The Global Community Tribunal

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has flied a criminal complaint with the German Prosecutor. The purpose of this is to get the prosecutor to investigate and ultimately to prosecute US politicians and officials for war crimes committed in the name of the so-called “War on Terror”.

The persons included in the list of those charged are:

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Former CIA Director George Tenet

Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Dr. Stephen Cambone

Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez

Major General Walter Wojdakowski

Major General Geoffrey Miller

Colonel Thomas Pappas

Major General Barbara Fast

Colonel Marc Warren

Former Chief White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales

Former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo

General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes, II

Vice President Chief Counsel David S. Addington

Although this complaint was initially dismissed by the German prosecutor the CCR and others have entered an appeal against the decision during 2007. The outcome is still awaited.

 
For more information readers are referred to the site of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

J.C.Grobler

Popularity: 4% [?]

Share This

Another year has passed and we are anxiously awaiting the year 2008. To all my family, friends, colleges and readers I sincerely wish you a very happy and prosperous New Year. May you get what you are prepared to work for and enjoy that what you are prepared to die for!

 
The highlight of the year gone bye most certainly came from Pakistan where lawyers took to the streets to protest for civil rights. This they did without fear for their security and being battered and thrown into jail. Humbled by their absolute commitment and my lack of it, I salute them on behalf of millions of jurists around the world. You set an example which, I pray, we all will have the courage and principled commitment to follow.  

 
The trend is towards globalization and it is important that the legal professions follow this trend by becoming involved in global issues. Over the last few years the international law has been relegated to some kind of optional guide. In fact, John Bolton, the previous US ambassador to the UN has denied that it even existed. This will remain the situation until lawyers become involved and help to ensure that justice is re-established as the force which protects this civilization.

 
We are all aware of the extreme importance of the principle of the clear division of the executive and the judiciary on national level. Without it there can never be justice in the application of the rule of law. This principle does not exist on an international level and whatever legal administration and judiciaries may exist are controlled by governments. This is the reason why ‘small fry’ from Africa and Arabia are prosecuted but people like George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and Mr Howard of Australia can escape justice with impunity.

 
The world needs the legal professions to leave their offices and see the world out here. We need you to help us create a peaceful and just global society!

 
I again appeal to colleges, law societies and law academics to step forward and join a jurists pressure group, called it Lawyers for Humanity, if you so wish. Let us commit  ourselves to the principle of global justice and add a credible voice to it.

 
To support such an initiative I make this site and my services available, free of charge. To serve as additional motivation I will place small banner advertisements for colleagues on this site, free of any charge. Although this is not a top site we still enjoy just under 4000 visits per day.  Just say “Yes, I commit my support and my voice to global justice”.

 
I sincerely believe that my profession can change the course of history by demanding equal justice for all humans. Let us commit ourselves to this worthwhile cause.

 
J.C.Grobler.  

Popularity: 4% [?]

Share This

The issue of teens kissing under 16 years kissing in public being allegedly criminalized, has become a debatable point. The statement has been made that, with the introduction of the “Sexual Offences Act” the kissing of persons under 16 years of age has been criminalized. I reacted to this in my post Kiss and its goodbye. The question mark I raised has now been countered with arguments that this story is confirmed in various newspaper articles and posts on the blogosphere. No reference has yet been provided that will remove all doubt.

I initially hesitated to quote from the act. Rather than rely on media gossip I find the issue important enough to change my mind. So, let’s see what the law says:

The acts name is not the Sexual Offences Act but the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Amendment Act, 2003. The whole act is available on the government site for anyone who wishes to study the implications of this legislation.

An “indecent act” in terms of section 1(1) of the Act means

(a) direct or indirect contact between the anus or genital organs of one person or, in the case of a female, her breasts and any part of the body of another person or any object, including any part of the body of an animal;

(b) exposure or display of the genital organs of one person to another person; or

(c) exposure or display of any pornographic material to any person against his or her will or to a child,

but does not include an act which causes penetration;

“Genital organs” is defined “the whole or part of male and female genital organs and further include surgically constructed or reconstructed genital organs.” It does not include the mouth or lips of a female.

Section 8 of the Act provides the following:

8. A person who intentionally commits an act which causes penetration or an indecent act with another within the view of a child below the age of 16 years or a person who is mentally impaired is guilty of the offence of having committed such an act within the view of a child or a mentally impaired person, as the case may be, and is liable upon conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.

Section 9(4) states:

“Any person who commits an indecent act with a child below the age of 16 years is, despite the consent of that child to the commission of such an act, guilty of the offence of having committed an indecent act with a child and is liable upon conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding four years or to both a fine and such imprisonment.”

Looking at these provisions, it is not illegal to kiss another person of whatever age or sex, in public or otherwise. What is illegal (for purposes of this discussion) is direct or indirect contact between the genetial organs and/or breasts of a female and any part of the body of another person in view of any impaired persons or a person under 16 years. If kissing would therefore require the fondling of the girls tits in public and in front of children under 16 years, yes, kissing in public would be be illegal. If you would like to read crime into it, the parties surely do not need to kiss. Their bodies only need to touch in such a way that a part of the body of the man presses against the breast of the girl. To suggest that it was the postive intention of the legislator to criminalize this or the kissing of a girl in public, would be to seek attention.

I would suggest that these kids stop fooling around and rather give more attention to their school work.

J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Share This

On this last Sunday of 2007 think of what Susan Ertz once said:

“Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.”

Life is short. Make every moment count.

J.C.Grobler  

Popularity: 3% [?]

Share This

I read that “A new law has been passed that anyone under the age of 16 cannot kiss, embrace or even touch in public. If you are caught doing these things and you are under 16 you can be arrested and prosecuted.” This story was confirmed by another site.

Being who I am I could not just accept the correctness of these reports without confirming the truth myself. So, I had a look at the “Sexual Offences Act”.

This is a very graphic piece of legislation which I do not find fitting to discuss in detail on this forum. I can only suspect that the writers referred to section 9(4) read with the definition (section 1) of an “indecent act”. I could however, with no stretch of the imagination, come to the conclusion that the kissing of a girl younger than 16 years has been rendered illegal. It might however be that there is some misunderstanding. On the one hand, I could only get hold of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill and I am not sure that it is the legislation that had been approved in parliament. On the other hand the British has also passed their Sexual Offences Act and it might be that the two are being mixed up by these writers.

Maybe someone can clarify this situation as it is extremely important. To be accused of a sexual offence and to have such a conviction against your name can have extremely harsh ramification for any person.

J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Share This

What are you going to do during the year 2008 that will entitle you to the oxygen and other scarce resources you will be consuming? This is an important question. Earth is highly over-populated, our habitat threatened and natural resources dwindling. We can’t afford passengers any longer. If life to you, is just about satisfying your biological needs of feeding, drinking and sex, you are worth nothing to this world. You are only a liability. It would be better if you would make space for some more deserving person.

No, do not retaliate by saying that you are working your ass off or that you are providing so many others with jobs and a livelihood. They may be just as much a burden on this planet than you are!

No, you see, times have changed. During previous eras human life was important and valued. You could not value a human life in pecuniary terms. Sustaining human life by creating development and producing anything that would provide sustenance and fulfillment were reckoned to be worthwhile occupations.

In the meantime our numbers have escalated to the extent that Earth can hardly support us. We have used natural resources at such a rate that it is becoming depleted. The environment - our natural habitat - has been recked and raped by us that it may well soon not be capable of sustaining healthy, happy human living.

But the most important reason for human life losing its value, is the way in which we value and treat human life. People are murdered and killed for no reason at all. Politicians like George W Bush and Tony Blair have killed more than a million people for a few years of oil reserves. In Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe has unashamedly declared that that country can do with a smaller population. Mbeki of South Africa, his Minister and Commissioner of Police have no qualms about the murder of 20 000 people a year.

So, do you have a political cause? Don’t try to win your opponents over. Kill them! Look, we did it with Benazir Bhutto! If you’re a Muslem, God invites you to Paradise for killing off yourself and as many of His creation as possible. It would seem that even God considers human life worthless and a burden on creation!

So, don’t consider yourself any different. The cruel fact of the matter is that the world would be better off without you. So, unless you get out of your comfort zone and make your existence meaningful, you will remain worthless and just a burden on this planet.

What do I suggest you should do? Simple. Help to add meaning to human life by defending it. Promote our civilization, values and those things that are beautiful in human beings. Stop accentuating and bringing out that what is bad and ugly in all of us. Reduce your demand on resources and your impact on the environment.

Consider a post-modern dispensation where officials of the UN keep a close watch on you, me and the rest of humanity to identify and eliminate the oxygen thieves who do not contribute anything to our common good. They come around at night and eliminate those individuals who are of no positive consequence to this world. Working just to enrich ourselves or to maintain ourselves and our dependents, unfortunately do not impress them.

So, every night of 2008 when you and I go to bed, let’s ask ourselves the question: What did we do today to make ourselves indispensable and deserving to live tomorrow?

J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Share This

In Middle- and South Asia there have been very little light and beauty left for the rest of the world to admire. Killing and destruction of everything worthwhile have become the trade mark of this region. But in this darkness remained Benazir Bhutto, a women of exceptional beauty, commitment and courage.

A single, white rose grew in the valley of darkness which evil could not endure. The light had to be put out and the beauty destroyed. Benazir Bhutto is no more. Only darkness remains.

I’m ashamed of being part of the human race.

J.C.Grobler

Popularity: 2% [?]

Share This

Global warming has become a money spinner. You can build your career around this topic and make millions. Mr Al Gore, previous vice president of America under Clinton, is a good example. This may be the reason why some people are sceptical and suspect that this whole palawa is more about money and fame than about the principle.

Some debate has now been going on in the blogosphere on this subject as well. You can follow it for yourself on the Spike . The retaliation of Nick van der Leek is also available in the comments to that site.

The whole approach to the subject matter is however a bit comical which makes me suspect that the debate is taking place more on an emotional level than a rational one.

It reminds me of the the experiment we talked about as children which would serve to illustrate the difference between evolution and revolution. It was said that if you put a frog in a bowl of water and gradually and ever so slightly raise the temperature of the water, the frog does not register the temperature change. It will stay in the bowl and eventually die of the heat, never realizing that the water had become to hot to live in. On the other hand, if you heat the water so that it is luke-warm and you then put the frog in the bowl, it will immediately jump out because it can feel that the water is too hot. Maybe the Spike should try this experiment with himself in a hot bath tub!

The question whether the global climate is changing is one of scientific measurement and not philosophical reasoning. Scientists have already confirmed that the global temperature is heating up and it can be visually perceived by ordinary humans. Kilimanjaro has already lost its ice cap. The North Pole is loosing its ice. The equatorial belt between Capricorn and Cancer is extending and causing, for instance, birds to be seen in regions which are not generally their natural habitat. This happens because the  atmosphere is warmer.

The only debatable aspect of this topic is whether this climate change is caused by or contributed to by human behaviour. That can not be ascertained without any doubt. Our planet goes through various cyclical changes and the short span of available scientific figures do not allow us to say whether this is just a cyclical change or whether it is caused by the way in which we as humans pollute the environment.

But to take the argument a bit further I do not really think that it matters whether we are the cause of the change or not. The fact is that we are the cause of enormous and catastrophic pollution and depletion of the environment. Thousands of living species have disappeared already and many more are on the point of extinction. Forests are being eradicated. Our natural resources are being depleted. Numerous other incidences of pollution and environmental depletion are threatening our habitat. In all this we do play a part and we are leaving a raped planet behind for the next generations.

I do not think that the Spike will have any problem with this reality. So, what then is the point? The fact is that we need to become much more environmentally sensitive, whether it is to slow down global warming or to stop our demolition job on the environment in general. The fact is that we are shitting in our own nest and arguments like these do nothing to address the problem.

It may not be us who are ‘turning up the heat under the bowl of water’ in which we find ourselves. We are however most definitely responsible for the pollution of the ‘water’ in which we find ourselves. Now, whether we aim to turn down the heat or to stop the pollution, it all requires the same measures and change of our behavioral patterns. In South Africa we had (and still have) the same debate in regard to AIDS. Is it real or is it just the manifestation of poverty? The result is that millions of people are dying whilst this country has the highest infestation rate in the world. Can we afford the same mistake in regard to the habitat we live in?

J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Share This

How lawful is it to download music via the Internet? This is a question I have asked myself many times and, not being knowledgeable on the subject of copyrights, I had to do some research to form some idea.

I was flabbergasted to see how gigantic the Internet music industry is. There are an unlimited offer of any music you can think of on offer. You need to register on these sites and then you can download anything you want against payment. But I could not find one single site that provided me with sufficient information to satisfy myself that I would not be breaking the law by downloading music from those sites. In many instances information in regard to copyrights are contained in the terms and conditions of those sites. It is however hidden in so much legal jargon that even I, as a legal practitioner, found it difficult to understand. For people with little experience and legal knowledge, this information is almost meaningless.

So, as I said, I did some research.

The marketing and distribution of music (or any other form of intellectual property) is regulated worldwide by the WIPO. As I understand it this organization is now an agency of the UN, internationally mandated to regulate this issue in accordance with the WIPO treaties.

To explain I must point out that international treaties are agreements between signatory governments and are, as such, not law. It must be nationally implemented by national laws. So, what might be law in the USA may not be law in Liberia for instance.

You would for instance find that certain of the Internet music download providers are registered in Russia and operate in terms of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society (ROMS) it would not necessarily cover artists and consumers in all other countries. Those other countries’ law may differ or they might not have any laws at all which covers this issue.

Laws covers nationals and actions performed in the particular countries in which they operate. You may therefore find that providers may specifically indicate that they do not accept any responsibility for the actions of foreign users.

You may even go further and accept that there may exist similar organizations as ROMS in other countries – established in accordance with these treaties but with questionable administrative capabilities. You could then be under the impression that you are legally downloading music from a provider. In the meantime providers are not paying over any royalties to the various artists whose music they sell.

This whole situation is extremely undesirable and places an unnecessary liability on users. Why can’t WIPO not at least issue a registration (be it through national agencies) with a annual renewable number that refers back to a WIPO site where users can verify the legitimacy of their downloads?

Although one could use the size of the provider as a guide to ascertain the legality of its offer. It is however also a fact that one of the biggest music download providers are accused of doing business illegally. So how would we know?

A lot is being made of the so-called “theft” of copyrights. It is however governmental agencies and the international regulator are extremely unreasonable – and in a sense not doing their work – by not assisting the public to know what is legal and what not. As a result music lovers are at risk and music artists – whom we would never wish to prejudice – are losing income and motivation to keep providing us with their artistic work.

Until these regulatory institutions wake up and perform their mandates effectively, readers are invited to enjoy the music they love. It is for you that I have searched for the best links with the best music and added it to this blogroll to some of the best music sites. The two I prefer are Just Music and Music Forum.

J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Share This

In the past few years we have seen some of the worst atrocities against humans, comparable to the cruelest and most barbaric acts humanity is capable of. At the height of our civilization we have also equalled the lowest we are capable of.

A few individuals have been indicted, some prosecuted and some other executed for their crimes against humanity. This is however nothing compared to the numbers of alleged international criminals who are still walking free and who even still hold office. In this regard I specifically think of George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair and a large number of their collaborators and accomplices.

Tony Blair has left office and George W Bush will be doing so at the end of the coming year. We accepted that they would not be prosecuted for their alleged crimes whilst they still had the opportunity to veto it. Next year things however change and it is important that the world ensures that these people do not escape accountability with impunity.

In the course of the year the US Senate brought an issue to the foreground in regard to the Armenian genocide. They unfortunately dropped the issue like a hot patato. It remains important that we do open up these festering soars of the past – not necessarily to accuse and blame those who were responsible – all of them have long since past away – but to face the demons within Mankind. We are developing a collective conscience and in this sense we are all responsible for what we do to each other. We must know and understand ourselves so that we can improve and prevent recurrences.

There are many more of these incidences in history which we are not proud of and which we would rather not discuss. Among them is the history of Joseph Stalin which is actually much more recent than that of Armenia and which costs approximately 20 million lives. Mention is seldom made of the Gulag Archipelago. We all have the highest regard for the intellectualism and courage of the Russian people. We admire the way in which they got up from their knees after the fall of the old dispensation and regained their position as a proud people and an international force to be reckoned with. But there is a part of history that stands between Russia and the free world which we no longer can suppress.

In the new year I hope that I will be able to open up these injuries to the soul of a humanity to help us mend and face the future. I sincerely hope that readers will help make a small contribution in pursuing the truth and reconcile those who have been kept appart by injustice.

J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Share This