FROM HAARETZ SHILLS

Interior Ministry's Oz police unit accused of beating U.S. immigrants

Their lawyer: Police yelled at them, 'Afro-Americans, kushim [darkies], we don’t need you here.'By Bradley Burston

The Interior Ministry's controversial Oz immigration police unit has been accused of beating and verbally abusing members of an African-American family from Kansas City whose members converted to Judaism several years ago, and are living in Ashkelon pending a decision on their citizenship request.

An Oz official questioning a foreign worker in Tel Aviv.

Photo by: Nir KafriKristien Garrett, 24, who is seven months pregnant, was taken by ambulance to Ashkelon's Barzilai Hospital after the Oz unit operation. During the operation, several officers detained her husband Sean, telling family members that his name did not appear "in the system" of the ministry's Population Registry.

Witnesses said Kristien Garrett's one-year-old daughter and Garrett's mother Trina Woodcox were struck a number of times as the officers moved to detain Garrett's husband. Sean Garrett was allegedly handcuffed, beaten repeatedly and subjected to racial slurs while in custody; he was later released when ministry officials determined that his visa was valid.

The Oz unit, which spearheads a high-profile Interior Ministry campaign to track and expel foreign nationals who lack valid permits to remain in Israel, admitted to having detained a family member in error, but denied allegations of use of physical force. It countered that family members had attacked them with "cursing and swearing."

The family had come to Israel at the invitation of the Interior Ministry, which asked to interview them prior to a final decision on their request for immigrant status. Ministry officials held a hearing on their case last month, a step in the process toward receiving citizenship.

When Woodcox, who held the family's documents, asked to accompany Sean Garrett in the police van, "officers grabbed her by her hair and her head, and pulled her by her leg," dragging her out of the vehicle, Kristien Garrett told Haaretz Thursday, after her release from the hospital.


READ MORE

Fadsmashers- Oct 19th

Is the purpose of the anti-defamation league really to honorably protect the 'interest' of German Jews or is it to protect a place (Israel) near a bunch of oil from the original Israelites? Take a look at the definition of defamation... it is any libel against ANYTHING, even an inanimate object, it literally can mean libel against a 'product' especially non-kosher ones. The ADL's only purpose is defend the geo-political ploy for world domination that is Israel whose significance is but a figment of the hopelessly ethnocentric imagination of those it claims to defend, not Sephardi Jews from the region, nor others who have been actually defamed but more importantly BLED DRY, the ADL is the first line of defense of the fourth Reich. Look at the first group they deem a threat to justice, its called 'Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER)' !!!! THINK ABOUT IT!!! OR DONT!!! So to protect against the defamation of racist warmongers. Right. Protect their freedumb. The whole thing is a cruel joke and in a hundred years all of this stuff will be looked at the same way we look at those Europeans who were told the world was flat.




FROM ADL WEBSITE

The Top 10 Anti-Israel Groups, as identified by ADL, are:

 

·  Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER)

·  Al-Awda

·  Council on American-Islamic Relations

·  Friends of Sabeel-North America

·  If Americans Knew

·  International Solidarity Movement

·  Jewish Voice for Peace

·  Muslim American Society

·  Students for Justice in Palestine

·  US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation



READ MORE

Read article HERE

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/rick-sanchez-fired-over-remarks-on-jews-media-jon-stewart/19657894?icid=main|main|dl1|sec3_lnk2|174810

From Straight goods.com

Overshadowed by gun registry

Combating Terrorism Act passes second reading.

Dateline: Tuesday, September 28, 2010

by Alison@creekside

On the same day the nation was preoccupied with the national Liberal/Conservative competition for votes to preserve/kill the long gun registry, both parties combined forces to slip the Combating Terrorism Act through second reading in the House — 220 votes to 84 in a classic Lib/Con vs NDP/Bloc split — just ten minutes before the long gun vote.

The Liberals and Conservatives may disagree on whether it is either useful or an egregious invasion of privacy and civil liberties that Canadians should have to spend a few minutes registering a long gun online, but when it comes to locking Canadians up for 12 months without a warrant, or compelling them to appear before a court based on some anonymous tip, they're both just fine with that.



  If a person is suspected of intending to commit a terrorist crime in the future "a judge can order the person's detention for up to 12 months."

The right to remain silent, the right not to be jailed without charge, the right to know what the charges are against you — pfft!

In reintroducing Bill C-17 for the third time , to reinstate provisions from the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson emphasized a fabulous new feature:

"The key here is that the person required to attend an investigative hearing is treated as a witness, not someone who is accused of a crime."

True, as long as your definition of "witness" includes being arrested if you don't comply and being detained for up to 72 hours if you do. But what if you are also suspected of being likely to commit a terrorist crime some time in the future? Over to you, Mr. Nicholson:

"a judge can order the person's detention for up to 12 months."

There's a five year sunset clause again and every 12 months the Attorney General and the Public Safety Minister — that would be Nicholson himself and Vic (lock-'em-up) Toews respectively — must "provide their opinions, supported by reasons, as to whether the operations of these provisions should be extended."

Mark Holland, Liberal critic for Public Safety and National Security, made some noises about balancing national security with individual liberty and noted :

"the government has completely ignored most of the key recommendations that came from Justice O'Connor [re Maher Arar], which were supported by Justice Iacobucci and were repeated by the RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner Paul Kennedy,"

but then two days later, he voted for it along with the rest of the Libs.

There were hours and hours of speeches in the House about this Bill, at the beginning of last week from MPs, including Liberal Marlene Jennings, NDP Joe Comartin, Bloc Quebecois' Maria Mourani, NDP Wayne Marston, Conservative Colin Carrie and others.

For the Bloc, Serge Ménard noted that under the War Measures Act "almost all candidates who ran against Mayor Drapeau [in the Montreal elections] were incarcerated. A law which goes so far as to incarcerate political opponents has already been used once in our history," he said. NDP Bill Siksay noted that security certificates were intended to expedite deportation of non-citizens yet they have been used instead to jail people for up to eight years without a trial. Slippery slope.

By Wednesday, Libby Davies wondered aloud in the House why there were hundreds of articles in newspapers across the country dealing with the gun registry but no mention of the debate on the Combating Terrorism Act. Good question.

Here's another. After much initial huffing about how absolutely vital this bill is in the fight against 'terrorists', and with the Liberals onside since June 2009, the Conservatives have allowed it to languish in limbo for a whole 15 months. Now suddenly it's back on their agenda again as the first government order tabled on the return of the House this week. Why is that?