War crimes hearing aborted

genocide by Israel, stuff and nonsense rants zionist jew( who lives in Marbella Spain )

لماذا غزة؟ Why Gaza?

There was suppose to be a hearing in August before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal in Malaysia against Amos Yaron and the State of Israel.  The prosecution team was supposed to make an argument that Israel was guilty of genocide against the Palestinians. Instead, they blew this precious opportunity by ranting and behaving inappropriately in front of the Justices, demanding that one of the seven Justices recuse himself. The tribunal listened to them patiently, rejected their demands, and then when the lawyers for the prosecution refused to proceed, the Tribunal had no other choice but to adjourn sine die.

Read the decision here, or watch the short video clip.  A shameful example of advocacy in my opinion.

Amos Yaron was charged individually with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide for his role as an Israeli General in charge of the massacre that occurred in June 1982 in…

View original post 2,326 more words

Whether Israeli settlers are committing genocide is not a political question; Al-Tamimi’s case can proceed.

لماذا غزة؟ Why Gaza?

On February 19, 2019, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, and ruled that the case brought by Palestinians against Sheldon Adelson and other Americans can proceed.  Al-Tamimi v. Adelson, 2019 WL 660919 (C.A.D.C., 2019)

“The plaintiffs, both Palestinian nationals and Palestinian Americans, claim the defendants, pro-Israeli American individuals and entities, are conspiring to expel all non-Jews from territory whose sovereignty is in dispute. They sued in federal district court, pressing four claims: (1) civil conspiracy, (2) genocide and other war crimes, (3) aiding and abetting genocide and other war crimes and (4) trespass. Concluding that all four claims raise nonjusticiable political questions, the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We now reverse.”

Martin McMahon Martin F McMahon, Attorney for the Palestinians

The Palestinians’ complaint is over 200 pages and and the Court’s summary is chilling:

The plaintiffs are eighteen Palestinians who mostly…

View original post 975 more words


Resurfaced 1971 Playboy interview of John Wayne goes viral: ‘I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated’



Image may contain: 2 people, close-up

Someone asked “Why do  British people not like Donald Trump?”

few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain, we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us and most are.
* You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumps of hair and scream in anguish:

‘My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.”


What you’ll learn about LGBTQ+  on a queer tour of the West End

Noel Coward, Ivor Novello, John Gielgud – the names of gay theatre icons are scribed across so many of the West End’s buildings.

Hidden in plain sight, LGBTQ+ people have been instrumental in creating London’s renowned arts landscape, and what better way to learn about it than on a queer tour of theatreland?

Tour leaders Dan de la Motte and Dani Singer assemble fifteen people of various ages, genders and orientations outside the Lyceum Theatre on a Saturday afternoon. Both are performers and activists, and have extensive knowledge of the history of area.

Over the course of an hour and half, we trail the main and back streets, hearing tales of the queer pioneers who shaped theatre as we know it today, all while standing up to injustice or simply trying to live freely.

This is one of the Queer Tours of London events, which bring to life queer histories of all kinds. There have been tours around Soho, Hackney and Bloomsbury, as well as ones themed around trans, disabled and migrant stories.

Queer Tours of London was set up by activist Dan Glass in 2016, conscious that the following years would mark important milestones in LGBTQ+ history: the 50th anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 2017, 30th anniversary of the implementation of Thatcher’s law banning the “promotion” of homosexuality, and the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in 2019.

“We needed to be vigilant to make sure that these milestones weren’t tokenised or co-opted, but harnessed for our community’s continued freedom,” he says.

“Every street – scrap that – every building in London has a queer history, because us queers are everywhere. It’s just homophobia, in all its manifestations, that has tried to wipe us out of common knowledge.”

A few minutes’ stroll around the West End is proof enough of that – here are just a few of the stops on the tour to whet your appetite.

Lyceum Theatre

View photos

A short-lived vaudeville music hall in the early 1900s, the Lyceum Theatre – now home to international hit musical The Lion King – hosted some of the age’s most intriguing performers. Vesta Tilley, best known for her comic male impersonations and notable character Burlington Bertie, was one of these. She first performed in boys’ clothing at the age of six. She inspired future music hall star Fred Barnes, who went to see her when he was 10 years old and would have also performed at this theatre.

Bow Street Magistrates Court

View photos

A Victorian duo of performers were put on trial at Bow Street Magistrates Court in 1871. Fanny and Stella, called the “he-she ladies” because they wore women’s clothing, were arrested, under the names Ernest Boulton and Frederick Park, for going to the theatre in dresses. The police had been trailing them throughout the day and witnessed them buying gloves and jewellery. Despite a thorough rectal examination, the prosecution was unable to find any evidence that they had committed homosexual offenses, or to prove that dressing as women was any sort of crime. Much to the delight of the public, who flocked to the trial and cheered, Fanny and Stella were found not guilty by the Jury.

The Caravan Club

View photos

Now hidden behind a nondescript door on Endell Street is the site where the Caravan Club used to be. Frequented by hundreds at a time in the 1930s, it was viewed by the police as somewhere “lewd and scandalous”. The police were so obsessed with catching people at it that they set up surveillance spots in the turrets of the Shaftesbury Theatre over the road to watch who went in and out. When it was raided, 103 people were arrested and taken to the Bow Street Magistrates Court, where it is said to have taken ten minutes just to read out the names of the accused. Hundreds of people crowded outside once news of the charges spread. While 67 were released, the rest were tried at the Old Bailey, with the owner being sentenced to nearly two years of hard labour.

Palace Theatre

View photos

Under the management of Alfred Butt, the Palace Theatre became the setting for many exciting stage personalities. One of these was the sultry Canadian Maud Allan, a lesbian dancer who performed there in her version of Oscar Wilde’s Salomé. During this show, which ran towards the end of the First World War in 1918, MP Noel Pemberton Billing published an article entitled The Cult of the Clitoris, in which he implied that Allan was a lesbian conspiring with the Germans during the war. She sued him for libel, but ultimately lost because of a media witch hunt orchestrated by Billing. During the trial he asked her if she knew where the clitoris was. She replied that she did, which he saw as proof of her lesbianism, because only doctors should have been able to identify it. Poor Mrs Billing.

You can find out more about the tours at queertoursoflondon.com

One rule for the common person and one for the privileged society. The decision not to prosecute Philip(the queen’s husband) is the wrong outcome.