Police Protection or Citizen Censorship? Spain to Ban Photos and Videos of Cops

*Source: RT

Protesters clash with riot policemen during a demonstration in Madrid. (AFP Photo / AFP Photo / Pierre-Philippe Marcou)

Spain’s government is drafting a law that bans the photographing and filming of members of the police. The Interior Ministry assures they are not cracking down on freedom of expression, but protecting the lives of law enforcement officers.

­The draft legislation follows waves of protests throughout the country against uncompromising austerity cuts to public healthcare and education.

The new Citizen Safety Law will prohibit “the capture, reproduction and editing of images, sounds or information of members of the security or armed forces in the line of duty,” said the director general of the police, Ignacio Cosido. He added that this new bill seeks to “find a balance between the protection of citizens’ rights and those of security forces.”

The dissemination of images and videos over social networks like Facebook will also be punishable under the legislation.

Despite the fact that the new law will cover all images that could pose a risk to the physical safety officers or impede them from executing their duty, the Interior Ministry maintains it will not encroach on freedom of expression.

“We are trying to avoid images of police being uploaded onto social networks with threats to them and their families,” underlined Cosido.

Violation of freedom of expression?

Spain’s United Police Syndicate said it considers the implementation of the new legislation “very complicated” because it does not establish any guidelines over what kinds of images violate the rights of a police officer. The syndicate warned that the ministry will run into “legal problems” if it does not specify the ins and outs of the law.

"We do not intend to stop the press from doing its job of taking pictures of police charges and other proceedings. But we understand that in anti-terrorist operations or against mafias you have to have a more careful approach when it comes to disseminating images," Interior Minister Jorge Fernandez Diaz said commenting on the issue.

The director of the police also argued that the measures were necessary given the “elevated levels of violence against officers” in the economic downturn that is “undermining the basis of a democratic society.”

The anti-austerity protests that have swept Spain over the past year have been punctuated by reports and footage of police brutality. The footage showed that large numbers of Spanish officers did not wear their identification badges during the protests, although the law requires it.
Spanish journalists now worry that the government's proposed measure could have a negative impact on news gathering.

"If this proposal goes ahead, it is going to be impossible to know about events as they occur on the streets just at a time when streets are at boiling point due to the dire economic situation of many families," Angel Casana, a lead writer for the national newspaper El Mundo, said in an online editorial.
The Spanish government made sweeping cuts to the public sector, provoking the ire of a Spanish public already disillusioned at rising unemployment that tops 50 per cent among adolescents. Madrid has not yet called on the European Central bank for a bailout. But rising economic woes and an unchecked public deficit may force it to do so in the near future as Spain’s beleaguered economy is in danger of following in the footsteps of Greece.

Muslims protest 'age of mockery' as thousands descend on Google HQ

*Source: The Telegraph

Thousands of Muslims have pledged a series of protests against Google HQ for a "hateful and offensive" anti-Islam video, saying they now live in an "age of mockery".

A protest by 10,000 Muslims outside the offices of Google in London today is just the first in an orchestrated attempt to force the company to remove an anti-Islamic film from website YouTube in Britain.

Thousands had travelled from as far afield as Glasgow to take part in the demonstration, ahead of a planned million-strong march in Hyde Park in coming weeks.

 ^{The scene outside the Google offices in Buckingham Palace Road, London. (GEOFF PUGH)}
 

Anger over 'The Innocence of Muslims', an American-produced film which insults the Prophet Mohammad and demeans Muslims, according to protesters, remains available to watch on the website YouTube, a subsidiary of Google.

Organiser Masoud Alam said: "Our next protest will be at the offices of Google and YouTube across the world. We are looking to ban this film.

"This is not freedom of expression, there is a limit for that. This insult of the Prophet will not be allowed.
The group's next action was a march Mr Alam hoped would be "a million strong" would take place in Hyde Park "in the next few weeks", he said.

"Until it is banned we will keep protesting," he added.

Today's demonstration was the third organised in a month, and took place on the central London street where the website search giant has its UK headquarters. A demonstration outside the American Embassy in London last month drew little attention as protests in Libya, Tunisia and Yemen dominated headlines, including the storming of embassy in Benghazi, Libya, that led to the death of the US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

Barricades were erected in front of Google's headquarters and a crowd bearing placards with the words "We love our prophet more than our lives" and "Prophet Muhammad is the founder of freedom of speech" had amassed by lunchtime.


 ^{Protest outside Google HQ on Buckingham Palace Road organised by the Muslim Action Forum. (GEOFF PUGH)}
Speeches by more than a dozen imams in a mixture of Arabic, Urdu, and English urged Muslims to honour the name of the Prophet and not to back down in the face of Google's continuing reluctance to act, and were met with passionate cries of "God is Great" and "Mohammad is the Prophet of God" in Arabic.

One of the speakers, Sheikh Faiz Al-Aqtab Siddiqui, told The Daily Telegraph: "Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people.

"Organisations like Google are key players and have to take responsibility for civility. You can't just say it doesn't matter that it's freedom of speech. It's anarchy."

Sheikh Siddiqui, a barrister from Nuneaton, said he wanted to form a coalition with the Church of England, Catholics, Jewish groups, Trade Unions and even Conservatives to encourage their ranks to join his "campaign for civility".

"We want everyone in society to recognise these people are wrecking our fragile global society. We want the Church, the Synod, Jewish groups and establishment figures involved," he said.

As many as 800 imams in mosques across Britain helped to organise today's protest, which lasted four hours and blocked roads almost up to the Queen's doorstep on Buckingham Palace Road.

Muslims from Blackburn, Birmingham, Glasgow, Luton, Manchester and Peterborough were in attendance. When asked where where the women attending the protest were, one protester replied: "Right at the back".
Self-employed businessman Ahmed Nasar said he was worried the video could lead to violence in Britain in the same way as it had abroad. "If you push people too far," he said, "You will turn the peaceful elements into violence."

A YouTube spokesperson said: "We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions.

"This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere. This video - which is widely available on the Web - is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube."

Pakistan Anti-Islam Film Protest Ends in Islamabad.

*Source: BBC


The BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Islamabad says people were "choked by tear gas".

Demonstrators who gathered outside the US embassy in Islamabad to protest against an amateur video mocking Islam have dispersed peacefully.

The Pakistani authorities had earlier called on the army as police struggled to contain the crowd of thousands with tear gas and live rounds.
Some protesters had said they would not leave the diplomatic enclave until the US embassy was on fire.
Protests over the film, Innocence of Muslims, have claimed several lives.
It was made in the US and is said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.
Streets leading to the enclave, where most of the embassies are housed, were earlier blocked off by shipping containers in an effort to increase security.
'Out like a light' Television pictures showed chaotic scenes as police tried to gain control of the situation.
Protesters burned an effigy of US President Barack Obama and threw missiles at the police.
One demonstrator told reporters: "The infidel who produced the movie should be hanged, or hand over him to the Muslims. And we don't want any (US) diplomat or embassy in Pakistan: all relations should be cut off."
The BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Islamabad, who did not see any evidence of the army at the scene, said the protest was "turned out like a light".
He said it was amazing, given the strength of feeling at the the protest earlier, that the crowd left as peacefully as it did.
A demonstration in the same area on Wednesday saw around 500 protesters gather outside the gates of the enclave.
The US State Department earlier issued a warning against any non-essential travel to Pakistan.
It also "strongly urged" US citizens in Pakistan to avoid protests and large gatherings.
Anti-US sentiment has been growing since people became aware of the amateur film earlier this month.
The US Ambassador to Libya was killed in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, on 11 September.
Protests in countries around the world then took place.
Tensions with the West have been further inflamed by the publication by a French magazine of obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on Wednesday.
The Pakistani government has called a national holiday on Friday to enable people to demonstrate peacefully.

Russian Police Hunt For More Members of Pussy Riot.

*Source: The Guardian

Following sentencing of three women from the all-female group, authorities confirm 'search operations are being conducted'.

Hooded protesters in Zurich join the international outcry over the jailing of three members of Pussy Riot. Photograph: Alessandro Della Bella/EPA

Russian police are searching for more members of Pussy Riot, a spokeswoman said, signalling further pressure on the punk rock band despite an international outcry over jail terms for three women who protested against Vladimir Putin.

The Russian president's critics have condemned the court proceeding that yielded the two-year prison sentences on Friday as part of a clampdown on a protest movement and reminiscent of show trials of dissidents in the Soviet era.

Police said on Monday they were searching for other members of the group in connection with the protest at Moscow's Christ the Saviour cathedral in February, but had not yet identified the suspects.

Police did not say how many people they were looking for, or whether they faced arrest and charges or were wanted merely for questioning. "The necessary search operations are being conducted," a representative of the Moscow police told Interfax news agency.

A police spokeswoman in Moscow's central district confirmed that other, unidentified members of Pussy Riot were being sought in a criminal case that was now separate from that against the three performers who were tried.

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 22, Maria Alyokhina, 24, and Yekaterina Samutsevich, 30, were convicted of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred over their performance of a "punk prayer" urging the Virgin Mary to rid Russia of Putin.

The three wore masks to conceal their identity but were arrested after the protest. Two others who took part remain at large and the group has said it plans further demonstrations against Putin.

In an interview last week, other members of Pussy Riot, their faces hidden behind colourful ski masks, said the trial had only strengthened their resolve.

The European Union and a number of countries have called the sentences disproportionate, and the United States has urged the Russian authorities to review the case.

Tolokonnikova, Alyokhina and Samutsevich said they had sought to protest against Putin's close ties with the Russian Orthodox church and had not set out to offend believers.

Putin himself, who returned to the presidency for a third term on 7 May after a four-year spell as prime minister, said before the sentencing that the women did "nothing good" but should not be judged too harshly.

They have already been in jail for about five months, meaning they will serve another 19, and could be freed if Putin were to pardon them. The Orthodox church hinted it would not oppose such a move by appealing, belatedly, for mercy.

Arab Spring Run Amok: 'Brotherhood' Starts Crucifixions

*Source: WND

Opponents of Egypt's Muslim president executed 'naked on trees'.

The Arab Spring takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood has run amok, with reports from several different media agencies that the radical Muslims have begun crucifying opponents of newly installed President Mohammed Morsi.

Middle East media confirm that during a recent rampage, Muslim Brotherhood operatives “crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others.”

Raymond Ibrahim, a fellow with the Middle East Forum and the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said the crucifixions are the product of who the Middle Eastern media call “partisans.”

“Arabic media call them ‘supporters,’ ‘followers’ and ‘partisans’ of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Ibraham said.

Ibrahim also says the victims can be anyone, including Egyptian Christians.

“It’s anyone who is resisting the new government,” Ibrahim said. “In this particular case, the people attacked and crucified were secular protesters upset because of Morsi’s hostile campaign against the media, especially of Tawfik Okasha, who was constantly exposing him on his station, until Morsi shut him down.”

Ibrahim said extra brutality is reserved for Christians, but the crucifixions are because of Islamic doctrine and are required by the Quran. The time and other details about the crucifixions were not readily available.

“Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist” sorts out what this clash of civilizations is all about

Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Clare Lopez cited chapter and verse from the Quran to explain that crucifixions are not simply normal for Islam, they’re demanded.

“Crucifixion is a hadd punishment, stipulated in the Quran, Sura 5:33, and therefore an obligatory part of Shariah,” Lopez said. “It’s been a traditional punishment within Islam since the beginning, even though it’s not exclusively Islamic. The Romans used it too.

“So, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood haven’t the option to not include crucifixion within their legal code. It’s obligatory to comply with Shariah. And yes, it’s for shock value also to be sure,” Lopez said.

Lopez includes a warning for Egypt’s Christians and compares the coming treatment of the Christians to the Jews in Germany.

“The Copts must get out of Egypt as soon as possible – for the many millions who will not be able to get out, I expect things will continue to deteriorate – just as they did for Germany’s and Europe’s Jews from the 1930s onward,” Lopez said.

“The warnings were there long before the ghettos and round-ups and one-way train trips to the concentration camps began in the 1940s,” she said.

If you think this is just an Egyptian problem, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. Read “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”

Author Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, an analyst of the Middle East and Islam, fully agrees and also cites the Quran.

“The Christians are in serious trouble, because the Quran in Sura 9:29 commands Muslims to wage war against them and subjugate them, and they’re also identified with the hated West and the U.S.,” Geller said.

Geller also turned to Sura 5:33.

Islamic hardliners

“These are Islamic hardliners who do everything by the Quran. The Quran says, ‘Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land,” Geller said.

International Christian Concern’s Middle East analyst Aidan Clay believes there is a relationship between the recent attacks on the regime’s enemies, a recent Sinai military skirmish and Morsi’s moves against the ranking generals.

The “Sinai skirmish” involved suspected Hamas guerrillas trying to cross into Gaza from Egypt. The Israeli Defense Force and intelligence learned of the attempted crossing in advance and stopped the incursion. Sixteen Egyptian border guards were killed in the attempted Rafah border crossing incident.

“It’s hard to believe that President Morsi could have dismissed Field Marshall Mohammed Tantawi without the help of lower-ranking military officers. The military’s sense of prestige, which millions of Egyptians still take great pride in, took a battering following the militant attack in Sinai that killed 16 soldiers,” Clay said.

“The military should have been prepared for the attack. Israel was. And the blame has largely been placed on Tantawi for his negligence and for embarrassing the military establishment,” he said.

Lopez agrees that Israel’s preparedness is a slap against the Egyptian army.

“That border skirmish that resulted in deaths of Egyptian border guards was known ahead of time by Israeli intelligence, which warned their Egyptian military counterparts,” Lopez said.

She notes that Israeli intelligence avoided contact with the Muslim Brotherhood in the incident because the attacks were a Hamas plot.

Lopez added that even after notification, the Egyptian army didn’t act.

“The Egyptian military did nothing, even as Israel expected. Thus the attack was carried out, Israel was totally prepared and responded and the result was Egyptian military deaths,” Lopez said.

Responding to ‘crisis’

She added that Morsi wasted no time in responding to the “crisis.”

“Morsi jumped on the incident as the perfect reason to purge the top ranks of the Egyptian military, install his own MB-sympathizers in positions across the top, chief of staff and intel chief,” she said. “Some call it an internal coup d’etat – and I agree. It put Morsi in sole control of the legislative branch (there is no parliament right now) and in control of the political power in Egypt. The new defense minister is a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. Things are moving very fast.”

Clay said there are mixed feelings among the military top brass in Egypt. He said some still support Tantawi; some have called for change.

“While many senior military officers maintained their support for Tantawi, his reputation took a dive among many younger officers who saw the need for a replacement. It wasn’t just the attack in Sinai that led to this, but the military’s reputation has been on the decline since a few months following the country’s uprising early last year,” Clay said.

“For some, the Sinai attack was the final straw and Morsi may have viewed it as an opportune time to remove Tantawi and other high-ranking officers from key positions,” Clay said.

He noted that Morsi, not the military, took the lead in responding to the Sinai attacks.

“In doing so, while also forcing Tantawi out of his cabinet, Morsi has set a precedent that it is he who decides who runs the army,” Clay said.

“While the generals will still advise Morsi, he can decide whether or not to listen to them. It’s apparent that Morsi is quickly becoming Egypt’s sole leader which means control of the country will be in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.

However, Geller believes Morsi had a second motive for his action.

Reign of terror

“I suspect that Morsi’s action was timed in part to forestall any further military action against the jihadis,” Geller said, adding that the results will make Egypt’s government more monolithic than it already was.

“Morsi is instituting a reign of terror to consolidate his power,” Geller said.

American Enterprise Institute Middle East analyst Michael Rubin agreed: Morsi is after the power.

“Morsi certainly wants absolute control. The Egyptian army have never been saints, but Morsi will broker no checks to his power as the Muslim Brotherhood writes a constitution and imposes its dream of an Islamic state on Egypt,” Rubin said.

Lopez says this all means that Morsi is shedding his “moderate” veneer.

“The point I would make is that Morsi is not bothering to play ‘moderate’ anymore. He’s moving very aggressively to consolidate power for the Muslim Brotherhood,” Lopez said.

She added that Morsi is now free to act without any concern for public opinion.

“He doesn’t seem to care who thinks what anymore. He knows he’s got the USG and president in his corner no matter what he does. He doesn’t have to pretend, no need for ‘plausible deniability.’ He also knows he’s got the majority of the Egyptian people behind him,” Lopez said.

Rubin believes, however, that Morsi will still try to play the “moderate” to continue to gain U.S. support.

Playing the moderate?

“Morsi is going to play the moderate and the mediator for the world media, all the while complaining that he can’t take more forceful action against the extremists because the radical fringe won’t allow him to do more,” Rubin said.

“It’s nonsense, of course, but still an explanation that will satisfy American diplomats, safe behind the walls of their compound,” Rubin said.

Lopez added to Rubin’s explanation, but points to the White House as the main cheerleader for Morsi and the Brotherhood.

“This is exactly what many of us expected him to do (consolidate power) and I think the White House knew, too, and not only expected but wanted Morsi and the Brotherhood to take over Egypt,” Lopez said.

“As far as I know, the White House invitation for Morsi in September still stands – nor have I heard the slightest hint of criticism from any top U.S. government leadership figure about Morsi’s coup. He knows he’s on solid ground with this administration,” Lopez said.

Pussy Riot Sentenced To Two Years In Prison Colony Over Anti-Putin Protest

Source: The Guardian

Russian leader accused of orchestrating case against trio found guilty of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.

Three members of the Russian feminist punk band Pussy Riot are facing two years in a prison colony after they were found guilty of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, in a case seen as the first salvo in Vladimir Putin's crackdown on opposition to his rule.

Maria Alyokhina, 24, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 22, and Yekaterina Samutsevich, 30, were calmly defiant as a judge handed down the sentence, to cries of "Shame!" inside and outside court. Judge Marina Syrova said she rejected their arguments that they had not intended to offend religious believers but were protesting against the Orthodox church's support for Putin.

The case has galvanised Russia's anti-Putin protest movement and raised the international profile of their cause, with dozens of protests held worldwide.

British and American officials were quick to condemn what they described as a "disproportionate" sentence. The Foreign Office minister, Alistair Burt, said: "I am deeply concerned by the sentencing of three members of the band Pussy Riot, which can only be considered a disproportionate response to an expression of political belief."

A spokeswoman for the US state department said: "We urge Russian authorities to review this case and ensure that the right to freedom of expression is upheld."

Catherine Ashton, the EU's high representative, said she was disappointed by the verdict. "It puts a serious question mark over Russia's respect for international obligations of fair, transparent, and independent legal process," she said.

Putin has alleged that foreign powers are behind the protest movement against his rule, launched shortly after he announced last autumn that he was returning to the presidency.

Pussy Riot's supporters and opposition activists accused Putin of personally orchestrating the case against them. "They are in jail because it is Putin's personal revenge," said Alexey Navalny, the opposition's de facto leader. "The verdict was written by Vladimir Putin."

The three women were arrested in March after performing an anti-Putin "punk prayer" inside Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. The case against them is seen as serving two functions: a warning to other dissidents, and an appeal to Putin's conservative base. Russia's growing campaign against gay rights is seen as a part of that effort, and on Friday Moscow's main court upheld a 100-year ban on gay pride rallies.

On Friday night, the Russian Orthodox church repeated its criticism of the band's "blasphemous" protest, which it said displayed "crude hostility towards millions of people" but called on state authorities "to show mercy to the people convicted within the framework of the law, in the hope that they will refrain from repeating blasphemous actions".

Dozens of protesters were arrested outside court, including chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov and leftist opposition leader Sergei Udaltsov. Hundreds more remained long after the court session had ended, shouting: "Russia without Putin!"

More than a dozen people have been arrested for taking part in a protest on 6 May against Putin, and could be jailed or fined under a new law against unauthorised demonstrations.

Navalny faces up to 10 years in prison after he was charged in a fraud case widely seen as an excuse to crack down on his activism. The country's rubber-stamp parliament has recently passed a law forcing nongovernmental organisations that receive international grants to declare themselves "foreign agents", and another that could prompt widespread censorship of the internet.

Protests in support of Pussy Riot were held around the world in New York, Vienna and dozens of other cities. The Royal Court theatre in London staged verbatim readings of the women's closing statement to the court to coincide with the verdict. Sir Paul McCartney, Madonna, and Björk are among the dozens of stars who have issued messages of support. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called the sentence a bitter blow to freedom of expression inside Russia.

Activists said the case has only strengthened the growing movement against Putin's rule. "Russia must stop being a laughing stock in the eyes of the world," said one woman protesting outside the court, who declined to give her name. "We must join civilised society. I really want to hope that our government will find common sense and stop showing itself in such a monstrous way."

Boris Akunin, one of Russia's most popular authors, said that the verdict had doomed Putin to "another year and a half of international shame and humiliation."

Other supporters were less optimistic. Tolokonnikova's husband Pyotr Verzilov said blame for the verdict rested with one man alone: "Whatever Putin wants, Putin gets."

In public statements made earlier this month, Putin had called for the women to be judged "not too severely". Prosecutors had asked for a three-year sentence.

The women remained defiant throughout the trial, issuing powerful closing statements that quickly entered the canon of Russia's dissident speeches. "We have won," Samutsevich said in her closing statement. "The whole world now sees that the criminal case against us has been fabricated. The system cannot conceal the repressive nature of this trial. Once again, the world sees Russia differently than the way Putin tries to present it." The women intend to appeal against the sentence.

Occupier Charged With Terroristic Felony for Protesting in Front of Bank.

*Source: RT

A protester belonging to an Occupy Wall Street group in rural Pennsylvania is being charged with felony attempted bank robbery and a terrorism-related charge for holding signs up during a demonstration at a local Wells Fargo branch.

David C. Gorczynski, 22, was charged on Tuesday with attempted bank robbery and terroristic threatening, both felonies, as well as one misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. Police detained him after he walked into an Easton, PA Wells Fargo branch with a sign that read “You’re being robbed” and another that said “Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob a country.”

Gorczynski was at the Wells Fargo bank as part of a demonstration led by Occupy Easton, the small Pennsylvania town’s OWS offshoot.

Easton is located around 60 miles outside of Philadelphia and has a population of only 26,800 according to the 2010 census.

The Express-Times reports that police were alerted to the branch after a bank teller hit an alarm that alerted the authorities.

"I think our guys did what they had to do in this instance," Easton police Chief Carl Scalzo tells the paper. "At the end of the day, if we get a report of a panic alarm at a bank, we're going to respond accordingly."

Chief Scalzo adds that Gorczynski’s First Amendment right to protest freely can’t trump any allegations that he may have been behind something more sinister.

"We can't allow the perceived idea of protesting to be a defense to criminality," Scalzo says in response to reports that the suspect was simply demonstrating Wall Street corruption. "People have to understand if they want to protest, there's a line."

Mary Catherine Roper of the American Civil Liberties Union tells the paper that the charges seem “overzealous . . . especially given the clear political nature of the statements.”

Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli tells The Express-Times, “I'm very on top of this" and claims he is investigating whether or not the charges were justified.

“He is not the criminal. If the police were truly there to protect and serve the taxpayers, the banksters would be arrested and this man would be called a hero,” the Occupy Easton group responds on Facebook.

Gorczynski was released on $10,000 bond after a defense and bail fund established online helped bring in enough money to buy his freedom after his arrest.

NYPD at #nycggi: "Give Me F***ing Cuffs

Video contains arrests for jay walking, cops suppressing journalists by shinning a flash light in the camera and a stop and frisk. Another day in the life of protesters in NYC.



*http://www.wearechange.org
*http://www.youtube.com/wearechange
*http://www.ustream.tv/wearechange
*https://www.facebook.com/WeAreChange.org
*https://www.facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange
*http://twitter.com/#!/lukewearechange

Mark Dice: WeAreChange Slandered By Media As "Anarchist, Shotgun-Wielding Militia Men In Military Fatigues"

Mark Dice interviews WeAreChange Milwaukee member Mike Paczesny about being detained for 7 hours in Chicago during the NATO protests and being labeled by an anarchist with shotguns wearing militia gear. ARTICLE from NBC Chicago: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Wisconsin-Militia-Men-Brought-Shotguns-A...



*http://www.wearechange.org
*http://www.youtube.com/wearechange
*http://www.ustream.tv/wearechange
*https://www.facebook.com/WeAreChange.org
*https://www.facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange
*http://twitter.com/#!/lukewearechange

*Purchase Mark Dice Books @ Amazon.com
*Mark Dice Official Site
*Mark Dice's YouTube Channel
*Mark Dice Facebook
*Mark Dice @ Twitter

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ Will Make Protest Illegal .

*Source: Russia Today

Washington: US park police detains a Christian religious activist during a pro-life demonstration in front of the White House in Washington on February 16, 2012. (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.