kafranbel-aug2011.jpgシリア緊急募金、およびそのための情報源
UNHCR (国連難民高等弁務官事務所)
WFP (国連・世界食糧計画)
MSF (国境なき医師団)
認定NPO法人 難民支援協会

……ほか、sskjzさん作成の「まとめ」も参照

お読みください:
「なぜ、イスラム教徒は、イスラム過激派のテロを非難しないのか」という問いは、なぜ「差別」なのか。(2014年12月)

「陰謀論」と、「陰謀」について。そして人が死傷させられていることへのシニシズムについて。(2014年11月)

◆知らない人に気軽に話しかけることのできる場で、知らない人から話しかけられたときに応答することをやめました。また、知らない人から話しかけられているかもしれない場所をチェックすることもやめました。あなたの主張は、私を巻き込まずに、あなたがやってください。

【お知らせ】本ブログは、はてなブックマークの「ブ コメ一覧」とやらについては、こういう経緯で非表示にしています。(こういうエントリをアップしてあってもなお「ブ コメ非表示」についてうるさいので、ちょい目立つようにしておきますが、当方のことは「揉め事」に巻き込まないでください。また、言うまでもないことですが、当方がブ コメ一覧を非表示に設定することは、あなたの言論の自由をおかすものではありません。)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


2008年12月03日

"Put aside any emotion"?

I'm too shocked, upset and outraged at the moment to write anything decent about this, so here goes the usual "a bunch of URLs" (and I may write about this later) post. Sorry about this post being in English only, as I am so upset that I can not recollect myself.

In the United Kingdom, the police forces are above the law, it seems.



The Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3542047/De-Menezes-inquest-Unlawful-killing-verdict-ruled-out-jury-told.html
Reminding them that the Brazilian's mother, Maria Otone de Menezes, had seen much of the evidence, the coroner added: "I know that your heart will go out to her.

"But these are emotional reactions, ladies and gentlemen, and you are charged with returning a verdict based on evidence.

"Put aside any emotion - put them to one side."


EVIDENCE? WHAT EVIDENCE? It was the officers who shot the poor Brazilian guy dead that were "emotional" and failed to present reasonable "evidence", as far as I know (via news articles). They choked on tears, they said it should not have happened, but the fact is that they shot to kill. (They shot five times, or seven times, I don't remember.)

Who is this coroner, anyway?

Profile: Sir Michael Wright
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/02/profile-sir-michael-wright-de-menezes

I only hope that he will not be telling us that he regrets about this after he retires - something worse than what Lord Bingham did very recently.

And this (below) seems to me some "newspaper opinion poll" rather than something very legal:

De Menezes inquest: jury's questionnaire in full
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/02/menezes-uksecurity
You have to decide between two available short-term verdicts:

1) LAWFUL KILLING
On the facts of this case, you should return a verdict of lawful killing if you find that officers C2 and C12, when they shot Mr de Menezes, were acting in lawful defence of themselves and/or others.

2) OPEN VERDICT
If, having considered all the evidence, you consider that the necessary elements of a lawful killing verdict are not established as being more likely than not, you should return an open verdict.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE
You must answer "yes", "no" or "cannot decide".
1) Did officer C12 shout the words "armed police" at Mr de Menezes before firing?
2) Did Mr de Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear-hug by officer Ivor?
3) Did Mr de Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?

FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION
4) Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes?
a) The suicide attacks and attempted attacks of July 2005 and the pressure placed upon the Metropolitan Police in responding to the threat.
b) A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of the suspect, Hussain Osman, for the surveillance team.
c) A failure by the police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport.
d) The general difficulty in providing an identification of the man under surveillance (Mr de Menezes) in the time available and in the circumstances after he had left the block at Scotia Road.
e) The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes which increased the suspicions of some officers.
f) The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and the firearms officers.
g) The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known to the command team as the firearms officers were approaching Stockwell station.
h) Any significant shortcomings in the communications system as it was operating on the day between the various police teams on the ground and with New Scotland Yard.
i) A failure to conclude, at the time, that surveillance officers should still be used to carry out the stop of Mr de Menezes at Stockwell station even after it was reported that specialist firearms officers could perform the stop.


Well, if the jury's answers are, like, "Officer C12 did not shout the words 'armed police' at the victim" (illegal), "the victim remained seated" (he was not a threat, thus unlawful) and "the victim did not move towards C12" (same as above), what the verdict could be? "Open"?

RUBBISH. It has to be "unlawful".

This is a logically flawed nonsense. Am I seeing the Bloody Sunday's Widgery Inquiry again, or what?

At the end of the day, the conclusion is "the law enforcement can never be wrong". Bullshit. F*******.

What a farce. There's no future in England's dreaming.

※この記事は

2008年12月03日

にアップロードしました。
1年も経ったころには、書いた本人の記憶から消えているかもしれません。


posted by nofrills at 03:36 | todays news from uk | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする





【2003年に翻訳した文章】The Nuclear Love Affair 核との火遊び
2003年8月14日、John Pilger|ジョン・ピルジャー

私が初めて広島を訪れたのは,原爆投下の22年後のことだった。街はすっかり再建され,ガラス張りの建築物や環状道路が作られていたが,爪痕を見つけることは難しくはなかった。爆弾が炸裂した地点から1マイルも離れていない河原では,泥の中に掘っ立て小屋が建てられ,生気のない人の影がごみの山をあさっていた。現在,こんな日本の姿を想像できる人はほとんどいないだろう。

彼らは生き残った人々だった。ほとんどが病気で貧しく職もなく,社会から追放されていた。「原子病」の恐怖はとても大きかったので,人々は名前を変え,多くは住居を変えた。病人たちは混雑した国立病院で治療を受けた。米国人が作って経営する近代的な原爆病院が松の木に囲まれ市街地を見下ろす場所にあったが,そこではわずかな患者を「研究」目的で受け入れるだけだった。

……全文を読む
▼当ブログで参照・言及するなどした書籍・映画などから▼