h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There's an updated theory on the reasons behind the seizure at:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/14/indymedia_seizure_genoa_connection/

I think the existence of this thread shows that people do care, Zagreb.

Well I care.

First of all, not liking US policy and even anti-Americanism, is not "illegal", and certainly, no American "security" agency has the right to act upon people who hold opinion which Bush or the State Department, or the CIA, or any other American holds, whether inside the US or outside it (especially outside).

As I said before, in reviewing the site, I find anti-American and anti-Israeli policy (which is also not illegal) sentiment, as well as some crackpot "anti-Zionist" claptrap and nuttery. However, the majority of the site contains material which ranges from domestic news, alternative domestic and international political news and opinion.

I would suggest that the greater crime is denying reporters in Guatemala or Brazil, or Uganda (or the US) their right to present opinions (which could have them "disappeared" in their countries) in an open forum such as Indymedia in order to silence a couple of nutcases or those who happen to hold opinions which are critical of the US.

The fact is that mainstream American media contains anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim material on a greater scale than this site contains in the reverse, and as vehemently rabid and idiotic.

If America and Americans wonder what spawns "anti-Americanism", they need only look at this example of American "authorities" trampling all over rights of people who happen to hold opinions which don't agree with theirs. It is pretty frightening that security officials from one country can march into the offices or homes of foreign nationals and rifle their drawers, and I think you will agree that, if you made some anti-Canadian remarks and the RCMP took it upon themselves to march into your office and take away your computer.

Would Americans sit idly by if this happened? Not bleeding likely.

Unfinished thought. Here it is in its entirety: if you made some anti-Canadian remarks and the RCMP took it upon themselves to march into your office and take away your computer, you would be just a little teed off, and well within your rights to be just a tad upset.

Well said Mudhooks.

I think it is important to understand that indymedia doesn't operate like mainstream media in that it has an "open publishing" editorial policy. As can be seen from the link that Zagreb posted, there is facility for people to post their response to any IMC article. The last responses on that link suggest that the article is a plant or hoax. Who knows? The point being that indymedia is promoting a visibility and democracy far stronger than most media, and is not the repository of racist propaganda that Zagreb suggests.


>>
What is the www.indymedia.org newswire?/Why are there sometimes hate-filled articles on the newswire?

The www.indymedia.org newswire works on the principle of "open publishing," an essential element of the Indymedia project that allows independent journalists and publications to publish the news they gather instantaneously on a globally accessible web site. The Indymedia newswire encourages people to become the media by posting their own articles, analysis and information to the site. Anyone may publish to the newswire, from any computer that is connected to the Internet, by clicking the 'publish' link on the www.indymedia.org page and following the easy instructions. Indymedia relies on the people who post to the Indymedia newswire to present their information in a thorough, honest, accurate manner. While Indymedia reserves the right to develop sections of the site that provide edited articles, there is no designated Indymedia editorial collective that edits articles posted to the www.indymedia.org newswire. An Indymedia 'Newswire Working Group' has formed to keep track of what's been posted and clear the newswire of duplicate posts, commercial messages, and other posts that don't fit within Indymedia's editorial guidelines. Soon you will be able to contact the Newswire Working Group via e-mail to voice your opinions about the articles it has chosen to remove from the front page of the newswire. All articles moved from the front of the newswire will continue to remain publicly accessible through the "editorial administration" and the "hidden articles" areas of the Indymedia site, which you can reach through the "publish" link. You will soon find the current Indymedia editorial guidelines at the top of the page you reach after clicking the "publish" link. If you disagree with the content of a particular article that someone has posted on Indymedia, you may comment on the article through the "add your own comments" link at the bottom of each post.
<<

see http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/FrequentlyAskedQuestionEn#newswire for more information on how IMC works.

~~

The Reg update is interesting - the Genoa police trial makes way more sense as a 'reason' for seizing the servers than the previous explanation of photos of secret service agents.

As an update to the situation between the US and the UK - The US has been granted leave to apply for extradition to the US to face trial about a land sale scam - related to the Enron case.

None of these men have been proved guilty of anything, not is there substantive evidence against them. Basically they have been accused by someone within Enron, in a plea bargain type arrangement. (From what I can see about it)

The interesting point is that this case, like the one in this thread, are not reciporical - the UK could not even ask for an American citizen to be sent for trial under these circumstances. David Blunkett is fast becoming a nodding dog for US enforcement.

Wasn't there something a bit ago about extraditing terrorism suspects? Since the UK does not extradite where the sentence may be death, except whent the US wants a terrorist suspect that is.

I was watching "American Justice" on A&E the other day. They were talking about Charles Ng who, while on the run from murder charges (serial murders), was hiding out in Canada. He was caught shoplifting and was also charged with assault after a security guard was shot in the hand during the scuffle during the shoplifting incident.

Since he was on the run from the US, the US asked for his extradition. Canada refused on the grounds that Canadian Law (under Extradition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-23, s. 25 -- Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States of America, Can. T.S. 1976 No. 3, Art. 6, between the US and Canada) won't extradite someone who will face the death penalty. The US began what turned out to be a six-year fight to have him extradited.

On the program, one of the officials interviewed referred to "Countries like Canada with screwed up extradition policies".

What particularly irked me was the fact that this same official made it sound like Canada was a "haven for criminals" wanting to avoid the death penalty, which it isn't.

The fact is that Canada abolished the death penalty, and Canada's Constitution (Yes, we have one, too, as do other civilized countries. In our case, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) basically says that "capital punishment for murder is prohibited in Canada. Section 12 of the Charter provides that no one is to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is per se a cruel and unusual punishment. It is the ultimate denial of human dignity. No individual can be subjected to it in Canada." We cannot subject Canadians to the death penalty and we will not surrender a person, not matter how heinous their crime, unless we receive assurance that they will not face the death penalty.

The final decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was that, despite the fact that he would face the death penalty, he could be extradited. He currently sits on death Row.

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1991/vol2/html/1991scr2_0858.html

What also irked me was that the US takes itself to deport Canadian citizens to third countries where they will face torture and worse, without a blink, and makes a big stink over Canada refusing to do the same. They also make it seem as though Canada somehow undermines the US by having its own laws, as though American law supercedes any other country's laws.

Of course, Canada is not the only country which will not extradite those facing the death penalty. France won't extradite, either. I am sure there are other countries. Unfortunately, there are far too many right-wingers, here in Canada, who are all too ready to extradite not only those facing the death penalty in the US, but refugees who face torture and death in their countries of origin.

Forgot this link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut5.htm

Amongst other things:
"1975: A Native American, Leonard Peltier was charged after a shootout with the FBI that resulted in the deaths of two agents. He was extradited from Canada and is now serving two live sentences in Kansas. There are strong suspicions that he was convicted on the basis of tainted evidence." Not to mention that he was extradited without due process, and, it appears, based on lies and made up "evidence" made by the FBI to the RCMP.

Oh, and Leonard Peltier is Native Canadian, not Native American....

I hadn't realised that Peltier is Native Canadian. Do you know where his citizenship is?

Here's a report on the extradition/death penalty issue in Australia:

>>Extradition covers death penalty
21sep04
A LONG-standing convention not to extradite people out of Australia if they face the death penalty has been abandoned.

This follows a secret agreement on air marshal operations with the US.

The Howard Government yesterday confirmed the agreement extended to the possibility of handing over suspected terrorists on capital charges if they were arrested en route to or from the US.

Australian and American air marshals have been on flights between the two countries since the beginning of the year. Both governments have refused to detail their operations in the face of the ongoing terrorist threat.

The agreement comes in the wake of the Howard Government and Federal Opposition last year refusing to object to the then-imposition of the death penalty on the Bali bombers.

But the air marshal agreement has raised legal issues, with extradition expert Ned Aughterson, of Charles Darwin University, questioning its validity in relation to the handover of alleged terrorists facing capital charges.

Professor Aughterson said current Australian law prohibited an extradition of a person to a foreign country if they faced execution. "It is firmly established in the legislation that they can't hand over the person unless they get an assurance that the death sentence would not be imposed," he said.

The extradition law was gradually introduced following Australia's last legal execution in 1967.

In written correspondence with The Courier-Mail, Justice Minister Chris Ellison confirmed the possibility of extradition to the US of a prisoner facing execution.

Senator Ellison was not available to be interviewed on the subject.

Requests for a detailed briefing on the agreement were refused.

But a spokesman for Senator Ellison sought to clarify his statement, saying the Government had demanded the right "to negotiate" with the US if an Australian was charged under American federal law with an offence carrying the death penalty. <<

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,10827013,00.html

I can't really make sense of that - does an international 'agreement' now take precedent over national law?


Here's the New Zealand situation:

>>When the offense for which the extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting Party and the laws of the requested Party do not permit such punishment for that offense, extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party provides such assurances as the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.
<<
http://www.internationalextradition.com/newzealand_bi.htm (this site has copies of many international extradition treaties).

There is a couple of points on Canada and Italy, and the US here (2/3rds down) http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT500051997?open&of=ENG-312

~~

I think in the Enron case that it is pretty standard for countries to allow extradition, and that the US would allow extradition to the UK if there was sufficient reason.

I meant to say that the word 'may' which appears in the NZ and Australian laws makes the whole thing ambiguous.

"...extradition may be refused ..."

Possibly that is the same with Canada?

Sorry, I was in error about his nationality. It was probably an impression I had for many years due to the fact that he had been extradited from Canada to the US....

Peltier is, more precisely, a citizen of the Anishinabe and Lakota Nations and was born in North Dakota. However, determining "citizenship" to the United States or Canada is problematic, as, especially in the Western Plains, tribal affilliations mean that Lakota and others cross back and forth the borders. While most non-Natives think of anyone who was bormn within the borders of a country as "citizens" they usually don't understand that Native People (the Treatied and those who never took treaty) are actually citizens of their tribal nation, rather than of the country in which they live. Because of the treaties, they have rights of the citizens of the country in which they live, but, unless they renounce their citizenship to the tribal group (enfranchisement), they remain citizens of the tribal nations.

Peltier is a member of the Anishnabe and Lakotas and their traditional lands and tribal affilliations straddle the US/Canada border.

Unfortunately, the US usually doesn't recognise the tribal rights, or at least is slow to recognise them, and usually only when it suits them. Canada really does a better job of this and does respect the treaties and treaty rights, for the most part. Where there is a problem, it is with groups which either never took treaty, and were, therefore, not recognised as sovereign peoples; or where treaties were signed by those who did not actually represent them. Treaty issues are an ongoing as the Federal Government and tribal groups hash out the various land-claims. The company I work for is involved with researching land-claim issues. In fact, our company is one of the best in the business.

This is the Free Peltier website: http://www.freepeltier.org/

Thanks Mudhooks.

"unless they renounce their citizenship to the tribal group (enfranchisement)"

Really? Renouncing ones tribe and cultural/ethnic origins is term enfranchisement? That seems somehow very wrong. I'd have expected a 'dis-' on the front of it.

"Enfranchisement" was seen by the Government not as giving anything up but, rather, as gaining "civilization" and everything citizenship offered. You have to remember that White society saw the Native people as having nothing, including any redeeming social structure. They needed to be assimilated and the trappings of paganism and savagery wiped away.

In the not so distant past, under the Indian Act, in order for a Native person in Canada to enjoy the same rights to property, finances, to vote, to live off-reserve, and even (in the case of veterans) to enjoy a beer in the local Legion Hall, they needed to "enfranchise". They were free to sign up to die for Canada, and did in numbers greater than their white counterparts, but they couldn't vote or have a beer.

A few facts about enfranchisement:

From 1965 to 1975, only five per cent of enfranchisements were voluntary; 95 per cent were involuntary, and the great majority of these involved women.

"When an Indian woman marries outside the band, whether a non-treaty Indian or a white man, it is in the interest of the Department, and in her interest as well, to sever her connection wholly with the reserve and the Indian mode of life, and the purpose of this section was to enable us to commute her financial interests. The words "with the consent of the band" have in many cases been effectual in preventing this severance.... The amendment makes in the same direction as the proposed Enfranchisement Clauses, that is it takes away the power from unprogressive bands of preventing their members from advancing to full citizenship." Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs and the Superintendent General (the Minister of Indian Affairs) in 1920

Women lost their status if they married non-Natives. The reason for this was that their children would be recognised as "white", thus both reducing the number pf people who could claim status and representing an expense to the Department, and also assimilating the next generation and "waatering down" the bloodlines. However, non-Native women who married Native men automatically gained status. Since it was more likely that a Native woman would marry a white man than the reverse, the number of people losing status would still be higher than those gaining it.

It was recognised that children were more influenced by their mothers. If a Native woman was forced to move off-reserve in order to marry a non-Native, her children would more readily adopt non-Native ways. When white women married a Native man, she would naturally bring her culture with her, thereby "civilizing" her offspring. It was assumed that her children would be more likely to want to move off-reserve and into White society.

In 1985, the parts of the Indian Act involving enfranchisement of women were finally amended.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/matr/his_e.html

Native men who signed up in the armed forces, in order to receive their army pensions, post-war benefits, housing, etc., were forced to accept enfranchisement.

It wasn't until the 1960 that the vote was extended to Native people. It also was the first time that Native people were accorded the rights of citizenship without having to enfranchise. Up until then, Native people could not own a house, get a loan, or have a bank-account. They did, of course, but they weren't allowed to legally.

<< They also make it seem as though Canada somehow undermines the US by having its own laws, as though American law supercedes any other country's laws>>
That is an unfortunate attitude that the US now has, (or maybe it did longer than I realised...) They are like that to lots of countries!

For a comparison of the US and Canadian approach to land-claims

US
http://thorpe.ou.edu/treatises/cases/Johnson.PDF
http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/indian1.html

Canadian
Delgamuukw Decision and Modern Treaties:
http://www.delgamuukw.org/research/moderntreaties.pdf
Gitxsan-Wet’suwet’en decision:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp459-e.htm
(Thanks to anhaga for the first two links. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A2963775)

You should also mention the Canadian Constitution, Mudhooks. Section 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly lays out the fact that the Canadian State is a modern creation that in no way supercedes or replaces the Aboriginal societies which existed before Canada and it affirms that the Aboriginal rights which existed before Canada continue to exist and, in fact, are a fundamental part of what Canada is today. http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html

A little different from Johnson v. McIntosh, which is still a precedent in American Jurisprudence which has never been overturned and, in fact, upon which a huge amount of American property law has been based.


How did I get dragged into this.

Thanks, Anhaga. Yes, you made a good point. I think I was making the assumption that because the Canadian Constitution is, quite naturally, at the heart of Supreme Court decisions, it was a given. However, I should have made mention of the fact.

I find it interesting that, in determining title, the court looks beyond whether the rights to the land in question was extinguished by right of subjugation, as appears to be the norm in the US. In fact, the criteria for determining prior title looks not just at whether or not a particular people were present on the land, but their traditional laws in regard to the land, the activities which tied them to a particular territory, and the "meaning" of the activites. They also look at overlapping claims.

Of course, the core difference ebtween the US and Canadian approaches to land-claims is that the US views the Native Peoples as a "conquered people" even where no actual subjugation took place. In Canada, treaties are recognised as legal agreements between nations. The trouble for Canada is that the Government often failed to uphold aspects of the treaties and failed to give real and lasting value to the lands signed over in treaty.

As well, they are now dealing with large numbers of claims on previously unceded lands from which the traditional inhabitants had been driven and not been compensated.

Actually, I was interested to see one of the televised Supreme Court proceedings on a claim by Metis to lands in the Sault Ste. Marie. The question being asked in R v. Powley was "Whether members of this Métis community have constitutional aboriginal right to hunt for food in environs of Sault Ste. Marie?" http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2003/vol2/html/2003scr2_0207.html

In essence, they appellants were asking the Court, "Do the Metis Peoples have a distinct society and does that traditional social structure indicate that their can claim traditional hunting and fishing rights, as well as other aboriginal rights, can be considered?" The core of the appeal was that, while they, as mixed race peoples, did not traditionally live on the land prior to Contact, their existence on lands which, by virtue of their familial links to those tribal peoples already existing pre-Contact, became ownership of traditional lands.

Stemming from a case where a Metis man had been charged with fishing without a license, in presenting their case, the Counsel for the appellants detailed the distinctness of the Metis culture which, while having aspects of White and Native cultures, were

In a landmark 9-0 decision, the Court found that

"the modified the pre-contact test to reflect the distinct history of Metis settlements."

In his response to the decision, Phil Fontaine, Grand Chief of the Assembley of First Nations, said ""The decision states that a minimum `blood quantum' (or blood percentage) is not a defining factor in determining who is Metis," he added in a statement. Fontaine hailed the high court for affirming that self-identification and community recognition are the most important factors."