#Statut de Rome

[mounadiloun]

Un point de vue sud-africain sur la décision de la Cour Internationale de Justice

Une analyse sud-africaine de la décision rendue par la Cour Internationale de Justice de la Haye saisie par le gouvernement de l’Afrique du Sud qui accusait le régime sioniste de génocide. Selon Nontobeko Hlela, la décision rendue à La Haye fera date car elle reconnaît que la population de Gaza fait face à un risque de génocide et que la cour enjoint au régime sioniste de faire le nécessaire…

[soon-palestine]

THE HAGUE

Dutch lawmakers on Friday called for a probe into allegations of espionage and intimidation by Israel to obstruct International Criminal Court (ICC) investigations into Israeli officials.

A written question submitted by House of Representatives member Kati Piri urged ministers to investigate the alleged activities. Piri is a member of the Green Left-Labor Party alliance, led by former European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans.

A query, which received backing from other Green Left and Labor Party members, was directed at Foreign Minister Hanke Bruins Slot, Interior and Kingdom Relations Minister Hugo de Jonge and Justice and Security Minister Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius.

Citing international media reports, the motion requested that the three ministries, along with Dutch intelligence services, look into Israel's alleged espionage and intimidation efforts against the ICC.

The efforts are reportedly aimed at disrupting investigations into war crimes committed in Palestinian territories.

Special responsibility

The motion stressed that as the host state of the ICC, which is based in The Hague, the Netherlands has a duty to prevent any attacks or threats against the international court.

It questioned how Dutch authorities plan to ensure that ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan and Court judges can operate independently and without interference.

The motion also took note of an incident involving former ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, whose home in The Hague was searched by two individuals believed to be working for Israeli intelligence.

Bensouda had reported the incident to Dutch authorities.

Piri's motion also requested that the ministers disclose the number of complaints received from the ICC, Palestinian non-governmental organizations and individuals about intimidation, bribery, blackmail or espionage attempts by Israel or other countries since 2015.

Sabotage of ICC investigations

The motion asserted that Israel's alleged espionage activities are intended to sabotage the ICC's investigations into crimes committed by Israeli officials in Palestinian territories.

It raised concern about whether witnesses to the crimes might feel intimidated to testify before the ICC and questioned whether the Netherlands could adequately protect witnesses and victims.

The motion called on Dutch ministers to clarify their stance on the Israeli government's designation of six Palestinian human rights groups as "terrorist organizations" in October 2021.

It requested an assessment of the designations and of allegations against the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees, or UNRWA.

Furthermore, it demands an investigation into the possible involvement of Israel's diplomatic mission in The Hague in alleged intimidation activities against the ICC.

"Will you summon the Israeli ambassador to demand an explanation and convey the message that espionage and intimidation campaigns on Dutch soil are unacceptable?" it asked.

It called for an investigation into whether Israel has committed crimes aimed at obstructing the administration of justice, referring to Article 70 of the Rome Statute, the ICC's founding treaty, which regulates crimes against the administration of justice.

[lepartidelamort]

Menacé par la Gestapo, Netanyahu ne viendra pas célébrer les 80 ans des fausses chambres à gaz d’Auschwitz.

Le tribunal de Nuremberg est catégorique : la place des juifs est en prison.

Avouez que personne ne s’attendait à ce retournement.

Les juifs menacés d’être arrêtés à Auschwitz sur ordre du tribunal de Nuremberg, c’est un sacré rebondissement.

Middle East Eyes :

Le premier ministre israélien, Benjamin Netanyahu, ne participera pas à un événement marquant le 80e anniversaire de la libération du camp de concentration d’Auschwitz en Pologne, de crainte qu’il ne soit arrêté et remis à la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), ont rapporté les médias polonais. Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, vice-ministre polonais des affaires étrangères, qui organise la cérémonie, a déclaré au journal polonais Rzeczpospolita que Varsovie s’engageait à respecter les décisions de la CPI.

Le mois dernier, la Cour de La Haye a émis des mandats d’arrêt à l’encontre de M. Netanyahou et de Yoav Gallant, l’ancien ministre israélien de la défense. Les deux hommes sont accusés du « crime de guerre de famine en tant que méthode de guerre et des crimes contre l’humanité de meurtre, de persécution et d’autres actes inhumains » pendant la guerre qu’Israël mène actuellement contre Gaza, depuis les attaques menées par le Hamas le 7 octobre.

Les juifs sont effectivement des criminels

Les 124 membres du Statut de Rome, le traité qui a institué la CPI, sont désormais tenus d’arrêter les deux dirigeants israéliens et de les remettre à la Cour. La Pologne fait partie des signataires. Selon Rzeczpospolita, M. Netanyahou et le président israélien Isaac Herzog ne devraient pas assister à la cérémonie du 27 janvier à Auschwitz. Le ministre israélien de l’éducation, Yoav Kisch, devrait être présent.

Plusieurs signataires, dont les Pays-Bas, la France, le Royaume-Uni, l’Irlande et la Belgique, ont indiqué qu’ils respecteraient la décision de la CPI. Toutefois, la France a déclaré par la suite qu’elle pensait que M. Netanyahu était couvert par l’immunité en tant que chef de gouvernement en exercice parce qu’Israël n’est pas membre de la CPI, bien que des experts juridiques internationaux aient rejeté cette interprétation. La CPI ne dispose pas de pouvoirs d’exécution, mais compte sur la coopération des États membres pour arrêter et remettre les suspects.

C’est une grosse affaire, car Auschwitz est l’épicentre de la propagande juive internationale. C’est un lieu incontournable de la religion des démocraties, mais aussi le mythe fondateur de l’entité sioniste. Les juifs commettent à peu près tous les crimes qu’ils veulent grâce à ce lieu mythologique.

Voir le roi des juifs en être interdit d’accès sous menace d’arrestation est très significatif.

L’impunité des juifs s’érode à la vue des crimes à grande échelle qu’ils commettent en Palestine et ailleurs. Et notez que c’est en Europe où les juifs exercent pourtant une formidable influence.

Imaginez dans le reste du monde.

Auschwitz, ce n’est pas sérieux

La prison d’Auschwitz n’a jamais été une usine à gazer des philanthropes juifs, mais un vaste complexe industriel destiné à l’effort de guerre allemand.

Il n’y avait d’ailleurs pas un camp, mais plusieurs auxquels étaient adjoints un grand nombre d’usines. Le nec plus ultra de la technologie de l’époque.

Comme les juifs sont des terroristes et des espions nés, les Allemands avaient judicieusement décidé de les retirer de la société pour les mettre au travail dans cette prison, ainsi que dans d’autres.

Les conditions étaient spartiates, mais celles sur le Front de l’Est l’étaient infiniment plus pour le soldat allemand. C’était donc un geste d’une incroyable générosité que de leur accorder un toit sur la tête. D’ailleurs, les baraquements de cette prison d’Auschwitz étaient chauffés. Les cheminées en briques sont encore visibles.

Et bien sûr, il y avait des endroits de loisir, comme la piscine.

À Auschwitz, il y avait des prisonniers de guerre, en plus des juifs. Les Gallois avaient par exemple leur propre équipe de football.

Enfin, les juifs avaient diverses activités, y compris des orchestres de musique classique pour tuer le temps.

Ce que les juifs montrent depuis 80 ans, c’est la morgue de la prison qui était équipée d’un système de crémation pour traiter les corps des malades décédés en cas de pandémie. Autrement dit, ces fours servaient à protéger les prisonniers.

Pour cette ville qu’était la prison d’Auschwitz, il y avait un total de 25 fours individuels. En cas d’épidémie soudaine, quelques centaines de corps de malades décédés devaient pouvoir être rapidement incinérés pour contenir l’infection qui, sinon, pourrait devenir hors de contrôle et tuer les prisonniers, mais aussi le personnel de la prison.

Avec une température de 700 degrés environ pour ce type de fours au coke, il aurait fallu 15 ans pour incinérer un million de corps sans aucune interruption.

Personne doté d’un cerveau fonctionnel ne peut sérieusement croire aux affabulations de ces juifs après avoir pris une ou deux heures d’analyse critique de toute l’affaire.

C’est simplement idiot.

Les juifs le savent et font arrêter tous ceux qui disent que c’est idiot.

La série de Vincent Reynouard sur le sujet mérite d’être visionnée, ce n’est pas si long et cela permet de passer en revue dans le détail les affabulations outrancières de ces juifs à propos de ce centre de rééducation par le travail.

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/holocauste-message-aux-generations-futures-ep-1:2?src=embed

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/holocauste-message-aux-generations-futures-ep-2:c?src=embed

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/holocauste-message-aux-generations-futures-ep-3:a?src=embed

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/holocauste-message-aux-generations-futures-ep-4:6?src=embed

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/holocauste-message-aux-generations-futures-ep-5:1?src=embed

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/holocauste-message-aux-generations-futures-ep-6:8?src=embed

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/holocauste-message-aux-generations-futures-ep-7:8?src=embed

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/Holocauste_-message-aux-ge%CC%81ne%CC%81rations-futures.-Les-te%CC%81moignages-sur-les-chambres-a%CC%80-gaz-(2)-720p:5?src=embed

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/Holocauste_-message-aux-ge%CC%81ne%CC%81rations-futures.-Les-te%CC%81moignages-sur-les-chambres-a%CC%80-gaz-(3)-720p:2?src=embed

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/holocauste-message-aux-generations-futures-ep-10:0?src=embed

https://odysee.com/@sansconcession:f/holocauste-message-aux-generations-futures-ep-11:e?src=embed

Démocratie Participative

[samueldays]

I'm rereading Just and Unjust Wars, trying to resolve something that's been niggling at me about war crimes and the laws of war.

I think it might be an insufficient distinction between (gestures vaguely) law-as-command, the decree of a legislating authority to subjects; and law-as-custom, the agreement of peers about how to behave with each other.

Rules about war crimes necessarily lean towards law-as-custom, because war is the business of sovereigns who are not subject to any other authority's decree.

Yet many people treat war crimes as entirely law-as-command: wanting to call the War Cops on you for violating War Law with your War Crime and the War Judge will give you a War Trial before putting you in War Jail. (I caricature a little to illustrate the sentiment, they don't say "War Cops", they say "The Hague".)

Here's HRW as an example of law-as-command thought:

The Israeli military’s repeated, apparently unlawful attacks on medical facilities, personnel, and transport are further destroying the Gaza Strip’s healthcare system and should be investigated as war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today. Despite the Israeli military’s claims on November 5, 2023, of “Hamas’s cynical use of hospitals,” no evidence put forward would justify depriving hospitals and ambulances of their protected status under international humanitarian law.

On the view of law-as-command, Hamas committed crime #1 by using hospitals and ambulances for military purposes, and Israel committed crime #2 by then attacking hospitals and ambulances. HRW is speaking as though on behalf of a Global Sovereign who is in charge of everyone, saying that such-and-such statute prohibits such-and-such action of the nominally sovereign state of Israel. Law-as-command is enforced by the Global Sovereign sending in the War Cops.

On the view of law-as-custom, there was an implicit agreement which sounds something like "I'll leave the hospitals and ambulances out of it if you will", and when Hamas stopped holding to this agreement, it ceased to have any force on Israel as counterparty. Law-as-custom is enforced by the threat of losing the protection of the agreement if you violate it.

Both of these views have (gestures vaguely again) unsatisfying philosophical gaps, I think.

The gap in the law-as-command view is that the de facto Global Sovereign of the past fifty years has been the United States of America, and so "war crimes" de facto reduces to whatever the USA won't let you get away with. The HRW cites the Rome Statute, which neither America nor Israel are party to, slightly more weighty than citing "My uncle who works at Nintendo said so".

The gap in the law-as-custom view is that it entitles Israel to target Palestinian hospitals more broadly now, because their protection only arose from a mutual agreement in the first place, which Hamas has now un-agreed to. Sucks for the Palestinians.

Of course, philosophical gaps very rarely move people with guns in the short term.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Assessing Brazil’s Potential to Act as a Peace Enabler in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict

The result of the 2022 presidential elections in Brazil was celebrated domestically and overseas by those who were looking forward to Brazil’s return to the international stage after the country’s isolation under the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro. The narrow victory of the Workers’ Party candidate, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, and his January 2023 inauguration, coincided with a particularly auspicious moment for Brazil’s international engagement: the country was occupying a non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (it left the Council at the end of December 2023) and the country was also due to occupy the presidency of the G-20 (for 2024) and serve as the host of the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP 30), to be held in the Amazonian city of Belém in 2025.

Brazil’s return to the global stage, its participation in groups such as the G-20, the G-77, IBSA (India Brazil, South Africa Dialogue), and BRICS, combined with the characteristic of being one of the few countries in the world with diplomatic relations with all United Nations member states also meant that Brazil could play a role regarding the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. For Brazil, the challenges in playing a more active role regarding the conflict include both domestic and international dimensions. At the domestic level, one of the biggest challenges is achieving economic development and reducing social inequalities in a country that, according to the World Inequality Lab, is one of the most socially unequal countries in the world. Given the magnitude of this challenge, Lula has been criticised for giving too much priority to presidential diplomacy in his first year in government and travelling abroad several times.

Internationally, the competing issues that hold back Brazil in developing a more active role in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict are related to the need to address issues close to home. These include: 1) the rivalry between Venezuela and Guyana on the Brazilian border, as Brazilian mediation credentials could be more useful regarding neighboring countries, and 2) the need to balance the bilateral relationship with Argentina, as right-wing President Jair Milei has explicitly criticised President Lula and expressed an interest in obtaining global partner status with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In addition, President Lula is working to persuade Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega, a historical ally of the Workers’ Party, to ease the repressive measures against the opposition. Meanwhile, the ongoing security challenge in Haiti, where Brazil held the command of the military component of the UN mission (MINUSTAH) for 14 years (2004-2017), also highlights regional demands for Brazil’s engagement.

Additionally, recent international events have also captured the attention of Brazilian authorities, with a potential for domestic repercussions. Brazil’s condemnation of Israel’s military actions in Gaza may become a focal point in domestic political debate, potentially undermining Lula, as Bolsonaro and other right-wing politicians in Brazil remain close allies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Looking ahead to the 2024 and 2025 domestic elections, conservative religious groups, particularly among the fast-growing neo-pentecostal communities, have explicitly endorsed Israeli policies, further complicating the situation.

Brazil may also face conflicting issues related to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. For instance, as the host of the G-20, Brazil may welcome Russian President Vladimir Putin to the high-level summit in Rio de Janeiro in November 2024. However, since Brazil is a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, representatives of the Ukrainian-Brazilian community have urged Brazil’s Minister of Justice to arrest Putin if he enters the country. According to the media, Brazilian officials prepared a document which legally sustains the justification for not arresting Putin in his visit for the G-20 summit, based largely on the fact that Russia withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute in 2016.

Continue reading.

[mariepascaleremy]

20 JANVIER : ST SÉBASTIEN

St Sébastien est l'un des martyrs romains les plus célèbres. Officier dans l'armée de Dioclétien, sa foi chrétienne fut découverte et il reçut l'ordre de sacrifier à l'empereur, son refus étant considéré comme un acte de rébellion. Attaché nu à un arbre, il fut la cible des flèches de ses propres soldats avant d'être battu à mort. Son culte remonte au IVe siècle. L'histoire de St Sébastien, marquée par la résilience et, ironiquement, par son habileté en tant qu'archer, a inspiré les sportifs, le désignant comme le saint patron des athlètes, des soldats en général et surtout saint protecteur de la peste et plus globalement des épidémies. Réputé pour sa beauté exceptionnelle, la représentation de St Sébastien s'est écartée des imageries traditionnelles des martyrs depuis la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle. Sa souffrance est rarement évoquée, et son image a été adoptée par la communauté gay, en particulier depuis le XIXe siècle. La représentation de St Sébastien par Guido Reni a notamment captivé la communauté homosexuelle, influençant des auteurs comme Oscar Wilde et Marcel Proust. Le St Sébastien de Reni peut être considéré comme une œuvre queer, ayant un discours sous-jacent qui résonne auprès d'un public spécifique, modifiant ainsi le discours de son iconographie. En tant que Saint patron des épidémies, il devient dans les années 1970 une icône protectrice contre les ravages du sida, notamment aux Etats-Unis. La multiplication d'écrits et d'œuvres dans cette représentation a cimenté son statut d'icône gay.

BONNE FÊTE À TOUS LES SÉBASTIEN !

Image : Guido Reni, Saint Sebastien, 1615, huile sur toile, 146x113cm, Musée du capitole, Rome

[cromwellrex2]

The Glorious Revolution 1688-89: ‘[government] according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same.’

Parliament’s Own Restoration

William of Orange Landing in England by Jan Wyck (seventeenth century). Source: World History Encyclopaedia

DESPITE THE apparent comprehensive nature of the Restoration, which not only reintroduced the trio of sources of power and authority in England - Monarch, House of Lords and the Anglican Church, all of which the Commonwealth had abolished - together with the restoration of confiscated Royalist land, Charles II’s settlement did not last thirty years. The trigger for a further Parliamentary rebellion against the King may been James II’s determination to introduce toleration for Roman Catholics and bring Catholics into public life for the first time since the reign of Mary I, but the actual cause for James’ eventual overthrow, was the deep suspicion the King engendered in his subjects, both rich and poor, as to the nature of the Royal rule he wished to undertake. Parliament and the public were, by 1660, done with the republican experiment, its constitutional cul-de-sacs and the constant threat of renewed civil war. In exchange for stability and peace, the former Roundheads were willing to bequeath Charles almost all that his father had thrown away, including even Royal absolutism. However, implicit in this Royalist victory, was an understanding that the King would, voluntarily, rule with Parliament; would protect the Protestant religion, and would not pursue wholesale vengeance on those who had fought for the Parliamentary cause. Charles understood this unwritten compact and so, in the main, he ruled cautiously, generously and collectively with Parliament. Only regicides, extreme republicans, Levellers and Roman Catholics were excluded from the King’s settlement. Charles may have had the right to rule as an absolute monarch, but he had the sense never to attempt to do so. His brother, however, had neither the temperament, the patience nor the intelligence to navigate these post-Civil War waters, and these failings eventually led him to lose his throne.

James, a Roman Catholic, who had already survived a Whig attempt to exclude him from the succession (the so-called “Exclusion Crisis���) on the grounds of his faith, was resolved to end both the persecution of Catholics and their prevention from entering public life. He was determined, if necessary, to use the power of the restored Crown to its limit in order to achieve this. Whereas all social classes in the United Kingdoms retained a deep and abiding antipathy to Papism, this hostility to Rome was felt most strongly amongst the gentry - the former mainstay of the Parliamentary cause and the dominant class in the House of Commons. James was determined to legislate for Catholic toleration and for the repeal of the Tests Acts, the laws passed by the Cavalier Parliament that required public office holders to be loyal to the Church of England and which therefore denied access to influential posts in the administration of the country to Catholics and Nonconformists. This determination set the King on a collision course with Parliament.

James had already had a warning as to public uneasiness about his direction of travel. Just four months into his reign, in July 1685, he had been faced by a rebellion led by his nephew the dashing Duke of Monmouth, which sought to overthrow James and replace him with the reliably Protestant duke. Parliament supported the King throughout this crisis and the rebellion was eventually crushed by the Royal Army at the Battle of Sedgemoor, with Monmouth executed soon after. The following brutal judicial vengeance exacted by James in the south west, where the rebellion originated, shocked many hitherto loyalists, who felt James’ behaviour broke significantly with the style of rule of his brother, reintroducing civil war and revenge into England. After Monmouth’s Rebellion, a more sensible monarch may have moderated his stance on religion, but James was not that man.

Just four months after the defeat and execution of Monmouth, James, frustrated by Parliament’s failure to agree his pro-Catholic legislative programme, suspended the House of Commons and sought to rule through Royal decree. From November 1685 James ruled alone, simultaneously breaking his brother’s implicit agreement to govern in partnership with Parliament and invoking bad memories of over forty years before of the Personal Rule of Charles I. The issue at stake - that of maintaining the Protestant ascendancy - was significant enough an issue for most MPs, but there was genuine fear that James was intent on recreating the political conditions that had led directly to the wars between Parliament and the King, from which the Kingdoms had only recently recovered.

The resultant dissatisfaction with James’ rule was compounded by the birth of his son, James Francis Edward, in 1687, and the clear intention of James and Queen Mary to raise James Francis Edward as a Catholic. This provoked major Whig concern that a Catholic monarchy would be re- introduced to the realm, possibly followed by an attempt to bring England and Scotland back to Catholicism and absolutism. To the Parliamentary opposition, the stakes now seemed to be far higher than whether Catholics could hold political postings or join the army - the very future of the Protestant religion and Restoration constitutionality now seemed to be under threat. In reality, James is unlikely to have seriously contemplated reintroducing Catholicism as the state’s official religion, but his single-mindedness and high-handedness gave worried observers enough cause to fear the worst.

Whig attention therefore turned to James’ Protestant daughter, Mary, married to William Prince of Orange, Stadholder, or ruler, of the United Provinces of Holland. The Whig MP and Navy Treasurer, Lord Edward Russell headed a group of Parliamentary dissidents that contacted William to see if he would be willing to support a deposition of James in favour of Mary. The Whigs suggested feelings in England were running so high a Protestant republican revolution could result, thus excluding Mary permanently from the succession. William’s motivation in becoming involved in this plot was always somewhat ambiguous. His initial interest was piqued entirely by concern for the United Provinces and its on-going war with France. The wealth of England and Scotland he would be able to access if he became King could prove decisive in his unequal struggle with the French. His interest in being a Protestant champion was at this stage, decidedly secondary.

James began to sense danger. He issued a writ for general elections and a new Parliament to convene in 1688. Any Parliamentary relief that the King may have seen the error of his ways, did not last. James then ordered a Declaration of Indulgence to be read out in every Anglican Church to announce the ecclesiastical tolerance of Catholics. The Archbishop of Canterbury and six other bishops were charged with sedition and imprisoned in the Tower when they refused to carry out this command. They were later acquitted by the courts, but public outrage at the sequence of events was high and the whole crisis was hugely damaging to James, who was forced to drop the Declaration.

Ironically, this very crisis, prompted serious interest on William’s part in Russell’s approach. As James wrestled with his own Parliament and Church in his vain attempt to secure Roman Catholic toleration, William was worried the Stuart King may turn to Catholic France for support, and bring England’s military and naval strength to bear on Holland once more, in a renewal of the recent Anglo-Dutch naval conflicts. William therefore began to make contact with the Whig opposition. Ultimately Henry Sydney, Earl of Romney and another prominent Whig MP, authored an Invitation to William, along with six other signatories, to the prince, to assume the English throne on behalf of his wife. The signatures of Thomas Osborne, 1st Earl of Danby, and Henry Compton, Bishop of London, were crucial to securing the deal with William: both were known to be Tories, and thus reassured the Stadtholder that if he accepted the Invitation, he would not simply be heading up a factional rebellion against an anointed King.

William decided to invade in September 1688, assured there would be minimal English resistance. The royal navy was indeeed outmatched by the Dutch and the 34,000 strong Royal Army was in a poor state of training , equipment and morale. The rank-and-file soldiers were also in the main very pro-Protestant and had no wish to die defending what they saw as a new Royalist Catholic order, introduced by James.

William was careful to claim his invasion was to restore Parliamentary rule and to defend the Anglican Protestant religion. 200 Dutch ships and 40,000 men landed at Torbay in November 1688, while the English navy was trapped in Dartford by the weather. Too late, James tried to negotiate with Parliament and the bishops but they insisted on an end to toleration, the disinheritance of Charles Francis Edward, an end to absolutism and the elevation of Parliament to sovereign executive power legitimised by fixed regular elections. James could not agree to this and the negotiations collapsed. Apart from a minor engagement at Wincanton near Reading on 20th November, the Royal Army offered little opposition to the invasion and large numbers of officers defected to William. James was initially captured attempting to flee, but ultimately was permitted to leave for exile in France in December 1688.

William was offered the throne jointly with Mary in February 1689 and his new monarchy was underwritten by a formal Bill of Rights the following December. The Bill of Rights was not a declaration of citizens’ rights, and nor was it a constitution, but it was no less revolutionary for that, because it achieved what the original Parliamentary opposition to Charles I had called for in the late 1630s and early 1640s: a constitutional monarchy. The Whigs, effectively the heirs to John Pym and his allies, finally achieved legislative Parliamentary supremacy in what was in effect a contract between monarch and Commons. However, the Tories also won significant concessions: the Anglican settlement was preserved, along with inviolability of private property. Nonetheless, the effective transfer of sovereignty from monarch to Parliament was stark. The Bill of Rights stated firmly that elections would be free and regular; that Parliamentary debate should be free and all legislation would be passed by the Commons, with the monarch having no formal role. There would be no peacetime standing army and levies would be called by Parliament, not the King; rule by Royal decree was effectively banned. All this was achieved with virtually no bloodshed in England. The Restoration settlement was over and the Commons had unequivocally triumphed.

The British civil wars were not quite finished. James made an attempt to regain his throne militarily with French help, through Ireland, where his Catholicism and adherence to toleration assured loyalty, but he was heavily defeated by William at the Battle of the Boyne on 1st July 1690. His hopes were finally crushed when his Jacobite/French army was decisively defeated at Aughrim a year later in July 1691. He left the United Kingdoms for France forever the following October. Despite mid-eighteenth century Jacobite rebellions in his son and grandson’s name, the Stuart cause and its association with absolutism and personal rule, was over.

The events of 1688-90 became celebrated, particularly and unsurprisingly by Whig history as the “Glorious Revolution”. A moment, much remarked upon as empires in Europe bloodily rose and fell over the following centuries, as examples of British exceptionalism, in which major political change was achieved almost peacefully under a new, symbolic, monarchical system. However the power structures of England remained unchanged. Inherited wealth and land continued to disproportionately influence who could enter the ruling class; suffrage remained restricted, only becoming universal a century ago. England’s great republican experiment became viewed as no more than an anomaly, a self-serving fraud perpetrated on the British peoples by an ambitious and seditious military, headed by would-be dictators. Scotland recovered its independence under Charles II, but less than twenty years after the Glorious Revolution, a bankrupt Scottish mercantile class walked their country into an unequal union with England against which Scotland has chafed ever since. Ireland was forced to endure two centuries of impoverishment, sectarianism and the dispossession of its native peoples by a settler class of English and Scottish Protestants, until the last of the many Irish rebellions was successful in the early twentieth century.

English radicalism did return in the eighteenth century, and the Whigs did eventually evolve into a Liberal Party that challenged the Tory landed interests, with varying success, even as democracy spread its reach. Although that radicalism in time found an expression of sorts in the British Labour Party, it bore little relation to that of John Lilburne and the Levellers; the sincere republicanism of John Lambert and Arthur Heselrige is now a cranky obsession of irreconcilable leftists, who barely take it seriously themselves. Meanwhile the modern left and right argue endlessly over who has the greater claim on that ambiguous conservative radical, Oliver Cromwell. For good or ill, Great Britain still effectively lives under the settlement of 1689, itself only possible due the extraordinary civil conflicts of the 1640s and 1650s. Many of the constitutional contradictions and social injustices that drove the Parliamentarians, the millennial sects and the New Model Army to their revolutions remain in place to this day. Perhaps they always will.

[codumofr]

La Basilique Notre-Dame de Sameiro (En Portugais : Santuário do Sameiro). Situé à proximité de Braga dans le Nord du Portugal, plus précisément dans la Região do Norte est une Église Catholique Romaine ayant le double statut de Basilique Mineure et de Sanctuaire Marial (sanctuaire ayant le plus souvent une représentation de Marie de Nazareth). Son dogme est consacré à l'Immaculé Conception et sera même la première à être proclamé au Portugal, dogme qui a été proclamé en 1854.

Le début de sa construction s'effectue en 1863 avec une première installation sous la supervision du Père Martinho da Silva et ne se finira qu'en 1880 avec une première chapelle de construite. Cette chapelle abritait l'image du Saint Patron créé par Eugenio Maccagnani, Sculpteur qui fera cette œuvre à Rome avant de l'apporter au sanctuaire en 1880. Sa première œuvre d'art complexe sera effectuée par l'italien Emídio Carlos Amatucci et sera une statue en marbre de la Vierge. Ce n'est qu'en 1890 que commencera la construction de l'église en elle-même avec la pose de la première pierre par l'archevêque de Braga, Antonio Honorato. Elle sera construite avec un Nef unique et dans un style néoclassique, vue par sa forme cruciforme, le haut dôme et une façade à double tour accueillant les clochers. L'Église sera achevé qu'en 1953, quelques années après la consécration du Maître-Autel (autel Principal de l'Église) en marbre rouge et la statue de la Vierge Marie se situe au centre. Cela tout en comprenant un tabernacle (meuble qui abrite le ciboire contenant les hosties consacrées au cours de la messe). Une crypte sera aussi construite en 1979 pour les pèlerins. Cette crypte servira à y enterrer notamment le Père Martihno da Silva.

[infosisraelnews]

Premier ministre de Hongrie : Je ne respecterai pas la décision du tribunal, Netanyahu est le bienvenu chez nous !

Le Premier ministre hongrois, Viktor Orbán, a annoncé ce matin (vendredi) qu’il inviterait le Premier ministre israélien, Benjamin Netanyahou, à visiter Budapest et a affirmé qu’il ne l’arrêterait pas, bien que la Hongrie soit signataire du Statut de Rome qui fonde l’autorité de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) de La Haye. Cette déclaration intervient dans un contexte de tensions…

[trojerucica-blr]

Shortly...I was left without opportunities for employment as a journalist when I applied for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty , with the reasoning that my work did not correspond to the programming concept, because I PUBLICLY severely criticized the corruption of the President of the European Parliament Ursula von der Leyen.

The International Criminal Court has been officially called to investigate Ursula von der Leyen for complicity [with Israel]

Frederic Eger

Award-Winning TV Director, Producer, Journalist, Father, Husband, Centre-Right Zionist Jew, World-Federalist, Disciple of Albert Einstein, Michio Kaku, Theodore Herzl & more... #antisemitismisforloosers #hateisforloosers

Published May 22, 2024

+ Follow

Geneva International Peace Research Institute (GIPRI), Geneva, Switzerland- Collectif de Juristes pour le Respect des Engagements Internationaux de la France (CJRF), Paris, France - PRESS RELEASE: The International Criminal Court has been officially called to investigate Ursula von der Leyen for complicity. Reasonable grounds exist to believe that the unconditional support of the president of the European Commission to Israel – military, economic, diplomatic and political – has enabled war crimes and the ongoing genocide in Gaza. The Hague (The Netherlands), 22 May 2024. – A communication is submitted today to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), setting forth in detail, through facts and evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the current president of the European Commission, Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen, a national of Germany, is complicit in a number of violations of international humanitarian law, amounting to crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, committed by the Israeli armed forces (IDF) against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), including the Gaza Strip.

This communication, endorsed by various human rights groups and prominent academics and experts in international criminal law, calls the Prosecutor to initiate investigations on the basis of the information provided against Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen. The communication documents in detail the fact that Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen personally is criminally responsible and liable for punishment for some of the war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide having been committed (and still being committed) by the Israeli armed forces in the OPT, to the extent that she has aided, abetted and otherwise assisted in the commission or attempted commission of such crimes, including providing the means for its commission, in the meaning of Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute of the ICC. Mrs. von der Leyen enjoys no functional immunity before the ICC by virtue of article 27 of the Rome Statute.

Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen has become complicit in violations of articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute through a range of positive acts as well as omissions, in her official capacity as president of the European Commission. Positive acts include the following:

− Military support to Israel: Mrs. von der Leyen, in her official capacity as president of the European Commission, has been instrumental in securing the provision of means, under the form of military support, to the IDF. During the period 2019-23, Israel has been the 3rd main recipient of weapons provided by a EU Member State, Germany, itself the 5th largest exporter of major arms in the world.

− Economic and financial support to Israel: both by refusing to take any steps toward the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and by promoting, amidst the current Israeli assault on Gaza, new EU-Israel cooperation instruments.

− Diplomatic support to the Israeli government: this appears to be a response to the demand formulated by Prime Minister Netanyahu on 7 October 2023, on the international community “to ensure freedom of action for Israel in the continuation of the campaign”. The diplomatic support enjoyed by Israel has been the condition sine qua non of the perpetration of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide plausibly committed by the IDF in the Gaza Strip since 7 October.

− Political support: the various official statements of Mrs. von der Leyen expressing unconditional support to Israel have amounted to giving encouragement and moral support to members of the IDF, involved in the commission of crimes against the Palestinian population in the OPT.

The President of the European Commission had knowledge of participating, by aiding and abetting, in the commission of the relevant crimes. Given the wide publicity given on a daily basis to the violations of international humanitarian law perpetrated by the IDF in the Gaza Strip, especially since October 2023, and the wealth of official United Nations reports and documents available, which as a matter of fact have prompted numerous UN officials - including the UN Secretary-General - to express their utmost concern, Mrs. von der Leyen cannot escape the simple fact that she knew of such crimes, or at the very least she knew of the plausibility of such crimes, as determined by the ICJ in its Order on provisional measures of 26 January 2024 as regards genocide. She should have taken every possible action at her disposal to prevent the continued commission of such crimes, and at the very least not to facilitate in any manner the commission of these crimes, as she unfortunately did. The obligation to prevent the commission of genocide is paramount in the Genocide Convention and the ICC Statute.

The President of the European Commission has also failed to act to prevent the commission of the relevant crimes. She is thus complicit by omission. Indeed:

− President von der Leyen was, and still is, under a legal duty to act in the circumstances considered, to the extent that international law places upon a person vested with public authority a duty to act in order to protect human life.

− President von der Leyen had, and still has, the ability to act; means were (and still are) available to her to fulfil her duty to act. This is confirmed by actions taken by the European Commission under her presidency, in other contexts (e.g. Ukraine), to prevent the commission of war crimes and curtail the ability of certain powers to conduct military operations.

− Should President von der Leyen have acted pursuant to her legal duty to act, rather than sought to “ensure freedom of action for Israel in the continuation of the campaign”, the crimes would have been substantially less likely to occur, or at the very least to be perpetrated over such a long period of time, and on such a scale and magnitude.

***

Press contacts:

Geneva International Peace Research

Institute (GIPRI), Geneva, Switzerland

Collectif de Juristes pour le Respect des

Engagements Internationaux de la France

(CJRF), Paris, France

[gerardt10]

🇷🇺 🇺🇲 🇪🇺 𝕄𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕒 ℤ𝕒𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕣𝕠𝕧𝕒

" Les Américains ne participent pas au Statut de Rome, mais, lorsque cela leur convient, ils tentent activement d'utiliser cet organe contre d'autres pays. "

[snap221sn]

Série A – Le réveil brutal de Boulaye Dia : un début de saison en fanfare

L’international sénégalais Boulaye Dia connaît un début de saison tonitruant avec la Lazio de Rome. Depuis son arrivée dans le club romain, l’ancien joueur de la Salernitana enchaîne les performances de haut vol. Ce dimanche, il a marqué son septième but de la saison toutes compétitions confondues, consolidant ainsi son statut de pilier de l’attaque […]

[lepartidelamort]

Inattendu : finalement, le gouvernement français n’arrêtera pas Netanyahu.

Macron respecte le droit international et en même temps non.

Barrot a une tête d’abruti

Précédemment : Macron déclare qu’il fera arrêter le criminel international Netanyahu s’il vient en France

Je ne m’attendais à rien, mais je suis quand même déçu.

Le Figaro :

Le chef de la diplomatie française Jean-Noël Barrot, interrogé mercredi sur la possibilité d’une arrestation en France du premier ministre israélien Benyamin Netanyahou, visé par un mandat d’arrêt de la Cour Pénale internationale (CPI), a évoqué de possibles «questions d’immunité» pour «certains dirigeants» prévues par le traité de Rome. «La France est très attachée à la justice internationale et appliquera le droit international, qui repose sur ses obligations à coopérer avec la CPI», a déclaré M. Barrot sur franceinfoTV, tout en soulignant que le statut de la cour «traite des questions d’immunité sur certains dirigeants». «C’est en dernier ressort à l’autorité judiciaire qu’il appartiendra de se prononcer», a-t-il ajouté. Un article du Statut de Rome instituant la CPI aborde la question de l’immunité de dirigeants de pays ne reconnaissant pas la cour, mais reste ouvert à diverses interprétations.

« Oui, non, enfin, oui, mais c’est-à-dire, disons, comment dire… il faut lutter contre l’antisémitisme… »

Depuis l’annonce par la CPI du mandat d’arrêt visant Benyamin Netanyahou pour crimes de guerre et crimes contre l’humanité, la France répète qu’elle appliquera ses obligations au titre du droit international, mais sans dire clairement si elle arrêterait le premier ministre israélien si celui-ci venait en France. Une position plus floue que d’autres pays, comme l’Italie et le Royaume-Uni qui ont immédiatement annoncé qu’ils respecteraient leur engagement auprès de la CPI.

Jamais un était aussi enjuivé que la république française n’oserait arrêter un seul de ces grands criminels juifs. C’est un des numéros de danse du ventre de Macron pour mettre des ronds dans des carrés et sauver les apparences vis-à-vis du reste du monde.

Un des indices les plus sûrs qui prouve que Macron a secrètement assuré la juiverie de son impunité est le silence sépulcral que le CRIF observe.

L’ambassade d’Israël reste aussi silencieuse.

La sorcière juive vociférante Yadan n’a pas non plus dit un seul mot à ce propos.

Même Meyer Habib est aux abonnés absents.

Tous ces juifs qui réagissent d’ordinaire au quart de tour à la moindre virgule mal placée sont devenus aphones.

Macron a téléphoné à tous ces juifs personnellement pour leur assurer qu’il ne se passerait jamais rien et qu’il s’agissait-là d’une concession purement formelle qui n’aurait pas d’implication concrète. Ni aujourd’hui, ni demain.

Ce type est un mollusque entre leurs mains. Il leur suffit de presser un peu pour qu’il couine comme un goret et se plie à leurs volontés.

Même dans l’obséquiosité, il est visqueux de médiocrité.

Démocratie Participative

[toscan-sukima]

Un jour, j'ai rencontré une personne qui affirmait avec un aplomb surprenant que la condition de la femme athénienne pendant la Grèce Antique était meilleure que lors du moyen âge en France. Elle affirmait cela comme un argument supplémentaire pour haïr "toutes les religions monothéistes" car elles nient quasiment la femme, alors que la situation sous le joug des religions polythéistes étaient plus respectueuse des femmes... En tant que féministe convaincu, je me dois de rappeler quelque banalités et fait avérés sur ce sujet.

Condition des femmes en Grèce antique (Athènes)

1.Statut juridique et social

- Les femmes étaient souvent considérées comme mineures légales sous la tutelle d'un homme (père, mari, ou tuteur).

- Elles n'avaient pas le droit de vote, de participer directement à la vie politique, ni de posséder de biens en leur nom propre.

- Les femmes de citoyens athéniens passaient la plupart de leur temps dans le gynécée, une partie de la maison réservée aux femmes, et leur rôle principal était de gérer le ménage et d'élever les enfants.

2.Éducation

- Les femmes recevaient peu d'éducation formelle et étaient principalement formées aux tâches domestiques.

- Cependant, les courtisanes éduquées, appelées hétaïres, pouvaient avoir une certaine influence sociale et intellectuelle.

3.Vie sociale et religieuse

- Les femmes participaient à certaines fêtes religieuses et cérémonies, mais leur interaction sociale était très limitée comparée à celle des hommes.

Condition des femmes au Moyen Âge en France

1.Statut juridique et social

- Les femmes étaient également souvent sous la tutelle de leur père ou de leur mari, mais certaines femmes, surtout dans la noblesse, pouvaient posséder des terres et exercer des droits seigneuriaux.

- Le droit de vote n'existait pas, mais certaines femmes exerçaient une influence indirecte par le biais de leur rôle dans la famille ou la cour.

2.Éducation

- Les femmes, notamment dans les classes supérieures, pouvaient recevoir une éducation religieuse et parfois même laïque.

- Les monastères et les couvents offraient aux femmes des opportunités d'apprendre et de jouer des rôles importants dans la société médiévale.

3.Vie sociale et religieuse

- Les femmes participaient activement à la vie religieuse, certaines devenant des abbesses avec une autorité considérable.

- Les femmes des classes inférieures travaillaient souvent aux côtés des hommes dans les champs, les ateliers et les marchés.

Conclusion...

-Liberté de mouvement

- Les femmes du Moyen Âge en France semblaient avoir plus de liberté de mouvement et d'interaction sociale que les femmes athéniennes, qui étaient souvent confinées à la maison, avec une quasi-interdiction de sortir du gynécée, comme une prison ou une cage, il fallait demander la permission aux hommes pour en sortir.

-Opportunités d'influence

- Les femmes au Moyen Âge pouvaient avoir des rôles importants dans les institutions religieuses et, dans certaines occasions, dans la gestion des terres et des biens, ce qui n'était généralement pas le cas en Grèce antique.

-Éducation et participation sociale

- L'éducation des femmes était limitée dans les deux contextes, mais les femmes médiévales avaient parfois des opportunités d'influence culturelle et intellectuelle, notamment par le biais de la religion.

En résumé, bien que les conditions des femmes dans les deux époques présentent des limitations et des inégalités significatives, les femmes au Moyen Âge en France semblaient avoir plus d'opportunités d'influence et de participation sociale que leurs homologues athéniennes.

Enfin, que dire de la comparaison douteuse sur la liberté des femmes dans les sociétés régies par les religions polythéistes face aux évolutions (certes discutables, imparfaites, lentes, et tout ce que vous voudrez...) de la condition des femmes dans un environnement catholique.

1. La place de la femme dans les religions polythéistes

Les religions polythéistes antiques (comme celles de la Grèce, de Rome, ou des civilisations hindoues anciennes) sont souvent perçues comme valorisant les femmes en raison de la présence de déesses puissantes. Cependant, cette vénération divine ne s'est pas toujours traduite par une meilleure condition sociale pour les femmes.

Points à noter :

Grèce Antique :

Les femmes étaient largement exclues de la vie publique, des fonctions politiques, et même des cultes religieux majeurs. Elles étaient confinées à la maison (oikos), sous l'autorité du père ou du mari.

Le mariage servait souvent à garantir des alliances politiques et économiques. Les femmes mariées étaient considérées comme des reproductrices avant tout.

À Athènes, les femmes n’avaient pas de statut juridique propre, et leur participation au culte des dieux était strictement limitée aux rituels domestiques ou spécifiques comme les Thesmophories.

Rome Antique :

La société romaine avait un système patriarcal strict. Bien que certaines femmes aient pu accéder à une relative liberté (notamment les veuves riches), la grande majorité restait sous le contrôle de leur paterfamilias.

Les vestales, prêtresses de Vesta, jouissaient d'une certaine indépendance, mais cela représentait une exception et non la norme.

Hindouisme ancien :

Le rôle de la femme variait selon les époques et les régions. Les textes anciens comme les Laws of Manu prescrivaient une soumission stricte de la femme à son père, son mari, ou son fils.

Les pratiques comme le sati (immolation des veuves) illustrent les pressions sociales exercées sur les femmes dans certaines périodes.

2. La place de la femme dans les religions monothéistes

Le christianisme (et particulièrement le catholicisme médiéval) a eu un impact complexe sur la condition des femmes. Bien qu'il ait contribué à instaurer un système patriarcal, il a aussi introduit des protections et des idéaux qui ont permis une certaine élévation de la position féminine par rapport aux systèmes polythéistes.

Points à noter :

Dans le christianisme :

Idéalisation de la maternité : L’importance de la Vierge Marie dans le christianisme a contribué à une vision valorisante de la maternité et de la femme comme éducatrice. Cela se distinguait nettement des cultures antiques où la maternité était davantage fonctionnelle que sacrée.

Éducation et monastères : Les femmes avaient accès à l’éducation dans les monastères. Des figures comme Hildegarde de Bingen ou Christine de Pizan montrent qu’il existait des opportunités intellectuelles.

Protection sociale : Les femmes chrétiennes bénéficiaient de protections juridiques accrues, notamment en matière de mariage (prohibition de la polygamie, reconnaissance du consentement dans le mariage). Ces protections n’existaient pas dans les sociétés antiques.

Dans le catholicisme médiéval :

Le mariage chrétien a codifié des règles visant à protéger la femme, par exemple en condamnant le divorce unilatéral pratiqué dans les sociétés antiques.

Les femmes veuves pouvaient jouir d'une certaine autonomie économique et sociale. Celles qui entraient dans les ordres religieux trouvaient aussi une indépendance vis-à-vis des contraintes matrimoniales.

En Islam :

Les textes islamiques, bien qu’interprétés différemment selon les périodes et les régions, accordaient certains droits aux femmes (héritage, gestion de la dot). Cependant, la soumission au mari restait une norme forte.

3. Comparaisons chiffrées et contextuelles

Polythéisme antique vs. monothéisme médiéval :

Dans les sociétés polythéistes, les femmes n’avaient généralement pas de statut juridique propre. En revanche, le droit canonique catholique reconnaissait leur consentement dans les mariages, une avancée cruciale pour l'époque.

L'accès à des rôles religieux était limité dans les polythéismes, tandis que le christianisme permettait aux femmes d'entrer dans des ordres religieux, leur conférant parfois une certaine autorité.

Sacrifice et dévotion :

Le christianisme médiéval interdit explicitement les sacrifices humains et d'autres pratiques oppressives envers les femmes (comme les mariages arrangés sans consentement).

4. Sources académiques pour approfondir

Karen Armstrong, The Gospel According to Woman (1986) Analyse de la condition féminine dans le christianisme à travers les âges.

Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity (1975) Étudie la vie des femmes dans les sociétés grecque et romaine antiques.

Joan Kelly, Did Women Have a Renaissance? (1977) Explique comment le christianisme a affecté la condition des femmes au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance.

Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy (1986) Décrit l'évolution du patriarcat et le rôle des religions.

Elizabeth A. Clark, Women in the Early Church (1983) Exploration de la place des femmes dans le christianisme primitif.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

“Shouldn't there be responsibility for this?” - Zelensky on Brazil's possible circumvention of the law for Putin's presence at the G20 summit

Commenting on possible plans by the Brazilian authorities to invite Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Brazil would have to bend the law and ignore the Rome Statute to do so. Zelensky said this during a speech at the United for Justice conference. Accountability for the Attacks against Civilian Objects, according to a correspondent of UNN. He said:

There are countries where the Rome Statute is in force. There are countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute, and these are global players. The G20 summit will take place in a few months. This is a very serious event. We have heard signals from the Brazilian authorities that they planned to invite Putin, but for this to happen, they will have to circumvent the law, the right to destroy and ignore the Rome Statute again. Shouldn't they be held accountable for this?

Continue reading.