16 december 2019 plaatste ik het volgende bericht uit Het Parool op mijn weblog: Hendrikus Colijn weer zonder oorlogsverleden op straatnaambord Een straatnaambord over het oorlogsverleden van Hendrikus Colijn is weer verwijderd. Een kwestie van voortschrijdend inzicht, stelt het bestuur van Nieuw-West. Patrick Meershoek 16 december 2019, 16:34
Het inmiddels verwijderde naambord van de Dr. H. Colijnstraat in Geuzenveld met ondertitel. Even geruisloos als het was verschenen, is het ook weer verdwenen: het naambord van de Dr. H. Colijnstraat in Geuzenveld. Op het onlangs verwijderde bord werd Hendrikus Colijn niet alleen omschreven als politicus en staatsman, maar ook als deelnemer aan gewelddadige militaire expedities in voormalig Nederlands-Indië. Een kwestie van voortschrijdend inzicht, schrijft het dagelijks bestuur van Nieuw-West in een brief aan de stadsdeelcommissie. De kwestie was aangekaart door een bewoner van het stadsdeel, die zich ergerde aan de selectieve verontwaardiging. Colijn is de enige naamgever in het stadsdeel met een dergelijke bijsluiter. In de brief geeft het stadsdeel voor het eerst ook openheid van zaken over hoe het initiatief tot stand is gekomen. Dat begon in 2012 met een brief van een niet nader genoemde schrijver-journalist die reageerde op de vijftien jaar eerder verschenen biografie van Colijn, geschreven door historicus Herman Langeveld. De schrijver-journalist blijkt Stan van Houcke te zijn, voorheen actief bij de VPRO en Radio Stad. De binnenstadbewoner diende indertijd een voorstel in om een paar regels toe te voegen over het oorlogsverleden van Colijn, die eind negentiende eeuw als officier had gediend in het Koninklijk Nederlandsch-Indisch Leger. ‘Gewelddadige optreden’ Met name een in de biografie afgedrukte brief van de jonge officier aan zijn echtgenote had veel stof doen opwaaien. In de brief schreef Colijn hoe hij negen vrouwen en drie kinderen had laten doden. ‘Het was onaangenaam werk, maar ’t kon niet anders. (…) De soldaten regen ze met genot aan hun bajonetten.’ Het stadsdeelbestuur nam na rijp beraad het voorstel van Van Houcke over, zij het in aangepaste vorm. De omschrijving oorlogsmisdadiger was te gortig. Dat werd: ‘Wordt bekritiseerd vanwege zijn gewelddadig optreden als officier tijdens de Atjeh-oorlog en de Lombok-expedie waarbij veel burgerslachtoffers vielen.’ De bordjes werden verhangen zonder voor grote beroering te zorgen. Dat veranderde begin dit jaar, toen GeenStijl- en Telegraaf-columnist Rob Hoogland tegelijkertijd lucht kregen van de zaak. Zij lieten in hun stukken de knuppel dansen op de rug van GroenLinks dat in hun ogen weer eens bewees er een sport van te maken vaderlandse helden van hun voetstuk te duwen. Dat was enigszins voorbarig, want in werkelijkheid was het PvdA-bestuurder Els Verdonk die in Nieuw-West de nieuwe aanduiding van Colijn voor haar rekening had genomen. ‘Het opschrift is opgesteld onder de verantwoordelijkheid van de toenmalige portefeuillehouder,’ benadrukte ook het huidige bestuur in de brief. Over het voortschrijdend inzicht worden door het stadsdeel helaas geen nadere mededelingen gedaan. Het zorgde er immers eerst voor dat het oorlogsverleden van Colijn op diens straatnaambord kwam, en enkele jaren later dat het weer verdwijnt. Het bestuur wijst erop dat de verantwoordelijkheid voor de onderborden tegenwoordig op de Stopera ligt. Strategisch Wellicht speelt daarbij ook nog een strategisch belang. Burgemeester Femke Halsema heeft zich het afgelopen jaar persoonlijk ontfermd over een hele serie inclusieve straatnamen op IJburg, een poging om het verzet tegen de Nederlandse kolonisator een plek te geven in de Amsterdamse stratengids. Die materie is gevoelig genoeg en kan prima zonder post-koloniaal containerbrandje in een van de stadsdelen. In de brief schrijft het bestuur van Nieuw-West dan ook niet te verwachten dat er nog veel nieuwe onderborden zullen verschijnen, ook vanwege de kosten die verbonden zijn aan het maken van nieuwe borden. Ook in de Colijnstraat in Geuzenveld is de rust teruggekeerd. De naamgever is nu, tot nader order, weer gewoon de opvolger van Abraham Kuyper als leider van de Anti Revolutionaire Partij (ARP) en een minister-president die een reputatie verwierf als bezuinigingsminister, net als bij de oplevering van de straat in 1955.
Dat Colijn een oorlogsmisdadiger was bevestigde hij in een brief aan zijn vrouw, waarin hij schreef:
Ik heb er een vrouw gezien die, met een kind van ongeveer 1/2 jaar op den linkerarm, en een lange lans in de rechterhand op ons aanstormde. Een kogel van ons doodde moeder en kind. We mochten toen geen genade meer geven. Ik heb 9 vrouwen en 3 kinderen, die genade vroegen, op een hoop moeten zetten, en zo dood laten schieten. Het was onaangenaam werk, maar 't kon niet anders. De soldaten regen ze met genot aan hun bajonetten. 't Was een verschrikkelijk werk. Ik zal er maar over eindigen. Zie: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrikus_Colijn Opvallend is dat Hendrikus Colijn dezelfde rechtvaardiging voor zijn oorlogsmisdaden gebruikte als de SS, namelijk 'Befehl wist Befehl,' oftewel: 'We mochten toen geen genade meer geven.'
Vrijdag 12 juni 2020 berichtte Het Parool: Een straatnaambord over het oorlogsverleden van Hendrikus Colijn is weer verwijderd. Een kwestie van voortschrijdend inzicht, stelt het bestuur van Nieuw-West.
Een woordvoerder van het college van b en w geeft aan vernieling niet te accepteren. 'We zijn geen voorstander van uitwissen, maar wel van uitleggen en duiden zodat mensen zelf een geïnformeerd oordeel kunnen vormen. Het is niet aan de politiek om voor te schrijven wat omstreden is, het moet onderwerp van de maatschappelijke discussie zijn.'
Daarom worden er wel stappen genomen om de historische context toe te lichten. 'We gaan in kaart brengen welke standbeelden, gevelbeelden, straatnamen en gebouwen er zijn met een link naar het koloniale verleden en kijken naar de mogelijkheid informatie te geven waarin de historische context van deze personen wordt toegelicht. De Amsterdamse geschiedenis is rijk en soms pijnlijk. Dat verstoppen we niet maar bespreken we.'
Minister Ingrid van Engelshoven (Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap) zei eerder op vrijdag ‘dat het niet helpt als mensen standbeelden van controversiële historische figuren omverhalen.’ Ze juicht het wel toe dat er een discussie op gang komt over institutioneel racisme en discriminatie.
Ik heb eerder al aan het 'dagelijks bestuur' gevraagd wat dit betekent, maar met de bekende onverschilligheid en botheid van de meeste politici en bestuurders heb ik geen antwoord gekregen. Ik verzoek mijn lezers mij te steunen om dat bord weer op zijn plaats te krijgen door de drie leden van het Dagelijks BestuurWest te mailen. Laten we kijken in hoeverre deze politieke bestuurders autistisch zijn met betrekking tot hun eigen tijd.
Just in time for #ExposeBillGates Global Day of Action, The Corbett Report is releasing the full Who Is Bill Gates? documentary in a single upload. Please help to spread the word about this documentary, including the audio and video downloads and hyperlinked transcript at corbettreport.com/gatesThis posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now
As Covid-19 cases soar in states such as Arizona, Texas and Oregon, governors are again facing wrenching choices about how to balance economic recovery and the lives of citizens. While some have paused to reassess the wisdom of premature “reopenings,” many are plunging ahead despite frightening numbers like Florida’s 2.8% increase in reported cases Friday, its largest daily jump since May 1. Underlying this are the declarations of some politicians that boosting the U.S. economy out of recession is more important than saving American lives. Others, like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose state was the global epicenter of the pandemic, has called that a false choice. America leads the world in Covid-19 infection and death. How much worse a second wave makes that toll has yet to be revealed. —David E. Rovella, Bloomberg News
We Know for a Fact that at least Half of the US Population are Stupid. They are the Ones who Vote Democrat.
Not that most Republicans are much better. We are a country in collapse without any leaders but the demonized Trump. Not that he is my favorite person.
In case you don’t know, here is Laura Ingraham letting the liberals themselves tell you what the “peaceful” protesters did to their cities:
De racistische pro-Israel propagandist Daniel Gerritsen wil rotzooi schoppen. Trap er niet in. Hij is een narcistische provocateur. Op zijn twitter-site schrijft hij:
Assange warned us against the illegal actions of western states. Khodorkovsky is a Russian Gangster and former financier of the Dutch oligarch Derk Sauer.
Assange vs Khodorkovsky: Arbitrary Application of Human Rights by British Courts
“…this will be decided properly, independently by the British legal system respected throughout the world for its independence and integrity,” said then UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt immediately following the arrest of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, on 11th April 2019.
The high profile trials of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, tried alongside his Yukos business partner Platon Lebedev, were widely criticised in the West, including by Britain, and therefore serve as a tool to compare against the UK’s treatment of Assange. Part 1 of this analysis will attempt to compare the way the British authorities treat Julian Assange to the way they have protected oligarchs fleeing Russia and protested the treatment of oligarchs convicted in Russia. In one case, the British authorities have applied human rights in their courts, while in another, they have removed human rights from their courts.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a case study
When Vladimir Putin first came to power in 1999, UK politicians like Tony Blair and David Cameron rode the wave of opportunity that Russia was open to business. Political leaders could be seen enjoying he perks which seemed part and parcel of that time; yachting with oligarchs and taking large party donations from Khodorkovsky, Russia’s richest man at the time, and one of the ‘Gangster capitalists‘ who made a fortune through his newly acquired oil company, Yukos. Oligarchs got rich from Russia’s state assets, bought at basement-bucket prices through Yeltsin’s loans-for-share scheme. They made money by rigging the auctions of state assets, paying a fraction of the value, then passing the proceeds to offshore shell companies. Money made through championed ‘capitalists’ of Russia eventually made its way back into the US, Europe and also Britain. Yukos has been described as “…a darling of the Western financial press until it collapsed.”
Interestingly, Khodorkovsky’s conviction for tax evasion in 2005 was received with outrage from Western leaders who claimed his prosecution was politically motivated. In a second trial in 2010, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were convicted of embezzlement and money laundering. US Senator John McCain described Khodorkovsky’s prosecution at the time:
“…a creeping coup against the forces of democracy and market capitalism in Russia is threatening the foundation of the U.S.-Russia relationship and raising the specter of a new era of cold peace between Washington and Moscow.”
In 2005, the British courts refused to all the extradition of Alexander Temerko, and other individuals, all of whom had fled to the UK and were wanted by the Russian authorities in connection with the Yukos scandal. Britain’s extradition courts claimed the allegations against individuals sought by Russia were politically motivated and those concerned would not receive a fair trial.
The courtroom of Assange versus the courtrooms of Khodorkovsky
It is not necessary or possible to compare every aspect of these two cases; this comparison concerns only the treatment by the trial courts and the prison authorities. The full findings of the European Court of Human Rights of Khodorkovsky’s case are in their reports. The comparison is made possible because of the reporting by independent writers, including former British ambassador, Craig Murray, whose ‘Your Man in the Public Gallery‘ articles describe Assange’s US extradition hearing in London’s Woolwich Crown Court at HM Belmarsh Prison this past February.
There are several similarities in the way the court of Judge Baraitser treated Assange and the way in which the Russian courts treated Khodorkovsky and Lebedev during their trials. All men were made to sit in a barred dock. In the first trial of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev they sat inside a metal cage. In the second trial they were made to sit in a glass cage, similar to Assange who sat behind a bullet-proof glass at Belmarsh. In Assange’s case, the guards sat inside with him. In the case of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev the guards were armed and stood outside.
One of the defense’s main objections was that it was impossible for each man to converse confidentially with lawyers as the guards beside them could hear everything. Of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev’s second trial the ECHR findings show:
“76. The applicants sought the court’s permission to sit outside the glass dock near their lawyers, but permission was not granted. According to the applicants, while in the glass dock they were unable either to discuss the case with their lawyers confidentially or to review documents. All their conversations during the hearings were within earshot of the guards… (2nd Trial of Khordukovsky and Lebedev, 2010)”
In his first trial, Khodorkovsky, like Assange, appealed to the court to explain that the arrangements were ineffective. Like the Russian judge, Baraitser refused to change the arrangements, even though the prosecution had no objection to Assange sitting with his lawyers. Like the Russian judge, she ruled that if Assange wanted to speak to his lawyers the court would adjourn. In the case of Khodorkovsky, the ECHR report said the following:
“153. On 27 August 2004 the defence lawyers once again complained that it was impossible to communicate effectively with the applicants during the questioning of witnesses, emphasising that if an adjournment was announced every time one or other question had to be discussed with the applicants in the court session, the trial would progress very slowly. The court responded by asserting that the discussion of any questions whatsoever with the applicants was possible only during the adjournments.”
In addition to this, Assange’s defense team did submit psychiatric reportswere also provided about his severe clinical depression. Judge Baraitser dismissed such considerations and did not adhere to the UK Department of Justice’s best practice guide for courts that vulnerable people should be released to sit alongside their lawyers.
Baraitser also followed the first trial Russian judge by deferring to the court security (in the case of the UK, this was private contractor, Serco) as having the decision-making power regarding such courtroom arrangements. In the case of Khodorkovsky this related to whether his lawyer could pass him documents (which was agreed provided the judge could see them). In the case of Assange, it was whether he could physically leave the glass cage and sit with his lawyers. In the case of Khodorkovsky, the judge’s deference to the prison authorities was a factor in the final decision that a violation had occurred:
“…. in her words, the question of transmitting documents between the defence lawyers and the applicants did not belong to the competence of the court; the defendants were detained on remand and all questions related to the exchange of documents were within competence of the respective institution, in particular the escort service, and were regulated by the internal rules. If the exchange of the documents was compatible with those rules, the court would not be against it…”
“From the judge’s reaction it was clear that she did not consider herself competent to deal with that issue (see paragraph 151 above), and that the judge deferred to the prison authorities in a matter clearly related to legal assistance…The defence seemingly had no other choice but to accept that new rule.”
It is important to note that the ECHR ruling states that security arrangements in a domestic court should be justified:
The Court considers that it is incumbent on the domestic courts to choose the most appropriate security arrangement for a given case, taking into account the interests of the administration of justice, the appearance of the proceedings as fair, and the presumption of innocence; they must at the same time secure the rights of the accused to participate effectively in the proceedings and to receive practical and effective legal assistance (see Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, § 152, and Maria Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, § 171, 17 July 2018).
Here is a brief clip about Khodorkovsky and Lebedev in their 2010 trial. Watch:
. Clear Double Standard
Assange has no violent record and his only conviction is a minor police bail jumping offence which resulted from the UK courts ignoring the UN ruling on his arbitrary detention and right to asylum which he requested from the Ecuadorian government in 2012 after entering its London embassy. He is fighting an extradition case of historic importance that would see him spend the rest of his life in a supermax prison in the US, but due to Baraitser’s ruling must remain flanked by guards in a glass cage for no specific reason. In the case of Khodorkovsky, this arrangement was ruled a violation of Article 6 regarding lawyer-client confidentiality because all of the adjournments took place in the courtroom where guards could still hear. In the case of Assange, adjournments for discussions with his lawyers will take place in a room in the basement below the court. However, it is still possible that his meetings with his lawyers will be listened to, as Belmarsh authorities have a history in listening in on lawyers.
Here it is important to remember that the ECHR considers the accumulative effect of arrangements on a trial when deciding upon fairness. Unlike Khodorkovsky, who, according to the ECHR ruling had no significant health conditions at the time of his first trial, Assange’s psychological and medical conditions have been widely reported and documented by the highest international authority charged with adjudicating such matters. Following his assessment last May, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, warned that Assange could collapse with the sustained pressure of extradition proceedings to the US where it is unlikely he would not be given a fair trial. Fears for his health have also come from a global network of doctors, calling for independent specialist diagnostic assessment and treatment. Psychiatric reports demonstrate that he is very vulnerable, warning of a risk of suicide. All of these pleas have been ignored by the British extradition courts.
All of this begs a number fundamental questions. What effect could Baraitser’s unnecessary planned security arrangements have on the mental state of Assange and on his trial? What will result from the sustained psychological pressure and cognitive demands resulting from inevitable disjointed communication with his lawyers? What’s more, as Assange’s case is followed by the world, his regular trips under guard to and from the glass cage in order to speak to his lawyers will be reported globally and will bring into the question Britain’s ability to apply justice fairly.
We should recognise the ritualistic and symbolic significance of this treatment: to create the public illusion that Julian Assange must be locked away. We see that a journalist whose sole criminal record consists of jumping a police bail eight years ago, and whose time has already been served – is still being detained without charge and effectively treated like the most dangerous of men by the British criminal justice system. We should recognise the significance of Baraitser’s security arrangement for Assange in relation to ‘public mobbing’ by the media and by people in powerful and official positions, as Melzer has warned.
“… there has been a relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing, intimidation and defamation against Mr. Assange, not only in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom, Sweden and, more recently, Ecuador.”
Continued deference to legal assistance by Judge Vanessa Baraitser and the threat of Covid-19
According to reports by observers at Assange’s bail application hearing on March 25th, Baraitser again deferred to unqualified parties for legal assistance. On this occasion, she invited journalists to offer their opinion on how to manage the issue of anonymity of Assange’s partner should his partner’s statement be read to the court in support of his application. Baraitser’s continued reliance upon unqualified assistance in the legal fate of Assange suggests that she does not believe herself to be competent or even responsible for the consequences of court decisions.
His lawyers requested bail on the basis Assange has a chronic lung condition and is in a fragile state, putting him at higher risk of complications and even death if he were to catch the virus Covid-19, which has now reached the prison population. Judge Baraitser’s refusal to allow bail was condemned, particularly as several countries released low security risk prisoners to reduce their risk of infection. This included Iran which temporarily released British-Iranian Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Since then the British government has announced that Assange will not be released because he is on remand. However, the criteria for temporary medical release specifically refers to limited opportunity of custodial prisoners:
“…because such care cannot await the patient’s release or cannot be provided within the prison.”
The assumption is therefore that remand prisoners will not be remanded for long and if convicted may be eligible for temporary medical release. It can also be assumed that ‘patient’s release‘ relates to individual and specific cases. It is neither logical nor humane to interpret this as meaning that remanded prisoners should not have the same criteria for release during the spread of a deadly virus that anyone can catch. What’s more, Assange’s legal defence has warned that his case could continue for many years, resulting in his indefinite arbitrary detention, rendering the time-related criteria meaningless. Further, prison rule 21 provides the procedural framework for Assange to be released due to the threat of Covid-19:
Special illnesses and conditions
21.—(1) The medical officer or a medical practitioner such as is mentioned in rule 20(3) shall report to the governor on the case of any prisoner whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued imprisonment or any conditions of imprisonment. The governor shall send the report to the Secretary of State without delay, together with his own recommendations.
This should remind us that the health of each prisoner in British prisons is not simply the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, which counts itself as just one member of the national partnership for prisoner healthcare in England. Should Assange die in Belmarsh as a result of Covid-19 (or any other condition related to his long-term medical situation), responsibility will be the result of state-sponsored medical neglect.
Comparison of prison authorities: Access to lawyers and documents
The ECHR ruled there were violations to Khodorkovsky’s case, relating to lawyer-client confidentiality, and these included the examination of his legal documents and the permanent presence of guards during discussions with lawyers during trial adjournments. However, it appears he had significantly greater access to lawyers and legal documents than Assange. The ECHR findings show that after the 2003 pre-trial investigation was finished:
“The applicants (Khodorkovsky and Lebedev) studied the materials of their respective case files in the remand prison, with or without their lawyers. As follows from the forms produced by the Government, the applicants’ lawyers and the applicants studied the materials on an almost daily basis.”
The report points out that Lebedev complained because “he had been given only about three hours per day to study the case.”
According to the 2020 ECHR findings, during the first trial:
“… each day when the applicants were brought to the courthouse they had about an hour and a half to discuss the case with their counsel. After the hearings they also had until 10 p.m. to communicate with their lawyers. Between the hearings the applicants could communicate with their counsel either in the hearing room or in the remand prison.”
This denial of access to his lawyers and defense material has been described by Melzer as a form of torture:
. Judge Baraitser has consistently refused to address the violation of Assange’s human and prisoner rights inside Belmarsh prison.
Solitary Confinement
During Khodorkovsky’s almost two year detention in Matrosskaya Tishina he remained in the general population, regularly accessing a fitness room, enabled through private payment. In 2005, he was transferred to another prison where he spent periods totalling twenty-two days in solitary confinement. This appears to be official and was documented as solitary isolation for whatever reasons. In contrast Assange spent seven months in the Belmarsh healthcare wing in solitary confinement and effective lockdown, being segregated without reason or recourse in violation of minimum standards and prison regulations. He had no access to a gym.
Assange was finally removed from healthcare because of a campaign led by prison inmates, and through efforts by his lawyers and supporters. However, reports indicate that he has still been locked-up for most of the time, especially now the Covid-19 virus is affecting prison regimes.
Lawyer-client confidentiality
In the case of Khodorkovsky, legal documents were consistently examined by the authorities when passed to him from his lawyers, which the ECHR ruled as a violation of Article 6 client-lawyer confidentiality. In the case of Assange, his documents were stolen by the Ecuadorian government and passed to the US authorities – the very country which is trying to extradite him. Violation of Assange’s confidentiality with his lawyers has been demonstrated through the widely reported investigation into the Spanish security company US Global, accused of spying on him inside the Ecuadorian embassy, which included recording his meetings with lawyers. The content of the surveillance was then passed to the authorities trying to extradite him. All of this has been ignored by the British extradition courts.
By comparing the cases of Assange and Khodorkovsky we can see a clear double standard being applied by the British authorities. While they have refused extraditions to Russia on human rights grounds, the same authorities have seen fit to strip away the human rights and the dignity of Julian Assange, in full public view, all while boasting of higher moral standards.
***Author Nina Cross is an independent writer and researcher, and contributor to 21WIRE. To see more of her work, visit Nina’s archive.
