Newborn Seized in Hospital by Police, Social Worker

Michael P. Farris, Esq.

HSLDA Chairman

I am not content to sit on the sidelines while the government gradually usurps the very essence of parental rights. I hope you share my determination. We need to stand with people like Scott and Jodi Ferris (obviously no relation to someone named Farris). Here’s their story:

Jodi went into labor a bit earlier than she had expected—and the baby was coming rapidly. Given their location and other factors, the midwife they had hoped would deliver the baby at their home encouraged them to get in an ambulance and head to the hospital.

Their baby, whom I will call “Annie,” was born in the ambulance in the parking lot of the Hershey Medical Center—a state-affiliated hospital in Pennsylvania. Hospital personnel arrived very quickly and took charge of both baby and mom.

As any mother would do, Jodi immediately began to ask the nurses and attendants how her baby was doing. The hospital staff was utterly unresponsive. When they started to give Jodi an injection, she asked what it was and what it was for. They gave her vague answers like, “It’s just to help.” Only after giving her the injection of oxytocin did they tell her what it was and then asked, “You aren’t allergic to that are you?”

Jodi persisted in asking about Annie. No one would tell her anything other than “she’s in good hands and you’ll be able to see her soon.”

Eventually a doctor told her that Annie scored a 9 on a physical exam applied to newborns known as the APGAR test. A score of 8 or higher is considered healthy. (It is unclear when the score was given since she was in the ambulance at birth.) But shortly after this a different doctor told Jodi that Annie was “very sick” and would need to stay in the hospital. This doctor’s comments were accompanied by an explanation of his disdain for midwives saying, “Too many people think they know what they’re doing.”

About an hour later, another hospital staffer finally brought Annie to Jodi and said, “The baby is doing good. She will be able to go home in no time.”

Legal Requirements?

However, several hours later yet another staffer told Scott and Jodi that Annie would have to stay in the hospital for 48 to 72 hours for observation. Even though they persisted in asking why Annie would need to stay, his only answer was that “the law requires us to keep the baby for 48 hours.” When they asked for a reference to this supposed law, he answered, “you’ll have to get that from risk management.” (By the way, there is no such law in Pennsylvania.)

The risk management staffer eventually told them that even though they saw nothing wrong with the baby, they just like “to keep babies like this” for 48–72 hours. The Ferrises were told that Annie would not be released for this period since it was “unsafe for her to leave the hospital.”

Eventually, a risk management staffer admitted that the risk that was being managed was not the health of Annie but the risk that the hospital might get sued if something went wrong after she was discharged.

Ultimately, risk management said that they would be satisfied with a 24-hour stay and that Jodi and Scott could remain with the baby overnight.

You have been Accused

Late in the afternoon, a government social worker named Angelica Lopez-Heagy came into Jodi’s room announcing that she was there to conduct an investigation. Jodi asked to know the allegations. The social worker claimed that it would be against the law for her to show Jodi the allegations.

Jodi replied that she would not be comfortable answering the questions if she couldn’t know the allegations. Immediately the social worker proclaimed, “Since you’re not going to cooperate, I’ll just go and call the police and we can take custody of the baby.”

Fearing that the social worker would carry out her threat, Jodi replied that she was willing to cooperate.

The social worker soon intimated that the issue was Jodi’s refusal to consent to medical treatment for the baby. Jodi replied that she had no idea why anyone would say that. The social worker claimed that she had refused to allow a Vitamin K shot for Annie. Jodi replied that no one had asked her about such a shot. Moreover, she had overheard hospital staffers saying that they had already given Annie such a shot.

Neither the social worker nor any hospital staffer ever gave Jodi or Scott any example of any medically necessary treatment that they had refused for Annie.

At this point, Scott left the hospital to tend to their older children who were staying with friends.

Ordering Tests

Shortly after this, the hospital asked to check Annie’s white blood cell count and to perform a strep test. Jodi agreed to the testing.

Then the hospital demanded that they give Annie shot for Hepatitis B. Jodi said that she would agree only if they tested her or Annie to see if either of them were positive. If so, then she was quite willing to have the shot for Annie. The hospital claimed that they had forgotten about this earlier when it was still possible to test that day, and that they needed to give the shot anyway without any testing.

When the social worker pressed her to make an immediate decision about this shot, Jodi asked her if they could simply wait until Scott got back before they decided.

Put yourself in Jodi’s shoes at this moment. You gave birth that morning in an ambulance. The hospital has made wild and conflicting claims about your baby’s health all day long. You are exhausted. You are in pain. Your husband has gone to check on your children. And a social worker who has threatened to take your baby into police custody is standing in your hospital room demanding that you make an immediate decision.

Jodi simply said, “Please can’t this wait until my husband gets back.”

The social worker renewed her threat. If Jodi would not answer her question right then, she would call the police. And then the social worker started adding conditions. She and Scott would have to agree to sign a safety plan before she could conclude her investigation.

Jodi said that she wanted her husband and an attorney to look at the plan. She felt she was in no position to read such a document and really understand what she was being pressured to sign.

Thrown Out

And then the story turns ugly.

The social worker left the room and called the police. Without a court order they took custody of Annie, immediately claiming that she was suffering from illness or injury—a patently false claim.

The social worker consented to the administration of the Hepatitis B shot even though no blood test had been done.

The police made Jodi Ferris get up out of her hospital bed and escorted her to the entrance—they were expelling her from the hospital because she had not signed the “safety plan.”

Scott met her at the entrance to the hospital. The police escorted them both off of the grounds of the hospital.

Jodi was told that she would be allowed to return every three hours to nurse the baby through the night.

Jodi and Scott were forced to spend the night that she had given birth in their car in a nearby parking lot. You read that right. They kicked this mother out of the hospital, and in order to be close enough to feed her child, she had to sleep in the car.

To add insult to injury, Jodi was given access to Annie only sporadically and not every three hours.

Baby Returned

The next morning a judicial officer held a shelter care hearing. After hearing the evidence, the officer immediately returned custody of Annie to her parents.

No parents should be put through this kind of ordeal. It is not a crime to ask questions about the well-being of your child. It is not a crime to ask for testing to ensure that a procedure is needed before it is done. It is not a crime to be a protective mom.

It is a moral offense of the highest order to kick a mother out of a hospital and to seize her child on the day of her birth simply because a mom wanted to have her husband read a legal document before she signed.

Both the medical personnel and the social worker engaged in outrageous behavior toward this family.

And we believe that they violated their rights under the Constitution of the United States. And we are going to court to prove it.

Why is HSLDA fighting for parental rights in this context? It is not a homeschooling case.

Parental Rights at Risk

We are taking this case because we are tired of seeing the erosion of parental rights in virtually every area of life. Parental rights in medical cases have an impact on broader parental rights, including educational decisions.

And the plain fact is this: If we don’t fight for parental rights, it is probable that our rights will be eroded bit by bit until there is nothing that remains.

We cannot afford to fund cases like this out of HSLDA’s membership dues. We are taking this case because we believe that our members and friends will stand with Jodi and Scott Ferris. We believe that parents should not be punished by “over-the-top” social workers and doctors.

The social worker’s priority was not the welfare of Annie, but her own convenience and her own perception of her power. She was aiming to teach this homeschooling mother a lesson.

And the hospital was clearly not concerned that Annie had a medical issue—they were just trying to avoid being sued for medical malpractice.

When government workers run over parents in cases like this, the lesson that needs to be taught is to the government.

This case will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Your tax-deductible gifts to the Homeschool Freedom Fund of the Home School Foundation will make it possible for us to take this case to court and to try to establish a precedent that will help protect us all.

All of our families are at risk when the government is allowed to run over one of us. When we stand together, we can fight back for freedom and for truth.

Thanks for giving as the Lord leads you. And pray for us. This is not an easy case. We really need your ongoing prayers.

Texas exoneree wants accountability, not revenge

CBS

Michael Morton poses for a photo in
Austin, Texas, on Thursday, March 29, 2012.
After spending 24 years in prison for
the murder of his wife, which he did
not commit, Morton says he's not
interested in revenge, but the
prosecutor that convicted him is
now a sitting judge who is being
investigated by special prosecutor for
possible misconduct in the case.

A Texas father who spent nearly 25 years behind bars for a murder he didn't commit is pressing for tougher penalties targeting prosecutors who withhold evidence, saying he wants to prevent other innocent people from falling victim to overzealous authorities.

"This isn't about me because my case is finished," Michael Morton said during an interview Thursday with The Associated Press. "But there's no reason it can't happen to you or to anyone."

Morton was convicted in the fatal 1986 beating of his wife by a prosecutor who Morton and his attorneys believe knowingly withheld critical evidence. Morton walked out of prison a free man last October, after DNA testing cleared him and pointed to another man now charged in the murder and implicated in a similar 1988 slaying.

Morton was awarded nearly $2 million under the state's compensation law, and a special prosecutor is investigating whether the lead prosecutor in his case — now a Texas judge — hid evidence.

But Morton said his fight isn't over.

He plans to sit down with lawmakers and State Bar officials, and use the notoriety he reluctantly gained from his high-profile exoneration, to get tough new rules in place that would ensure prosecutors could be fined or even disbarred for concealing evidence in Texas, where more former inmates have been exonerated than any other state.

"We want to tell prosecutors, 'Just play fair, follow the rules, obey the law," Morton said. "I'm not a lawyer, but I've been around a whole bunch of them lately. They can do this and we can help get the Legislature to make it doable, too."

Investigations of court officers are rare, and the one against Ken Anderson — a rising star among young prosecutors when he handled Morton's trial in 1987 — is especially so since he's now a Texas District Court judge.

World Bank Nominee Tied to Monsanto Shareholder Bill Gates, Soros

Natural Society
Tim McCoy

Obama nominated Dartmouth University president Jim Yong Kim, M.D. to head the United Nations World Bank.  Most people think that UN agencies benefit poor people, but this is far from the truth.

The UN World Bank claims to fight poverty in developing nations by financing infrastructure projects. But the UN World Bank is really a tool used to acquire Third World natural resources through conditions on loans that are extremely difficult to repay. The raw resources are then privatized by insider multi-national corporations.  The World Bank actually creates more poverty.

The nomination of Jim Yong Kim indicates that the World Bank may shift away from focusing on infrastructure and will instead turn toward providing health care in Third World countries.  Jim Yong Kim’s areas of interest include vaccines for tuberculosis as well as drugs for HIV and AIDS.

Kim brokered a deal with Big Pharma and the UN World Health Organization for expanding the pharmaceutical drug market to a larger populace in exchange for lower drug prices for second-line tuberculosis drugs.  Second-line drugs are used when basic treatment fails because of drug resistance.  Drug resistance similar to the new ‘resistant White Plague‘ brought about by big pharma’s drugs. Many in the medical community believed it would be dangerous to distribute second-line drugs widely.  Kim is also responsible for pushing HIV/AIDS retroviral drugs in developing nations.

HIV/AIDS drugs used in the Third World have profound side effects that include eye, kidney, liver and heart problems.

Jim Yong Kim says that the highest point in his career was when George Soros donated to Kim’s tuberculosis vaccine program, which was followed by a a huge grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for $44.7 million.  Monsanto shareholder Bill Gates, who has repeatedly stated that Monsanto’s GMOs are the answer to starvation despite scientific proof of the contrary, gave a controversial speech at a Ted conference outlining the controversial population reduction plan through ‘healthcare’:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Additionally, Kim is the co-founder of Partners in Health along with Paul Farmer who is famous for saying that healthcare is a right.  Healthcare as a “right” disables health freedom to escape the medical health paradigm and choose your own methods of healing.  In addition, it also enables the government to determine whether or not an individual may receive care — the ‘right’ to live or die.  Therefore, this shocking and disturbing program falls into the category of a eugenics-based plan.

Conclusion:

The objective of Jim Yong Kim heading the UN World Bank appears to be to promote ludicrous policies by expanding healthcare through dangerous drugs.  Kim’s support for redistribution of wealth and socialized medicine may come with a tremendous price tag for developed countries (especially the US).  If the UN World Bank was truly a benevolent organization, the focus for the Third World would be on support for independent farming, clean water and food.

Police fight cellphone recordings

Boston
Daniel Rowinski

Witnesses taking audio of officers arrested, charged with illegal surveillance

Simon Glik, a lawyer, was walking down Tremont Street in Boston when he saw three police officers struggling to extract a plastic bag from a teenager’s mouth. Thinking their force seemed excessive for a drug arrest, Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording.

Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs.

“One of the officers asked me whether my phone had audio recording capabilities,’’ Glik, 33, said recently of the incident, which took place in October 2007. Glik acknowledged that it did, and then, he said, “my phone was seized, and I was arrested.’’

The charge? Illegal electronic surveillance.

Jon Surmacz, 34, experienced a similar situation. Thinking that Boston police officers were unnecessarily rough while breaking up a holiday party in Brighton he was attending in December 2008, he took out his cellphone and began recording.

Police confronted Surmacz, a webmaster at Boston University. He was arrested and, like Glik, charged with illegal surveillance.

There are no hard statistics for video recording arrests. But the experiences of Surmacz and Glik highlight what civil libertarians call a troubling misuse of the state’s wiretapping law to stifle the kind of street-level oversight that cellphone and video technology make possible.

“The police apparently do not want witnesses to what they do in public,’’ said Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, who helped to get the criminal charges against Surmacz dismissed.

Boston police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll rejected the notion that police are abusing the law to block citizen oversight, saying the department trains officers about the wiretap law. “If an individual is inappropriately interfering with an arrest that could cause harm to an officer or another individual, an officer’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the situation,’’ she said.

Report shows surge in worldwide executions

Al Jazeera


Amnesty International says executions rose by 78 per cent worldwide and by 50 per cent in Middle East last year.

Several countries continue to practice the death penalty
despite growing calls for its abolition

The number of executions around the world soared last year, with countries such as Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia resorting to the death penalty more often than in the past, rights group Amnesty International has said in a new report.

The group said on Tuesday that at least 676 people were executed in 20 countries in 2011 compared with 527 executions in 23 countries in 2010, a 78 per cent increase.

Executions in the Middle East rose by almost 50 per cent last year to 558, the group said.
Methods of execution used around the world included beheading, hanging, lethal injection and shooting.

However, Amnesty said China executed more people than the rest of the world put together. Data on the death penalty in China is a state secret, and Amnesty International no longer publishes a figure for Chinese executions, but it said they were in the thousands.

Salil Shetty, Amnesty's secretary-general, said that when Amnesty was launched in 1961 only nine countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes, whereas last year only 20 countries carried out executions.
"It's a very important success story," he told the Reuters news agency, adding that the downside was that "a few countries continue to practice it in large numbers."

At least 1,923 people are known to have been sentenced to death in 63 countries in 2011, down from 2,024 in 2010, Amnesty's report said. At least 18,750 people were under sentence of death worldwide at the end of 2011, including 8,300 in Pakistan, it said.

'Taliban sympathiser' arrest prompts new questions about FBI tactics

The Guardian
Paul Harris

The arrest of a Pittsburgh man described as a Taliban sympathiser has sparked allegations that the FBI deployed a notorious confidential informant used in previous controversial stings on suspected Muslim radicals.

Khalifah al-Akili, 34, was arrested in a police raid on his home on March 15. He was later charged with illegally possessing a gun after having previous felony convictions for drug dealing. However, at his court appearance an FBI agent testified that al-Akili had made radical Islamic statements and that police had uncovered unspecified jihadist literature at his home.

But, in a strange twist, al-Akili's arrest came just days after he had sent out an email to friends and local Muslim civil rights groups complaining that he believed he was the target of an FBI "entrapment" sting. That refers to a controversial FBI tactic of using confidential informants – who often have criminal records or are paid large sums of money – to facilitate "fake" terrorist plots for suspects to invent or carry out.

In the email – which was also sent to the Guardian before al-Akili was arrested – he detailed meeting two men he believed were FBI informants because of the way they talked about radical Islam and appeared to want to get him to make jihadist statements. According to his account, one of them, who called himself Saeed Torres, asked him to buy a gun. Al-Aikili said he refused. The other, who was called Mohammed, offered to help him go to Pakistan for possible Islamic radical training. Al-Akili also refused.

In the email al-Akili recounted that he obtained a phone number from Mohammed and put it into Google. The search returned a reference to the case of the Newburgh Four, where an FBI confidential informant called Shahed Hussain helped secure the convictions of four men for attempting to blow up Jewish targets in the Bronx.

Homeland Security: Pretty Much All Bodily Movement is an Indicator of Potential Terrorism

by Madison Ruppert
Intel Hub, Mar. 21, 2012

If you thought the criteria for suspicious activity in terms of potential terrorism couldn’t get any more broad and ludicrous, prepare to be taken aback.

The culture of citizen spying and pervasive paranoia in the United States is getting to the point of patent absurdity, yet somehow many American nonsensically seem to continue to treat it as gospel.

According to a document entitled “Terrorism Awareness and Prevention: Participant Guide” distributed by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security Preparedness (which you can see embedded below), almost every single action should be treated as suspicious.

These include glances, wide open eyes, cold penetrating stares, trance-like gazes, exaggerated yawning when engaged in conversation, protruding or beating neck arteries, repetitive touching of face, tugging on or covering ears, increased breathing rate, panting, excessive fidgeting, clock watching, head turning, pacing or jumpiness, trembling, unusual perspiration, goose bumps, and/or rigid posture with minimal body movements and arms close to sides.

In other words, if you’re late for something or in a rush (“excessive fidgeting, clock watching”), you might be a terrorist. If you’ve been exercising (“increased breathing rate, panting,” “protruding or beating neck arteries”), you might be a terrorist.

On the other hand, if you’re tired (“trance-like gaze,” “exaggerated yawning”) you also might be a terrorist. Yet, if you’re energetic or perhaps drank too much coffee (“wide open ‘flashbulb eyes,’” “pacing or jumpy,” “trembling,” “unusual perspiration,” “excessive fidgeting”), you might also be a terrorist.

You’d better not be too energetic, too tired, in a rush, plagued by a wide range of medical conditions, returning from exercise, or generally display almost any bodily behaviors as someone might consider you a suspicious person and report you for possible terrorist activity.

But it doesn’t stop there! Other suspicious activities when it comes to vehicles are “unusual behavior,” which is undefined and could mean just about anything, “signs of fear or stress,” or “refusal or disregard of directions.” It gets even more insane when they go over signs which make a vehicle itself suspicious. These include, “Unusual items clearly visible inside or attached to the outside [of the vehicle],” “stopped or parked in strange or out-of-place locations,” “parked close to agency assets such as terminals, rail lines and bridges,” “missing or altered license plates,” “visibly overloaded or sagging.” This means that the ultimate potential terrorist might be someone who has a brand new truck with temporary tags overloaded with paint removal equipment or anything else “unusual” or with an off-road driving kit on the outside who happens to be stopped in an “out-of-place” location, perhaps in order to go hiking, or maybe parked near a bridge, perhaps to remove graffiti.

Keep in mind that I – and I’m sure most other thinking people – could come up with hundreds of different situations that fit all of the above criteria yet are wholly innocuous. Also, any “unexpected mail from a foreign country” should be treated as suspicious, along with any packages with restrictive markings like “personal or confidential” and anything which is “poorly printed” with “excessive tape or string” and “misspelled names,” among other laughable indicators of suspiciousness.

Continuing on with some ridiculous examples of “suspicious activity” are people who are “drawing or taking pictures in areas not normally of interest,” “taking notes or annotating maps,” or even just “sitting in a parked vehicle.” Some choice tools used by terrorists for surveillance, according to the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security, are: “Cameras – video, still or panoramic,” “laptop computers or PDA’s (Personal Data Assistants),” “diagrams or maps,” “binoculars or other vision-enhancing devices,” and “GPS (Global Positioning System) Devices.”

Apparently, the government even considers “Staring or quickly looking away from personnel” and “Vehicles entering parking areas or leaving designated facilities” to be indicators of possible terrorist activity. The document encourages people to report everything they see and they make a point of emphasizing that, “Staying alert is NOT paranoia.”

Contrary to all of the information they give previously, they claim, “No one is asking for block wardens who log every activity in their neighborhood or workplace. No one wants you to spy on people. This isn’t about informing on ‘disloyal’ Americans or people who are ‘different’ or don’t fit in.” That is, of course, unless you display any of the massive list of behaviors which marks you as a possible terrorist.

Hilariously, they even claim that if a UPS truck drives down a street three times during the holidays and they have several delivery trucks making different deliveries, it might be a terrorist. They cite Timothy McVeigh who allegedly rented a truck to carry out the Oklahoma City bombing, even though McVeigh’s vehicle was allegedly a rented Ryder truck, not a UPS truck which is not available for public rental.

So, if you’re lost or trying to find a parking spot in a truck, you’d better be aware of the fact that someone might report you as a potential terrorist. With this culture of voluntary surveillance expanding into the world of smartphones, it will only be easier for the government to encourage people to report any and all activity as suspicious and potential indicators of terrorism. If you come across similarly ludicrous guidelines and recommendations, please do not hesitate to send them my way so I can cover them.

This article originally appeared on End the Lie

Ruger Stops Accepting Firearms Orders Citing Backlog Of 1 Million Orders In Q1

Alexander Higgins Blog, Mar. 23, 2012

Just days ago news hit wires that the Department of Homeland Security had entered a contract to purchase 450 million rounds of .40 Caliber ammunition, which is more than one bullet for every man, woman and child in the United States.

ATK Awarded Contract to Supply 450 Million Rounds of .40 Caliber Ammunition to the Department of Homeland Security

ATK has secured a major Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity deal to supply up to 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition to the Department of Homeland Security. The 1 year contract with four option years comes at a time when many Americans believe that DHS, along with certain aspects of the military, will soon turn their sights on the American people during some sort of martial law scenario.

That report was quickly followed by reports that the government is buying out all ammunition from military surplus stores who have reportedly been instructed to cease sales of ammunition to the public. Now the famous firearm manufacturer Ruger has announced they are ceasing sales of firearms claiming they have been hit with a massive 1 million orders in January and February alone. Here is the official statement from Ruger:

"Despite the Company’s continuing successful efforts to increase production rates, the incoming order rate exceeds our capacity to rapidly fulfill these orders. Consequently, the Company has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders."

Death By A Thousand Cuts

by Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com, Mar. 24, 2012
As yet another voice within the scientific community joins the choir
the tremors of tyranny are being felt all over the surface of freedom - which sadly is already extremely thin. This is by no means the first call for world government. It’s routinely being called for by all creatures that rock to the rhythm of globalism. And it is this particular species of the human race we should turn our attention towards.

There was a time when we were enveloped in the everyday bustle of our lives, pursuing simple pleasures- now we find ourselves, almost without knowing it, armed and ready for battle.

Whether we know it or not, we as freedom-loving people are slowly but surely amassing on a huge field of battle. The entire transition runs along the strangest lines- with sudden changes and lapses, with cinematic cross-references and dream-like winks, allowing no time for analysis on the spot but all the more for wonder and awe, leaving us wondering how on earth did we end up fighting a battle we never sought. It seems we were summoned to secure the interests of life, and by securing them we throw our weights onto the enemy that’s in front of us. Like the warrior, we do not have the luxury of moving around the pieces on the chessboard, or change our minds at pleasure. Nothing is easy. Every strike counts.

Every call for world government, every disclosed diary, every bold statement on reducing human population (and every subsequent global policy directive) is indicative of certain subsurface activities - of broader stirrings which are so all-engulfing in nature, that the only way not to be overwhelmed by them is to concentrate on the symptoms through which the disease reveals itself. Although all news is symptomatic in the end - all “current events” mere shadows dancing on a screen - the way to engage the enemy is to snatch these shadows from the screen, pull them by the tail and expose them for what they really are: phantoms created by the elite. As soon as these phantoms are exposed to clear skies, the shadows will cease to be shadows and disappear. An effective way of countering the road to disaster mapped out by the elite is to catch the criminals at every turn, and do it every time- that’s the trick. And this will ensure the structure these people have constructed around the planet will fall. Because the devil’s in the details, as the saying goes, it is the details we must now target.

Acting along the principle of “death by a thousand cuts” will eventually bring the puppet masters to their knees. Anything too great in the onset will quickly collapse under its own weight.

Sarkozy: Prosecute and Imprison Readers of “Extremist” Websites

Infowars.com, Mar. 24, 2012

French president Nicolas Sarkozy didn’t wait long to exploit the terror rampage of Mohammed Merah. Soon after Merah’s death in a stand-off with police, Sarkozy said French citizens who visit “extremist” websites should be treated the same way as those who look at child pornography.



Anyone who regularly consults Internet sites which promote terror or hatred or violence will be sentenced to prison,” he said at a campaign rally. “What is possible for pedophiles should be possible for trainee terrorists and their supporters, too.”

If enacted, Sarkozy’s proposed law would open the floodgates for prosecuting and imprisoning people for the crime of reading material deemed illegal by the government.

Trying to criminalize a visit — a simple visit — to a website, that’s something that seems disproportionate,” Lucie Morillon of Reporters Without Borders told the Associated Press.

Morillon noted that in order for Sarkozy’s law to be enforced, the internet would require new surveillance technology. “What’s especially worrying for us is how you are going to know who’s looking at what site. Does this announcement mean the installation of a global Internet surveillance system in France?” Morillon said.

In 1990, the Gayssot Act made it illegal in France to question crimes against humanity defined under the London Charter of 1945. The act modified the Law on the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881.

The European Convention on Human Rights grants freedom of expression, but “the exercise of this right is conditioned on conformity with the restrictions necessary,” explains The Legal Project. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence” a punishable crime.

Muslims in France have used “hate speech” laws to go after critics in recent years.

In 2002, author Michel Houellebecq was prosecuted for stating in an interview that Islam is “stupid” and “dangerous.” Actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted in 2008 of racial hatred for her criticism of the ritual slaughter of sheep during a Muslim feast. Bardot was convicted five times for expressing her opinion. In 2005, politician Jean Marie Le Pen was convicted of inciting racial hatred for comments made in 2003 about Muslim immigration to France.

Jean Marie’s daughter,Marine Le Pen, opposes Sarkozy in the French presidential election. She said her stand in opposition to Muslim immigration was vindicated by Mohammed Merah’s attack.