File:Message from the man outside after 14 days of hunger strike.pdf

Letter from the Man outside

after 14 days of hunger strike

from Kevin Galalae - an open letter to Commissioner Hammarberg

Two weeks have gone by since I first knocked on Commissioner Hammarberg’s door – figuratively speaking since he is hidden behind layers and layers of bulletproof glass, concrete walls and security; imprisoned, so to say, in an ivory tower. After 14 days of hunger strike I am 33 pounds (=15kg) lighter, having lost 14% of my body weight, but one hundred times more determined to see to it that I succeed in shutting down the covert program of discrimination, thought control and intimidation that Europe has secretly adopted in 2010 as part of the Stockholm Programme and that I have baptized by the acronym SAC.

SAC AND COUNTER-RADICALIZATION IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

(Extract)

The counter-radicalization strategy is part of the greater struggle against terrorism, which is delegated from the UN by the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) since 2001. The CTC’s job is to bolster the ability of UN Member States to prevent terrorist acts both within and outside their borders and is assisted in its work by the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), which carries out the policy decisions of the CTC, conducts expert assessments of each Member State and facilitates technical assistance.

The CTC is guided by three Security Council resolutions: 1373 (adopted in 2001), 1624 (adopted in 2005) and 1963 (adopted in 2010). The counter-radicalization strategy was born in 2005 with resolution 1624. Not surprisingly, it was drafted by the United Kingdom4 and calls upon Member States to, among other things, adopt measures necessary to countering incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerance, prevention of subversion of educational, cultural and religious institutions. In other words, everything one needs to institute a covert programme like SAC and to infiltrate not only universities but also places of worship and cultural institutions.

Knowing that 1624 would have a devastating effect on human rights and especially on freedom of expression, association and religion, the preamble to the resolution starts by reaffirming the Council’s will to combat terrorism in accordance with the United Nations Charter and to use measures that conform to international law; a clear indication that this would not happen. The resolution also emphasizes efforts for dialogue to broaden understanding among civilizations to prevent any indiscriminate targeting of religions and cultures; once again knowing full well that deeper divisions between civilizations and the indiscriminate targeting of religions and cultures are to be expected and unavoidable once such measures and the extraordinary powers to carry them out are let loose on the world.

To cover up the human rights violations and the cultural divisions that the drafters of resolution 1624 knew would inevitably ensue, they called upon the media, business and society to promote tolerance, which in the twisted jargon of diplomacy means suppress all cases and incidents of intolerance and abuse caused by the resolution and remain blind and deaf to any victims who cry for help. The United Kingdom, in other words, set the stage for unencumbered state-sponsored discrimination at home and abroad and arm twisted every Member State to cooperate both in a conspiracy of silence and in undermining their own nations’ democratic processes and independence.

Despite its obvious incompatibility with human rights and civil liberties, resolution 1624 was unanimously adopted because it offered a priceless gift, a license to suppress dissent. The gift that every government took home was the ability to commit any crimes at home against anyone and then label the victims extremists and terrorists to avoid being held accountable in the courts or exposed and criticized in the local or international press. That is a mighty gift that no one in power can refuse and that oppressive governments far and wide now use to counter insurgencies and to nip in the bud any legitimate dissent. The impact to democracy and to democratic aspirations is greater than anyone can know and it will take decades to reveal and great suffering and hardship to reverse.

Having gotten what it wanted from the UN, the UK then set to work and repackaged its 2003 counter-terrorism strategy, putting out a revised version in 2007 and then again in 20095. The new CONTEST strategy, the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, boasts in the 2009 introduction, “is one of the most comprehensive and wide-ranging approaches to tackling terrorism anywhere in the world”. That indeed it is, but what we are not told is that it is also thoroughly unlawful and dangerously unethical. It has four strands: Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare, and it is within the Prevent strand that counter-radicalization is introduced as a way to stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism.

To achieve the miracle of identifying terrorists in the making, the government gave their secret service agencies broad powers to engage in covert surveillance and interception of communications. That is how universities became infiltrated by secret service agents and how SAC came to be.