigrant and you’re naturalized and you’re registered to vote, you can vote, but that was false information that was systematically sent out.

But we’re seeing it in many other places in many other ways. Some small ways, there were reports of radio commercials in black neighborhoods in Baltimore earlier this year saying that Martin Luther King was a Republican—not true—but designed to suppress the black vote, which is going to be very important in Maryland this year. And then, we’re seeing government forms of suppression with voter ID laws that are designed not just to ensure that only people who are registered to vote can vote, but actually to stop a lot of people from voting.

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll talk about the issue of voter ID laws after break. We’re talking to Adam Cohen, editorial writer for the New York Times, tracking the votes.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: As we talk about the issue of voter suppression, voter confusion, of problems in early voting, of who will be counted, and the hidden history of voter disenfranchisement in this country, our guest is Adam Cohen. He is editorial writer for the New York Times, talking about the issue of whose votes get counted. Before we move on, on San Diego, the letter, was it ever traced who put out this letter telling Latinos they can’t vote?

ADAM COHEN: Well, there was an investigation, and it’s believed to have been done by the candidate, the Republican candidate running against Loretta Sanchez, the congresswoman in that area. And there’s some question about how directly involved he was.

AMY GOODMAN: And Baltimore, the ad saying that Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican?

ADAM COHEN: I’m not sure where those have come from. But, you know, often on Election Day, you see all kinds of fliers and things that come out that never get traced to anyone, saying the election has been postponed, various other things like that. People just, you know, they never find out who did that kind of stuff.

AMY GOODMAN: Voter identification.

ADAM COHEN: Yeah, actually even before voter ID, there is this issue of voter registration, where what we’ve been seeing now is states cracking down on perfectly legitimate voter registration drives. And we saw this in 2004, when, you may recall, Kenneth Blackwell, who’s the Secretary of State of Ohio, began rejecting perfectly valid voter registration forms. At one point he came up with a rule that said if it wasn’t on thick enough paper, 80-pound thick paper, it would be rejected, which was, you know, a crazy rule that, under pressure, he withdrew. We’re not seeing that this year, but we did see Florida adopted very, very strict rules for voter registration drives, so strict that the League of Women Voters of Florida, for the first time in, I think, 70 years, stopped registering people to vote, because they were afraid of the criminal and civil penalties associated with that, so we’re seeing that.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain criminal penalties.

ADAM COHEN: Well, Florida’s legislature, which is not so receptive to voter registration drives, came up with rules that said if there was a certain number of inaccuracies, if you didn’t hand in the forms on time, lots of technical requirements, but, you know, when you do a registration drive, you do the best you can. But the League of Women Voters didn’t want to do a drive, if it meant if they didn’t get the form that they collected from a perspective voter into an elections office within x number of days, they would be fined. I don’t know that there were criminal penalties, but the civil penalties, they calculated, could easily eat up their entire budget for the organization, so they stopped registering people.

AMY GOODMAN: Voter ID.

ADAM COHEN: Voter ID. We’ve seen a number attempts around the country to try to stop people from voting through overly onerous voter ID rules. Now, everyone agrees that there can be some reasonable request that you present ID when you vote, but what we’ve seen is incredibly strict rules.

So, Georgia started this out with a rule you had to actually, if you didn’t have a driver’s license, you had to buy a voter ID card. So that meant that poor people in Georgia, you know, were essentially subject to a poll tax. The court struck that down. But it was very clear that Georgia was trying to stop people from voting, including the fact that when that law went into effect, there was no office in the entire city of Atlanta where you could buy that card. And they actually—they had a bus that they had traveling around the state, and if you were able to find that bus, you could buy your card there. But the Atlanta Journal-Constitution actually followed the bus and found that it kept breaking down. It was like a 15-year-old bus. And I think it ended up issuing like 500 cards in a month, and there were 300,000 people who needed the card. So, that has been struck down, Georgia’s rule.

But there are other states, like Indiana and Arizona, that have very strict voter ID laws that are in effect for this election. And as Bob Herbert, my colleague, writes in his column today, Julia Carson, a congresswoman from Indiana, tried to vote with her congressional ID, and that was initially deemed not to be acceptable ID. So you can imagine, they’re really trying to discourage—

AMY GOODMAN: In Indiana?

ADAM COHEN: In Indiana. Discourage people from—

AMY GOODMAN: She showed her congressional ID?

ADAM COHEN: And the initial ruling was that it was not acceptable, because it didn’t have an expiration date on it. I think that was eventually appealed. But you get the idea: if they’re not letting a famous congresswoman in Indiana vote with her congressional ID, they’re not really trying to make every vote count.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the issue of voter roll purges?

ADAM COHEN: Yes, this is something we remember from 2000, when Katherine Harris did that very bad felon voter purge that ended up disenfranchising many people who weren’t felons at all. This goes on all the time, because we don’t really have a lot of access to how board of elections keep their voter rolls. So they can purge names without a lot of notice, and we’ve seen already once this year in Kentucky, they did a purge. They announced a purge that was improper. It had a high error rate, and a court actually ordered them not to do that purge.

Here in New York State, we have a state senator who is running in an incredibly close race. He won his seat two years ago by a very small margin. Last week, he—or Republicans in his district presented the names of 5,000 people they said were on the rolls improperly. Well, if you do that a few days before the election, it’s hard to know what the Board of Elections can do, but there’s a lot of concern in that district that these people may be eligible to vote, but may be stopped from voting.

AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of purges, it’s something we know well from Florida from 2000. Let’s talk a little about the issue, the history of voter disenfranchisement. Just can you go back in time, put 2006 in context? You can go back to the beginning of people voting in the United States.

ADAM COHEN: Sure. People sort of think that 2000 was the beginning of problems with voting, because that was when we saw it in Bush versus Gore. But, in fact, if you look back at the history of voting in the United States, there has always been an attempt to use rules of various kinds to stop certain people from voting. It’s always been a partisan thing. One party realizes if it stops a particular ethnic group or racial group from voting, it may win, and they adopt rules that appear to be neutral, but actually aren’t neutral at all.

So, for example, in New York State, the first voter registration laws were passed in 1840. They applied only to New York City, and everyone understood that it was Republicans in the state who were trying to disenfranchise Irish Catholics in New York City through these voter registration rules. In 1921, there was a constitutional amendment that was passed in New York State, adopting a literacy test for the first time. Everyone knows that was done to stop Yiddish-speaking voters in New York City from being able to vote.

And around the country, we have seen many other rules of this kind. New Jersey, for a while, they adopted what were called “sunset” laws, which required the polls to close at sunset, and everyone knows that the reason was that workers were still working in the factories, and the plan was that by the time they were off of their shifts, the polls would be closed.

AMY GOODMAN: And you take that through to now. I mean, immigrants in also, and you’ve written about this with Abraham Lincoln talking about the issue.

ADAM COHEN: Absolutely. They tried to—various—in Massachusetts, for example, Republicans tried to extend the period of time after an immigrant was naturalized, that they had to wait in order to vote. And Abraham Lincoln, who was a Republican, and it was his own party who was promoting that rule, said, “This really isn’t right. You know, America is about letting people vote,” and he actually did not support that rule. But we’ve seen in many other places, of course, you know, we don’t even need to talk about all the rules in the South, through Jim Crow and after, that were designed to stop blacks from voting, particularly in places where blacks were in the majority.

AMY GOODMAN: And we should comment that Julia Carson of Indianapolis, first woman and first African American to be elected by Indianapolis to Congress.

ADAM COHEN: Right, and apparently her congressional ID was not sufficient proof of her eligibility to vote.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, today—or I should say tomorrow, what are you looking for as the most serious violations that we might see tomorrow?

ADAM COHEN: Well, we’re going to see a lot of things. First of all, we’ll see who’s actually allowed to vote. We’ll see if there are improper challenges at the polls. The Washington Post reported that in Maryland, where there’s going to be some very close races, that the Republicans have issued guides for their poll workers that advised them to threaten the election judges with arrest if they don’t stop various people from voting. So, it could get very intense. So, we’ll see that. We may see fights over who gets to vote. We’ll see voter ID laws perhaps wrongly applied.

We’re also seeing dirty tricks. We’re seeing this already with—the blogosphere is speaking a lot right now about, apparently there is a Republican “robocall” dirty trick campaign going on nationwide that’s designed to suppress the Democratic vote. And what the blogosphere says—I don’t know this first hand, but—is that in about 50 races around the country, Republicans are doing robocalls that appear to be from Democrats, that are coming early in the morning, late at night. They call back seven or eight times, and it’s designed to make voters think that the Democratic candidate is harassing them. And in some cases, voters are calling up the Democratic campaign headquarters and saying, “I’m not voting for you. You keep on calling me.” But, in fact, supposedly, it’s actually a Republican robocall. So, we’re hearing about—

AMY GOODMAN: By “robocall,” you mean?

ADAM COHEN: This is a nonhuman voice. It’s an electronic—you know, it’s an automated phone call, and they can make hundreds of thousands of these very cheaply, because it’s just a machine calling. But, as I say, it’s designed apparently to be done in a deceptive way.

AMY GOODMAN: Does it explain at any point who is responsible for the call?

ADAM COHEN: Well, the description I’ve seen online, they start by saying, here is some important information about the Democrat running for office, and it goes on for a while. People generally hang up and are angry at the Democrat. If you stay on the line long enough, eventually it says, but actually, you know, “This is the Republican Party calling, and we’re warning you about this bad Democrat.” But either people hang up at the beginning and they think a Democrat is harassing them, or if they listen to the end, they get the Republican message. But mainly people are hanging up and reportedly being called again and again and again right afterwards, which, no one would design their own robocalls to do that. That’s designed to apparently leave a bad taste in voters’ mouths.

AMY GOODMAN: There’s a piece in the New York Times today, “A new telemarketing ploy steers voters on Republican path,” meaning this piece.

ADAM COHEN: Yeah, although that’s focusing more on the sort of intelligent use of robocalls to—these are calls that they say, “Do you care about abortion? Are you opposed to abortion?” And if you hit yes, it will then take you to a message about why the Republican is the right person to vote for. So that’s sort of the more benign kind of robocall, although still very sophisticated. And some people are calling it a form of push polling, because they do say negative things about the opponent. But that’s at least within the realm still, I would say, of not being a dirty trick. This other one of pretending to be from the other side and harassing people is worse.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Adam Cohen, editorial writer for the New York Times. The very close races that could determine the balance of the Senate, where they stand today? For example, Tennessee.

ADAM COHEN: Yes, I think people right now are saying that control of the Senate probably rests on Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia; Tennessee, incredibly close. Harold Ford, the first African American who has a real shot in modern times of representing the state. We’ve seen, you know, a very spirited campaign. Allegations of the Republicans have been using racially charged advertising against him. I don’t think anyone knows how that is going to turn out. I mean, there have been polls both ways, showing Ford up a little. Lately Corker seems to have closed the gap, or the Republican, or moved ahead, but I think it’s all going to come down to turnout in Tennessee.

AMY GOODMAN: And Virginia?

ADAM COHEN: Virginia, there, too, a fascinating, very high-profile race. We all know about Senator Allen and his problems. Jim Webb is the Democrat. They’ve been seesawing back and forth. Some polls say that Webb is up by one or two points. Again, turnout will be very important. Virginia is a state that has been Republican for a long time, but they’ve elected two Democratic governors lately, and Democrats in the state, I think, are cautiously optimistic that Webb may win that one.

AMY GOODMAN: And in Missouri?

ADAM COHEN: Missouri may well be the closest race in the country. It seems to be dead even, 47-47, 49-49, depending on the poll, between Jim Talent, the Republican incumbent, and Claire McCaskill. Missouri has some of the closest races in the country. I think people feel that could come down to literally just a few thousand votes in the end.

AMY GOODMAN: Arizona seems to be in play in a way that no one talked about before.

ADAM COHEN: Yeah, no one was really focusing on Arizona, but in the last few days, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been pumping more money into it, because Kyl, the Republican incumbent, does seem to be vulnerable. He’s really not been above 50% in the polls for a while, and that’s a vulnerable place for an incumbent to be. Pederson, the Democrat, has a lot of money on his own, and I think they are two people just, I think, it will come down to who actually turns out to vote on Tuesday.

AMY GOODMAN: And then you’ve got the House. You had the New York Times headline yesterday, “GOP Glum as It Struggles to Hold Congress.” Some of the closest races there.

ADAM COHEN: Yeah, I think people are looking particularly to the Northeast there. Connecticut has three very closely contested races, where some of the moderate Republicans are in trouble, people like Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson. And the Philadelphia suburbs, three more close races, where again moderate Republicans are in danger. Upstate New York has some other races where Republican seats could go Democratic. Those states alone could make up most of the seats that the Democrats would need to make up the 15 seats they need to take the majority.

AMY GOODMAN: And the language that’s being used now, because of course in every one of these local races, where the Democratic Party, where the Republican Party pours resources in, they’re going larger than that particular race. I mean, for example, Nancy Johnson, big pharmaceutical support, insurance support, but when they pour money into the race, they’re talking to the electorate about what the complexion of the country will look like, what the composition of Congress will be.

ADAM COHEN: Right, we’re really seeing a battle here, where the Democrats are trying to nationalize these races. The Republicans are trying to keep them local. So, you see the Democrats saying, “Nancy Johnson is one more vote for the Republican majority. President Bush really wants Nancy Johnson reelected.” Nancy Johnson talks about things like, “Look at all the bacon I’ve brought home for the district. Here is a parkland that I turned into federal park.” You know, local, local, local. And you’re seeing that repeated again and again and again, where the Republicans want to say, you know, “This isn’t a referendum on Iraq or on President Bush. This is about all the things I’ve done, you know, for the community.”

AMY GOODMAN: In New Mexico, a very close race with the incumbent Heather Wilson.

ADAM COHEN: Yes, Heather Wilson appears to be in trouble. Patricia Madrid, the Attorney General, has been running very strong. And that’s part of this trend in the West: a lot of states that had been Republican are now trending Democratic. We’re seeing that in New Mexico, Arizona. Colorado is another state like that, where, you know, they’re purple states now, but they seem to be moving in a blue direction.

AMY GOODMAN: Any other major issues, major races that you’re right now looking at?

ADAM COHEN: Well, there are a couple of races that the Republicans hope they’ll be able to take a few Senate seats away from the Democrats, which would really block their chance of taking over. So, they talk about New Jersey; they talk about maybe knocking off Menendez. I don’t think that’s realistic. New Jersey is a very blue state. Menendez seems to have pulled ahead. Maryland, the Republicans are looking to possibly win that with Michael Steele against Ben Cardin, but I think Cardin will win that, as well. Rhode Island should be interesting. It looks for sure that Chafee was going to lose, the Republican incumbent, a week or two ago. Now the polls have tightened, but I still think the Democrat there is likely to unseat him.

AMY GOODMAN: Very unusual case also, because Chafee is not exactly in the past embraced by the Republican Party.

ADAM COHEN: No, he went out of his way to say that he personally didn’t vote for President Bush, and what may be helping him close the gap is, he’s done a commercial where he says, “Hey, you know, I voted against this war.” He’s almost trying sound like a Democrat, and that may be helping him in the end.

AMY GOODMAN: And there’s also an interesting ballot initiative in Rhode Island around the issue of felon disenfranchisement.

ADAM COHEN: Yes, Rhode Islanders have a chance to vote for a constitutional amendment that would make it—that would extend the vote to some felons right now, people who are on parole and probation who need to wait right now in Rhode Island ’til those end. So people can be out of jail in Rhode Island and for 10, 20, 30 years still not be able to vote. And I think that would be a good thing if that passed.

AMY GOODMAN: How typical is that?

ADAM COHEN: These laws vary by state, but usually that’s not uncommon. I think 37 or more states have rules like that. What is uncommon is having a referendum and having the voters have their say. And there’s a decent chance that will pass.

AMY GOODMAN: Adam Cohen, thank you very much for being with us. Adam Cohen is editorial writer for the New York Times.


Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions,contact us.
« Headlines | Next Story »

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Leave a comment

Boris and the aftermath

I would call this more like ‘economic-cleansing’. They want to ‘gentrify’ the city of London. The governments estimates that 82,000 people will have to move out of London to the cheapest & of course the worst type of home in which to live. irra

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

BBC World Service – News – ‘It’s really frightening’: Hungarian government on toxic sludge spill

BBC World Service – News – 'It's really frightening': Hungarian government on toxic sludge spill: “‘It’s really frightening’: Hungarian government on toxic sludge spill
Monday’s spill has spread over an area of about 40km²
Emergency crews in Hungary are working to clean toxic sludge from streets and houses affected by a spill from an alumina plant that killed four people.
The head of Hungary’s National Disaster Unit said other priorities were sealing a breach through which the sludge was leaking, and protecting waterways.
There are concerns that once the sludge dries, there will be a risk of the resulting dust causing lung cancer.
Anna Nagy is a spokeswoman for the Hungarian government.
Play in either Real OR Windows Media playersFirst broadcast 6 October 2010″

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Leave a comment