No es poco el espanto que provoca en Europa y Estados Unidos el triunfo del indígena aymara Evo Morales. Acostumbrado durante siglos a tener como interlocutores de Latinoamérica a representantes de las oligarquías blancas, Occidente ve con recelo y desconfianza, no exenta de racismo, el ascenso al poder de las mayorías excluidas de nativos y mestizas. Han tenido que transcurrir cinco siglos para que los indígenas pudieran recobrar el poder perdido en el siglo XVI. Ha tenido que concluir la Guerra Fría, para que la gente pudiera votar sin miedo al cuartelazo, la cárcel o la muerte.

Evo Morales es la antípoda del gobernante medio latinoamericano. No habla inglés, sino español y aymara. No ha estudiado en ninguna universidad extranjera, pues la única vez que salió de Bolivia, lo hizo como emigrante a Argentina. Es campesino hijo de campesinos, con escasos estudios de secundaria y su militancia política empezó cuando las políticas ordenadas por Estados Unidos amenazaron a los suyos con el hambre. Se lanzó al activismo luego de ver cómo la Policía antinarcóticos quemaba vivo a un pobre cultivador de coca. Contará luego que su dilema había sido organizarse o dejarse morir.

En el ínterin, los gobiernos neoliberales continuaban su subasta de siglos de las riquezas y recursos naturales del país, el último de ellos los yacimientos de gas. El malestar creciente encontraba inspiración y lecciones en el vecindario. Ecuador, donde costaba más elegir un presidente que destituirlo; Argentina, derrumbaba de forma atroz por una minoría desnacionalizada. En especial Venezuela, donde el ex militar Hugo Chávez, mestizo de origen humilde, ganaba elecciones, sorteaba golpes de Estado y ponía en marcha un programa de reformas cuyo destinatario principal era el “perraje”, término despectivo usado por la oligarquía para referirse al pobreterío venezolano. La izquierda renacía y tomaba el gobierno también en Chile, Argentina, Brasil y Uruguay.

La sorpresa no ha sido el triunfo de don Evo, como lo llama ya la derecha, sino la contundencia del mismo, pues ningún presidente, en las últimas décadas, ha derrotado por una diferencia tan abrumadora a su oponente. Por eso su victoria ha sido recibida como el inicio de una nueva era, que pondrá fin al Estado oligárquico y posibilitará la reorganización de Bolivia desde la inclusión de la mayoría indígena, excluida durante 500 años del reparto de la riqueza, del goce real de derechos y del gobierno del Estado.

El triunfo del MAS confirma y da un espaldarazo rotundo al proceso de cambios que vive Sudamérica. Bolivia, previsiblemente, se integrará en el Mercosur, estrechará vínculos con Venezuela y Cuba y potenciará a los movimientos indígenas y de izquierda en Perú y Ecuador. Otra consecuencia directa será reducir la presencia de EEUU en el país, debilitar aún más su proyecto de ALCA y desmantelar su política hacia la coca, cultivo tradicional indígena que dejará de ser perseguido, pues su destrucción, además de demostrarse inútil como política antidrogas, ha arruinado al campesinado boliviano.

Los otros grandes afectados, las multinacionales del petróleo, están en una grave disyuntiva: aceptar las nuevas reglas o retirarse del jugoso mercado boliviano. Poco margen tendrán y más lograrán si aceptan el nuevo marco. Venezuela y Argentina ya habían adelantado medidas dirigidas a poner fin al expolio de recursos. Bolivia hará otro tanto. Como ha declarado Evo, las empresas extranjeras podrán seguir haciendo negocios, siempre que acepten que el grueso de beneficios debe servir al país.
Evo Morales agrega Bolivia al nuevo mapa político regional. No será el último Estado. Latinoamérica avanza en la dirección de reducir colonialismo, neocolonialismo y dependencia. Las acciones de Repsol han bajado, las del pueblo boliviano han subido. Una buena noticia para Bolivia y los latinoamericanos.

Fecha Publicación: 22/12/2005

Augusto Zamora
Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público y Relaciones Internacionales de la UAM

http://www.infosolidaria.org/verarticulo.php?idarticulo=1060&idautor=63&idversion=0&ididioma=1

Sylvain Schiltz murió de una hipotermia mientras dormía en su coche el pasado 23 de noviembre, en plena ola de frío en Francia. De no haber sido así, Schiltz se hubiera despertado, como cada día laborable en los últimos cuatro años, para ir a trabajar en una empresa de recogida de basuras. Un empleo tan precario que no le permitía hacer frente por más tiempo al alquiler de su vivienda, de la que fue expulsado por impago tres semanas antes de su fallecimiento.

El caso de este soltero de 38 años, y de los otros seis vagabundos que perecieron en Francia a causa del frío en las mismas fechas, sacó a la luz el problema de los trabajadores de día y SDF (Sin Domicilio Fijo, como se denominan en este país a los “sin techo”) de noche, y rompió en pedazos el estereotipo del hombre que duerme en la calle, aislado de la sociedad y con problemas de alcoholismo.

“Este fenómeno se conoce desde hace treinta años, pero se ha amplificado en los últimos cinco”, explica Xavier Emanuelli, presidente del Samu Social, el servicio público de asistencia social. Varias asociaciones humanitarias calculan entre 33.000 y 50.000 el número de personas en el país con empleo, pero sin hogar. O lo que es lo mismo: tres de cada diez SDF, según los resultados de un informe de 2003 del Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INSEE).

Los hombres en esta situación trabajan generalmente en los sectores de la construcción, el transporte o la limpieza, mientras que las mujeres (el 25 por ciento de los casos) lo hacen en la restauración o como asistentas en casas de particulares, señala el informe. Otro estudio, éste de diciembre de 2004, eleva al 42 por ciento el número de personas que recurrieron a estos albergues nocturnos y que disponían de un contrato.

Bajos salarios, altos alquileres

“La crisis de la vivienda [Francia sufre desde hace años un importante incremento del precio del alojamiento], el aumento de la precariedad laboral y la reducción de la solidaridad tradicional explican su llegada masiva a los centros de emergencia”, señala el director de la asociación Vivienda y Humanismo, Pierre Mercier. Es lo que el director del Observatorio de las Desigualdades, Louis Maurin, define como “efecto tijera” entre “salarios cada vez más bajos y alquileres cada vez más altos”, en una entrevista en L´Humanité, el diario del Partido Comunista Francés (PCF).

Por lo general se trata de hombres solos, lo que supone un inconveniente añadido. En un país en el que se piden habitualmente diversas garantías al arrendatario -entre ellas un aval de que alguien responderá con su dinero en caso de impago-, un salario regular y decente no siempre garantiza encontrar un techo bajo el que dormir.

El estudio del INSEE muestra además que el problema, en ocasiones, no es la duración del contrato, sino el salario en si mismo, ya que un 30 por ciento de los SDF con empleo trabajan desde hace más de un año en la misma empresa, e incluso -en un tercio de estos casos- desde hace más de tres.

Un mes de acogida

Cuando las cinco primeras muertes ocupaban portadas y editoriales de la prensa gala, el primer ministro francés, el conservador Dominique de Villepin, se desplazó hasta uno de los centros de acogida y pidió que los SDF que dispongan de un empleo puedan ser acogidos en los albergues sociales de urgencia durante al menos un mes. Anteriormente estos centros sólo permitían a sus huéspedes alojarse un máximo de una semana.

La medida fue acogida de forma desigual por las asociaciones implicadas. Mientras Emanuelli aseguraba a la agencia France Presse (AFP) que los poderes públicos habían por fin tomado conciencia de una realidad preocupante, otros advirtieron del “riesgo de marginar aún más” a los sin techo que no tienen trabajo -al acogerles menos tiempo que los que sí lo tienen-, como señaló Fabien Tuleu, delegado general de la asociación Emmaus Francia, quien recordó que “los centros de acogida de urgencia son precisamente eso, un último recurso, y no una solución a largo plazo”.

Patrick Doutreligne, secretario general de la Fundación Abbé Pierre, se unió a las críticas al señalar a la AFP que la medida “avala el hecho de que se puede tener trabajo sin disponer de domicilio fijo”, cuando “el problema de los trabajadores no es tener un alojamiento de urgencia sino uno estable”. Además, añadió Doutreligne, “es dirigirse, sin dar medios suplementarios, a asociaciones que están haciendo malabares para alojar de urgencia”.

Más allá de los datos y las responsabilidades, la nueva realidad de los SDF con trabajo en Francia muestra la progresiva pauperización de distintas capas de la sociedad en los países desarrollados. Personas que tradicionalmente se encontraban fuera del perfil del vagabundo o del mendigo son hoy también carne de cañón y cada vez más gente sin un techo bajo el que dormir reconoce que nunca pensó que a él también le pudiera pasar.

Fecha Publicación: 22/12/2005
Paula Lego
Periodista

http://www.infosolidaria.org/verarticulo.php?idarticulo=1050&idautor=105&idversion=0&ididioma=1

21 novembre 2005

Scandalo in Brasile, i diari dei preti pedofili

Denunce, arresti, 1.700 sacerdoti responsabili di cattiva condotta sessuale. Intervento deciso del Vaticano

La copertina del settimanale brasiliano Istoè, della settiimana scorsa , in cui era pubblicata l'inchiesta sui casi di pedofilia tra i preti brasiliani
ROMA - «Il prete fa con me come un uomo fa con una donna. Mi toglie i vestiti, alza la tonaca, mi prende sulle sue ginocchia, mi dice di stare tranquillo...». È un bambino di dieci anni che parla. E rivela alla nonna quello che non aveva avuto il coraggio di dire alla madre per paura di «prendere schiaffi». O di «essere arrestato», come padre Edson Alves dos Santos, sacerdote brasiliano di 64 anni, gli aveva detto, dopo averlo violentato, che sarebbe accaduto se non avesse mantenuto il segreto. È solo una delle agghiaccianti denunce di atti di pedofilia compiuti da sacerdoti in Brasile e giunte drammaticamente all’attenzione del Vaticano. A una settimana dal caso clamoroso dell’arresto di padre Felix Barbosa Carreiro, un prete sorpreso in un’orgia di sesso e droga con 4 adolescenti adescati su Internet, il settimanale Istoè (Così è) ieri ha rivelato che il Papa, Benedetto XVI, ha inviato ai primi di settembre una commissione in Brasile per indagare sulle denunce di abusi sessuali compiute ai danni soprattutto di bambini poveri. In almeno due casi a testimoniare la veridicità dei racconti delle vittime sono gli stessi violentatori che hanno riportato le loro esperienze su un diario. Padre Tarcisio Tadeu Spricigo ha persino compilato le dieci regole per restare impuniti.

L’INCHIESTA - L’azione determinata di Benedetto XVI, prima di diventare pontefice a capo della congregazione per la dottrina delle fede e quindi responsabile delle indagini sui casi di abusi sessuali nella Chiesa, ha già portato alcuni risultati. Il periodico anticipa la relazione che gli inviati del Papa si apprestano a portare in Vaticano. Il quadro è allarmante. E descrive scenari purtroppo simili a quelli già accertati negli Stati Uniti, ma che stanno emergendo anche in inchieste delle chiese locali di altri Paesi come l’Inghilterra, la Francia, la Croazia e l’Irlanda. Un fenomeno che il Vaticano tenta di prevenire. Per il 29 novembre è atteso un documento che fornirà le linee guida ai seminari. Tra le indiscrezioni, l’esclusione dei ragazzi con tendenze omosessuali. Tuttavia le complicità di cui i sacerdoti responsabili di abusi a volte godono fa sì che, come nel caso di padre Tarcisio Tadeu Spricigo, in carcere per aver violentato un bimbo di 5 anni, tornino ad abusare di altri piccoli prima di essere arrestati. In Brasile oltre ai 10 sacerdoti in cella, ce ne sono 40 latitanti.

I NUMERI - Secondo Istoè, nell’inchiesta vaticana si parla di circa 1.700 preti, il 10 per cento del totale, coinvolti in casi di cattiva condotta sessuale: incluse le violenze su bambini e donne. Si dice che il 50% dei preti non mantiene il voto di castità. E che negli ultimi tre anni sono stati più di 200 i preti mandati in cliniche psicologiche della Chiesa per essere rieducati.

IL DIARIO - Agli atti del processo contro padre Tarcisio c’è un vero e proprio manuale del prete pedofilo e appunti sulle sue emozioni e le regole per restare impunito. Una fra tutte: «Mai avere una relazione con bambini ricchi». Scrive il prete: «Mi preparo per la caccia, mi guardo intorno con tranquillità perché ho i ragazzini che voglio senza problemi di carenze, perché sono il giovane più sicuro al mondo». «Piovono ragazzini sicuri affidabili e che sono sensuali e che custodiscono totale segreto, che sentono la mancanza del padre e vivono solo con la mamma, loro sono dappertutto. Basta solo uno sguardo clinico, agire con regole sicure». «Per questo sono sicuro e ho la calma. Non mi agito. Io sono un seduttore e, dopo aver applicato le regole correttamente, il ragazzino cadrà dritto dritto nella mia... saremo felici per sempre». E infine: «Dopo le sconfitte nel campo sessuale ho imparato la lezione! E questa è la mia più solenne scoperta: Dio perdona sempre ma la società mai». A consegnare il diario alla polizia è stata una suora, alla quale il sacerdote lo aveva dato per errore. Trasferito dopo la prima denuncia, il sacerdote ha violentato altri due bambini prima di essere catturato.

IL VIDEO - Padre Alfieri Edoardo Bompani, 45 anni, nella casa della campagna di San Paulo dove portava i bambini di strada, raccolti con la scusa di liberarli dalle droghe, registrava in un video le violenze praticate su vittime tra i 6 e i 10 anni. La polizia ha trovato anche appunti per racconti erotici che il prete stava scrivendo riportando esperienze personali. E un diario: il quinto, secondo la nota in copertina. «Da due giorni non mi faccio nessuno..., ieri mi sono masturbato due volte, una di queste con V (6 anni)». Il racconto del prete va avanti con espressioni di cruda violenza che non riteniamo di dover riportare.

IL VERBALE - Nelle carte della polizia di San Paulo c’è la storia di V.R.D, la vittima di Padre Edson Alves. Il giorno di Pasqua dell’anno scorso il bambino è stato ammesso a fare il chierichetto. Stavano per iniziare cinque mesi di violenze. «Circa tre settimane dopo che lui (il bambino ndr ) aveva dormito lì, il denunciato (il prete ndr )lo ha baciato in bocca.. e gli ha detto che un ragazzino di Santa Caterina glielo dava e lui regalava al bambino tutto quello che voleva».

Virginia Piccolillo
http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Esteri/2005/11_Novembre/21/preti.shtml

"I pass protesters every day at Downing Street, and believe me, you name it, they protest against it. I may not like what they call me but I thank God they can. That's called freedom" - Tony Blair, April 2002

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 19
By Terri Judd and Nigel Morris
Published: 10 December 2005
The Independent On Line

At first light yesterday, Brian Haw was dragged from his slumber by police officers and arrested. His crime was that his bed - or to be more precise his sleeping bag - is within shouting distance of the Prime Minister's bedroom.

Mr Haw may be a dedicated peace activist and human rights award nominee to some but to the two constables standing over him, he was a criminal. "I'm not breaching the peace. I'm fighting for it," he said indignantly.

So on the eve of International Human Rights Day, the 56-year-old - who has spent the past four-and-a-half years encamped outside Parliament to highlight the plight of Iraqi children - became the latest anti-war activist to be arrested.

Since the introduction this April of new draconian laws that forbid spontaneous free speech within a one-kilometre radius of the House of Commons, many demonstrators have fallen foul of the legislation. Only three days ago Maya Evans, 25, was convicted of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 after reading aloud the names of the 97 dead British soldiers next to the Cenotaph on Whitehall.

Voices from across the political spectrum have condemned the Government for trying to suppress free speech and deny protesters their right to demonstrate. In making the case for the war in Iraq, Mr Blair has often stated his ambition that Iraqis should be allowed the political freedoms enjoyed in Britain. But the evidence is that those freedoms are being steadily eroded in the United Kingdom. Speaking at the George Bush Snr presidential library three years ago, Mr Blair celebrated the right to protest, telling his audience: "I may not like what they call me, but I thank God they can." But in the bitter aftermath of the war in Iraq, the margins of domestic dissent are being squeezed.

Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, said yesterday: "All governments have been sensitive to criticism, but this Government has taken the suppression of dissent to a new level - it is nervous to the point of paranoia and frightened of being told the truth."

John McDonnell MP, chairman of the Campaign Group of Labour MPs, added there was an increasing build-up of anger in Parliament: "Freedom of speech has never been under such attack in the UK and it is shameful this is happening under a Labour government. We need a concerted campaign in Parliament and if necessary in the courts to counter this full-frontal attack on our centuries' old democratic rights."

Mr Haw was driven to Charing Cross police station to answer accusations that he had breached the peace. Ironically, while his vocal vigil outside the House of Commons inspired the new Socpa law, High Court judges in July ruled that he was exempt from the ruling as his protest began before it came into force. But, he insisted, he continues to be "harrassed" by the police.

"I wrote to Tony Blair and said dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. I am not a lone ranger. I am not the saviour of mankind. But I do know that I am responsible. We each have a responsibility."

He explained that he was asleep yesterday morning while a supporter - a freelance photographer, Maeve Tomlinson, 29 - kept a vigil by his side.

"I heard all these loud voices. I called out: 'Can you keep the noise down.' Finally, I stuck my head out and these two PCs - one man and one woman - were giving Maeve the tenth degree. She was just sitting in a chair minding her own business."

At the station, Mr Haw protested loudly on the phone to his solicitor and within the hour the desk sergeant released him to walk back to his permanent post on Parliament Square.

Having joined a protest against sanctions in Iraq in early 2001, the father-of-seven was so moved he came back in June that year with a plastic grey chair and a small sign proclaiming "Stop Killing Kids, Let Iraq's Infants Live". Bar three spells in hospital and many court cases, as defendant and witness, he has kept that vigil night and day ever since. His one sign has now been joined by hundreds of others.

Yesterday, one of his most devoted fans, Peggy Preston, 82, turned up and announced: "I went to Charing Cross and I told them off."

Once freed from police custody yesterday, Mr Haw solemnly read out the names of dead British soldiers as well as Iraqi victims of the conflict in the shadow of Big Ben, mimicking Maya Evans' "crime". But - unlike most people in this country - the law, or to be more precise the High Court judge who decreed he was exempt, was on his side.

At first light yesterday, Brian Haw was dragged from his slumber by police officers and arrested. His crime was that his bed - or to be more precise his sleeping bag - is within shouting distance of the Prime Minister's bedroom.

Mr Haw may be a dedicated peace activist and human rights award nominee to some but to the two constables standing over him, he was a criminal. "I'm not breaching the peace. I'm fighting for it," he said indignantly.

So on the eve of International Human Rights Day, the 56-year-old - who has spent the past four-and-a-half years encamped outside Parliament to highlight the plight of Iraqi children - became the latest anti-war activist to be arrested.

Since the introduction this April of new draconian laws that forbid spontaneous free speech within a one-kilometre radius of the House of Commons, many demonstrators have fallen foul of the legislation. Only three days ago Maya Evans, 25, was convicted of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 after reading aloud the names of the 97 dead British soldiers next to the Cenotaph on Whitehall.

Voices from across the political spectrum have condemned the Government for trying to suppress free speech and deny protesters their right to demonstrate. In making the case for the war in Iraq, Mr Blair has often stated his ambition that Iraqis should be allowed the political freedoms enjoyed in Britain. But the evidence is that those freedoms are being steadily eroded in the United Kingdom. Speaking at the George Bush Snr presidential library three years ago, Mr Blair celebrated the right to protest, telling his audience: "I may not like what they call me, but I thank God they can." But in the bitter aftermath of the war in Iraq, the margins of domestic dissent are being squeezed.

Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, said yesterday: "All governments have been sensitive to criticism, but this Government has taken the suppression of dissent to a new level - it is nervous to the point of paranoia and frightened of being told the truth."

John McDonnell MP, chairman of the Campaign Group of Labour MPs, added there was an increasing build-up of anger in Parliament: "Freedom of speech has never been under such attack in the UK and it is shameful this is happening under a Labour government. We need a concerted campaign in Parliament and if necessary in the courts to counter this full-frontal attack on our centuries' old democratic rights."

Mr Haw was driven to Charing Cross police station to answer accusations that he had breached the peace. Ironically, while his vocal vigil outside the House of Commons inspired the new Socpa law, High Court judges in July ruled that he was exempt from the ruling as his protest began before it came into force. But, he insisted, he continues to be "harrassed" by the police.

"I wrote to Tony Blair and said dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. I am not a lone ranger. I am not the saviour of mankind. But I do know that I am responsible. We each have a responsibility."

He explained that he was asleep yesterday morning while a supporter - a freelance photographer, Maeve Tomlinson, 29 - kept a vigil by his side.

"I heard all these loud voices. I called out: 'Can you keep the noise down.' Finally, I stuck my head out and these two PCs - one man and one woman - were giving Maeve the tenth degree. She was just sitting in a chair minding her own business."

At the station, Mr Haw protested loudly on the phone to his solicitor and within the hour the desk sergeant released him to walk back to his permanent post on Parliament Square.

Having joined a protest against sanctions in Iraq in early 2001, the father-of-seven was so moved he came back in June that year with a plastic grey chair and a small sign proclaiming "Stop Killing Kids, Let Iraq's Infants Live". Bar three spells in hospital and many court cases, as defendant and witness, he has kept that vigil night and day ever since. His one sign has now been joined by hundreds of others.

Yesterday, one of his most devoted fans, Peggy Preston, 82, turned up and announced: "I went to Charing Cross and I told them off."

Once freed from police custody yesterday, Mr Haw solemnly read out the names of dead British soldiers as well as Iraqi victims of the conflict in the shadow of Big Ben, mimicking Maya Evans' "crime". But - unlike most people in this country - the law, or to be more precise the High Court judge who decreed he was exempt, was on his side.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article332161.ece

* Maya Evans, 25, convicted for reading out names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq at unauthorised protest.
* Douglas Barker, 72, threatened with jail for withholding part of his tax payment in protest at the Iraq conflict.
* Malcolm Kendall-Smith, a 37-year-old RAF medical officer, facing court-martial for refusing to serve in Iraq
By Jason Bennetto and Terry Kirby
Published: 08 December 2005
The Independent

In three different British courtrooms yesterday, three ordinary people stood accused of three very different crimes, but all based simply on their opposition to the war in Iraq.

In the first case of its kind, a woman received a criminal conviction for standing outside Downing Street and reading aloud the names of the 97 British soldiers who have died in the Iraq conflict. At the same time as Maya Evans, 25, appeared in court yesterday to become the first person to be found guilty under the legislation designed to create an exclusion zone around Parliament Square, Douglas Barker, 72, a retired businessman from Wiltshire, was told by a magistrate that he faces jail for withholding part of his income tax on his investments, also in protest over Iraq.

In a third courtroom in Aldershot, a military judge heard that Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, an RAF medical officer based in Scotland, faced a court martial for refusing to serve in Iraq on the basis that the war was illegal.

After her hearing, Ms Evans, a part-time vegan chef from Hastings, described her conviction as an assault on her right to freedom of expression. She said: " I just think it's a shame you can't voice your freedom of speech in this country any more and it is illegal to hold a remembrance ceremony for the dead." Earlier, she had told Bow Street magistrates: "I didn't want to be arrested but, as far as I was concerned, I didn't think I was doing anything wrong standing there on a drizzly Tuesday morning with a colleague reading names of people who had died in a war. I don't think it's a criminal offence and I don't think I should have been arrested for it."

After a three-hour hearing, she was found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005; she was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 costs. The law, which came into power in April, makes it illegal to hold an unauthorised protest within 1km of Parliament Square. It was introduced partly to get rid of a long-term and noisy peace protester, Brian Haw, whose one-man vigil outside the gates of the Palace of Westminster was considered a nuisance.

Ms Evans was arrested, along with follow demonstrator, Milan Rai, in October as they stood next to the Cenotaph, close to the gated entrance to Downing Street. Mr Rai, 40, a writer, was reading out the names of dead Iraqi civilians. The pair had been intending to ring a bell for each of the names read out. Mr Rai, who had spoken to the police in advance about his protest, was not charged.

In Chippenham, magistrates were told that Mr Barker was refusing to pay £1,142.58, which amounted to 10 per cent of the income tax he was due to pay for the second half of this year. Instead, he had put the money to one side, intending to give it to a charity supporting children in Iraq, and had sent a note to the Inland Revenue to explain.

Mr Barker, of Purton, Wiltshire, told the magistrates: "I estimated that 10 per cent goes on military expenditure and I came to the conclusion that by paying this I was violating my conscience because I felt it would have been used illegally to kill people in a sovereign state."

He said he would only pay if he got a promise the money would not be used for military purposes, adding he believed the Government had used illegal weapons against Iraqi civilians since the start of the war. His comments were greeted with applause from a group of about 20 anti-war protesters in the public gallery.

Magistrates imposed a liability order, which means he has to pay the outstanding amount or bailiffs will become involved. Hilary Light, the chairwoman of the bench, said: "Whatever this court may feel, our jurisdiction is laid down and we can't say where money can go to. We are therefore going to make the liability order.'' No time limit was given.

Mr Barker, who helps run his son's organic farm, said afterwards that he would probably send the money to a government department that did not have any dealings with military expenditure, such as the NHS. "I don't think they will go so far as to send me to prison, they will either accept the money that way or just send the bailiffs round.''

Mr Barker, who did his National Service in the RAF, formerly ran a travel company, which he sold in the late 1980s. He said he was a lifelong socialist who had supported Tony Blair when he was first elected, adding: "I was very unhappy about the war when it began, but I might have given him the benefit of the doubt if things had gone well. But I think it's been a complete fiasco.''

At a hearing in Aldershot, Flt Lt Malcolm Kendall-Smith was told that he faces a two-day court martial for refusing to serve in Iraq.

Flt Lt Kendall-Smith, a unit medical officer based at RAF Kinloss, Morayshire, Scotland, had already completed two tours of Iraq. However, after studying the legal position, including the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, he concluded the war was unlawful and he should not return.

David Perry, for the prosecution, said there were two questions relevant in the case. Firstly, was it lawful to ask Flt Lt Kendall-Smith to return to Iraq? Secondly, were each of the four charges he faced relevant to the order telling him to go back.

His lawyer, Philip Sapsford, did not dispute his client failed to stay for a training course, helmet-fitting, an employment briefing and initial risk training exercise. But, Mr Sapsford argued the officer did not break English law. "The crucial question is whether to go to Iraq and the war itself is in fact unlawful in international law," he said. "I ask this question because UN resolutions do not form part of English law."

Flt Lt Kendall-Smith faces five charges of disobeying lawful orders under the RAF Act 1955. The court martial will begin on 15 March.

In three different British courtrooms yesterday, three ordinary people stood accused of three very different crimes, but all based simply on their opposition to the war in Iraq.

In the first case of its kind, a woman received a criminal conviction for standing outside Downing Street and reading aloud the names of the 97 British soldiers who have died in the Iraq conflict. At the same time as Maya Evans, 25, appeared in court yesterday to become the first person to be found guilty under the legislation designed to create an exclusion zone around Parliament Square, Douglas Barker, 72, a retired businessman from Wiltshire, was told by a magistrate that he faces jail for withholding part of his income tax on his investments, also in protest over Iraq.

In a third courtroom in Aldershot, a military judge heard that Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, an RAF medical officer based in Scotland, faced a court martial for refusing to serve in Iraq on the basis that the war was illegal.

After her hearing, Ms Evans, a part-time vegan chef from Hastings, described her conviction as an assault on her right to freedom of expression. She said: " I just think it's a shame you can't voice your freedom of speech in this country any more and it is illegal to hold a remembrance ceremony for the dead." Earlier, she had told Bow Street magistrates: "I didn't want to be arrested but, as far as I was concerned, I didn't think I was doing anything wrong standing there on a drizzly Tuesday morning with a colleague reading names of people who had died in a war. I don't think it's a criminal offence and I don't think I should have been arrested for it."

After a three-hour hearing, she was found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005; she was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 costs. The law, which came into power in April, makes it illegal to hold an unauthorised protest within 1km of Parliament Square. It was introduced partly to get rid of a long-term and noisy peace protester, Brian Haw, whose one-man vigil outside the gates of the Palace of Westminster was considered a nuisance.

Ms Evans was arrested, along with follow demonstrator, Milan Rai, in October as they stood next to the Cenotaph, close to the gated entrance to Downing Street. Mr Rai, 40, a writer, was reading out the names of dead Iraqi civilians. The pair had been intending to ring a bell for each of the names read out. Mr Rai, who had spoken to the police in advance about his protest, was not charged.

In Chippenham, magistrates were told that Mr Barker was refusing to pay £1,142.58, which amounted to 10 per cent of the income tax he was due to pay for the second half of this year. Instead, he had put the money to one side, intending to give it to a charity supporting children in Iraq, and had sent a note to the Inland Revenue to explain.

Mr Barker, of Purton, Wiltshire, told the magistrates: "I estimated that 10 per cent goes on military expenditure and I came to the conclusion that by paying this I was violating my conscience because I felt it would have been used illegally to kill people in a sovereign state."

He said he would only pay if he got a promise the money would not be used for military purposes, adding he believed the Government had used illegal weapons against Iraqi civilians since the start of the war. His comments were greeted with applause from a group of about 20 anti-war protesters in the public gallery.

Magistrates imposed a liability order, which means he has to pay the outstanding amount or bailiffs will become involved. Hilary Light, the chairwoman of the bench, said: "Whatever this court may feel, our jurisdiction is laid down and we can't say where money can go to. We are therefore going to make the liability order.'' No time limit was given.

Mr Barker, who helps run his son's organic farm, said afterwards that he would probably send the money to a government department that did not have any dealings with military expenditure, such as the NHS. "I don't think they will go so far as to send me to prison, they will either accept the money that way or just send the bailiffs round.''

Mr Barker, who did his National Service in the RAF, formerly ran a travel company, which he sold in the late 1980s. He said he was a lifelong socialist who had supported Tony Blair when he was first elected, adding: "I was very unhappy about the war when it began, but I might have given him the benefit of the doubt if things had gone well. But I think it's been a complete fiasco.''

At a hearing in Aldershot, Flt Lt Malcolm Kendall-Smith was told that he faces a two-day court martial for refusing to serve in Iraq.

Flt Lt Kendall-Smith, a unit medical officer based at RAF Kinloss, Morayshire, Scotland, had already completed two tours of Iraq. However, after studying the legal position, including the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, he concluded the war was unlawful and he should not return.

David Perry, for the prosecution, said there were two questions relevant in the case. Firstly, was it lawful to ask Flt Lt Kendall-Smith to return to Iraq? Secondly, were each of the four charges he faced relevant to the order telling him to go back.

His lawyer, Philip Sapsford, did not dispute his client failed to stay for a training course, helmet-fitting, an employment briefing and initial risk training exercise. But, Mr Sapsford argued the officer did not break English law. "The crucial question is whether to go to Iraq and the war itself is in fact unlawful in international law," he said. "I ask this question because UN resolutions do not form part of English law."

Flt Lt Kendall-Smith faces five charges of disobeying lawful orders under the RAF Act 1955. The court martial will begin on 15 March.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article331782.ece

http://hometown.aol.com/cialis111/cialis-uprima-viagra.htm
Translated into Turkish by: (no name)
# cialis
[url=http://hometown.aol.com/cialis111/71-cialis-conflictresolvernet-directory-redirectphp-siteid-tiki.htm]cialis[/url]