Category Archives: Divers

[Artikel Peter Storm]/Valse geruststelling, fascistisch gevaar

VALSE GERUSTSTELLING, FASCISTISCH GEVAAR

WEBSITE PETER STORM

Geplaatst op 17 januari 2020 door ravotr

vrijdag 17 januari 2020

Deze week verscheen op De Correspondent een artikel over extreem-rechts geweld in Nederland.(1) Het betreft een interview met Willem Wagenaar. ‘Voor de Anne Frank Stichting houdt hij minutieus bij hoe rechts-extremistische groepen en personen zich ontwikkelen en volgt hij de groei van extreemrechts van nabij.’ Zijn conclusie: vergeleken met andere landen valt het extreem-rechtse geweld wel mee: ‘voor Nederland ziet onderzoeker Willem Wagenaar een positieve uitzondering.’ Een merkwaardige conclusie. Er gaat een valse geruststelling van uit.

Klopt het beeld? Het is moeilijk te beoordelen, hij onderbouwt het maar matig. De interviewer vraagt: ‘Over welke orde van grootte praten we dan?’ Wagenaar antwoordt: ‘Enkele tientallen incidenten per jaar. De laatste cijfers die ik heb zijn van 2017, maar ik heb geen reden om aan te nemen dat het aantal incidenten de afgelopen twee jaar enorm is toegenomen.’ Tsja. Over de laatste twee jaar heeft hij dus geen cijfermateriaal, hij heeft alleen een indruk. Dat vind ik geen stevige onderbouwing. En ik vraag me sterk af of de indruk klopt.

Wagenaar maakt een vergelijking met Duitsland, waar sprake is van ‘duizenden incidenten en duizenden aanhangers van extreemrechtse en neonazigroeperingen’, die ‘goed georganiseerd (zijn) en beschikken over financieringsmiddelen en zijn tot geweld bereid. Het geweld dat ze plegen is vaak veel ernstiger.’ Dat laatste klopt. Dat de aantallen rechtsextremisten en de gewelddaden die ze begaan in Duitsland hoger liggen, is gezien de grootte van dat land en haar bevolking, niet gek. Maar het is heel aannemelijk dat, ook in verhouding, de neonazi-scene in Duitsland sterker is, en frequenter geweld pleegt dat ook nog eens grover is, dan in Nederland. Maar de vraag was: klopt het dat in Nederland soortgelijke dingen niet opvallend toenemen? De vraag ging niet enkel om de omvang, maar om de trend. En over die trend zegt Wagenaar wel heel weinig. Wat hij er over zegt, ondermijnt soms ook nog eens de indruk dat het wel losloopt.

Als voorbeeld van een gewelddaad in Nederland voert de interviewer ‘de terroristische aanslag in Enschede in 2016’ aan. ‘Daar gooiden vijf lokale rechtsextremisten naar een moskee, waar ze voor veroordeeld zijn.’ Inderdaad heel ernstig, beaamt Wagenaar, maar het was de eerste zo zwaar aanslag sinds pakweg 2005. Waarmee hij dus feitelijk erkent dat hier iets opduikt waarvan jarenlang nauwelijks sprake was: keihard fascistisch geweld. Alleen al dit wijst er op dat de trend er eerder een is van toename van dit type geweld dan op een pas op de plaats.

Opvallend is dat in het hele verhaal de gerichte gewelddadige intimidatie van anti-Zwarte Piet-activisten ontbreekt. Niets over de aanval van een knokploeg op de bijeenkomst van Kick Out Zwarte Piet (KOZP) in Den Haag in november 2019. Niets over de intimiderende, levensbedreigende blokkade van KOZP-activisten die met de bus op weg naar Dokkum waren om daar tegen Zwarte Piet te demonstreren. Bij beide gewelddadige aanvallen waren overduidelijk extreem-rechtse lui betrokken. Maar ook al zou er geen sprake zijn van extreem-rechtse organisatie achter deze aanvallen, de extreemrechtse strekking ervan was even duidelijk als de fascistische mentaliteit van de deelnemers er aan. Spreken over extreemrechts geweld, en het racistische geweld tegen KOZP verzwijgen, is bijzonder merkwaardig en feitelijk nalatig.

Ook vertelt Wagenaar niets over de extreem-rechtse intimidatie die deel uitmaakte van de acties afgelopen herfst van agrariërs met hun tractoren. Daar werd een lijkkist meegevoerd met de naam van Jesse Klaver erop. Daar was herhaaldelijk de vlag van de slavenhoudersstaten uit de Amerikaanse Burgeroorlog te zien. Daar was sprake van een doelbewust intimiderende sfeer. Het valt wellicht niet onder de exacte definitie van ‘extreemrechts geweld’ zoals Wagenaar die hanteert. Maar voor de vraag of extreemrechts groeit en gewelddadiger wordt, zijn zowel de tractorveldtochten van genoemde agrariërs als de agressie tegen KOZP-demonstranten wel degelijk van betekenis.

Wagenaar vertelt wel iets over de diverse extreemrechtse groepen die volgens hem van betekenis zijn in Nederland. Hij noemt dan ‘ skinheadgroepen zoals Blood and Honour, Combat 18 en de Racial Volunteer Force’, groepen die ‘klein en vaak slecht georganiseerd zijn’, waarvan leden ‘met naam en toenaam bekend’ . ‘Al zouden die geweld willen plegen, dan kunnen of durven ze dat waarschijnlijk niet eens’. En Erkenbrand? De mensen daarvan hebben soms wel een verleden met geweld maar ‘lijken zich toch echt met andere dingen bezig te houden dan de gewapende strijd’ en richten zich vooral op ‘het sociaal-culturele klimaat in Nederland’, op ‘het denken in de samenleving over belangrijke onderwerpen’ en proberen te ‘infiltreren in culturele en maatschappelijke instituties’.

Alsof de opvattingen die ze uitdragen en de invloed die ze via dat ‘infiltreren’ niet rechtstreeks bijdragen aan een klimaat waarin bijvoorbeeld eenlingen zich minder een eenling voelen en zich gerechtigd voelen tot het grofste geweld. De interviewer noemt het voornemen van zo’n eenling, die in 2018 werd opgepakt voordat hij zijn voornemen om een aanslag tegen moslims te plegen kon uitvoeren. Volgens Wagenaar is het netwerk waar zulke eenlingen zich door gesteund voelen, in Nederland klein. Maar precies het infiltreren van fascisten in maatschappelijke instituties, en de verbreiding van hun opvattingen, dragen er toe bij om dat netwerk groter te maken.

Heel opvallend bij deze bespreking van extreemrechts in Nederland is dat de twee allerbelangrijkste extreemrechtse krachten in het land niet eens worden genoemd. Niets over Wilders en diens PVV. Niets over Baudet en diens FvD. Terwijl hij voor Dutsland wel de AfD en de NPD noemt als plek waar nazi’s actief in zijn. Door de PVV en de FvD niet te noemen lijkt het alsof extreemrechts in Nederland veel kleiner is dan het feitelijk is. Ook dat draagt bij tot de vals-geruststellende indruk die het artikel achterlaat. Fascistische en daaraan nauw verwante politiek zit diep ingebed in de Nederlandse politiek, en die inbedding is in twintig jaar veel sterker geworden. Daarmee is tegelijk hel hele politieke spectrum zo ver naar rechts getrokken dat VVD en CDA over de ontmanteling van het asielrecht kunnen praten(3) zonder dat het Binnenhof meteen belegerd wordt door boze antiracisten.

Je zou zelfs kunnen beargumenteren dat hier een reden ligt voor het vooralsnog wellicht verhoudingsgewijs geringe aantal nazi-aanslagen. Waarom de moeite te nemen molotovcocktails naar AZCs te gooien als de regering zelf vluchtelingen steeds verder afknijpt? Het kabinet-Rutte heeft ten opzichte van extreemrechts nu en dan een soort ‘u roept, wij draaien’-beleid ontwikkeld. Het geweld tegen vluchtelingen komt daarmee niet alleen van neonazi’s, maar vooral ook van staatsinstellingen als de IND, de Dienst Terugkeer & Vertrek en de marechaussee.

Maar voor echte nazi’s is het regeringsbeleid nog lang niet grof genoeg. Laten nazi’s het vuile werk aan de staat over? Voor hetzelfde geld voelen nazi’s zich door het staatsoptreden juist gelegitimeerd om er zelf nog een schepje bovenop te doen. Te vaak hoor je de laatste tijd berichten over brandstichting in huizen waar vluchtelingen wonen. Nog deze week gooiden onbekenden een ‘brandende fles’ in de voortuin van een woning in Dodewaard waar Syrische vluchtelingen woonden.(4) De bewoners zagen zich genoodzaakt opnieuw te vluchten. Er zal aan de fles geen vuurvast kaartje hebben gehangen me waarop een extreemrechtse groepering zich als afzender kenbaar maakte. De strekking was duidelijk: een extreemrechtse aanslag.

Heel merkwaardig is tenslotte de reden die Wagenaar aanvoert voor het ‘feit’ dat het in Nederland zo’n vaart niet loopt met extreem-rechts – een feit dat ik in het bovenstaande hopelijk onderuit heb helpen halen. Hij denkt dat het komt omdat ‘rechts-extremisme in Nederland, meer dan in andere landen, lange tijd maatschappelijk zeer geïsoleerd is geweest.’ In andere landen was er ‘minder een taboe’ op deelname aan extreemrechts, zo veronderstelt hij. So far, so bad, de geschiedenis van allerhande minuscule fascistische clubs die ruziemakend over het politieke toneel rolden en zelden meer dan anderhalf procent aan stemmen haalden, ondersteunt dit beeld wel. Alleen de Boerenpartij had in de jaren zestig van de vorige eeuw een tijdelijk succes dat daar bovenuit steeg, maar dat vervloog vrij snel. Maar juist aan de minieme omvang van extreemrechts is – met de opkomst van eerst Fortuyn, en vervolgens Wilders en daarna Baudet – nogal verandering in gekomen. Fascistische politiek is moment wel ‘goed’ voor vijftien tot twintig zetels in de Tweede kamer, en dat zijn er twaalf tot vijftien meer dan in de jaren tachtig. En trouwens, de zwakte van extreemrechts verklaren door te wijzen op de zwakte van extreemrechts in het verleden, is nauwelijks een echte verklaring. Maar de zwakte is ook nog eens verleden tijd.

Wagenaar denkt dat het isolement van extreemrechts en het taboe op fascistische activiteit met de ervaring van Wereldoorlog II te maken had. ‘In Nederland bestond lang het idee dat we goed waren in de oorlog – en goed daarna’. Ik denk dat dit zelfbeeld er inderdaad was en is. Maar ik denk dat juist dat zelfbeeld – ‘wij waren toen goed, we zijn nu goed’ – mensen tegenwoordig ook minder weerbaar maakt tegenover opkomend extreemrechts. Immers, wij zijn toch zo goed? Al die mensen die met een Nederlandse vlag zwaaien en achter Wilders aanlopen, dat zijn toch gewoon goede vaderlanders? Dat mythische zelfbeeld strooit mensen zand in de ogen.

Nee, openlijke neonazi’s worden vooralsnog niet gewaardeerd, ook niet door de meeste uiterst rechtse mensen: nazi’s verwijzen te openlijk naar de niet-Nederlandse herkomst van het fascisme dat in haar nationaalsocialistische variant domineerde tussen 1940 en 1945. Dat wringt met het ultranationalisme dat fascisten zo motiveert. Maar fascisme als zodanig is geen importproduct, en een fascisme dat zich baseert op Nederlandse nationale glorie, heeft van de verwijzing naar de Tweede Wereldoorlog aanzienlijk minder last. De mythe van de ‘goede vaderlander’ kan probleemloos tot bestanddeel van dat fascisme worden gemaakt.

Al met al denk ik dat Wagenaar de kracht en impact van extreemrechts in Nederland zwaar onderschat, omdat hij relevante vleugels en aspecten ervan buiten beschouwing laat. Fascistische politiek en methodiek zijn in Nederland snel groter en invloedrijker te worden. En ja, als onderdeel daarvan zien we wel degelijk ook toenemend extreemrechts geweld. Het is zaak om die gevaarlijke ontwikkelingen niet te onderschatten, en een adequate antifascistische strategie te ontwikkelen om deze dreiging terug te helpen slaan.

Noten:

1 Dimitri Tokmetzis, ‘Rechts-extremisme is een groeiend probleem. Toch is deze onderzoeker ook optimistisch’, De Correspondent, 14 januari 2020, https://decorrespondent.nl/10870/rechts-extremisme-is-een-groeiend-probleem-toch-is-deze-onderzoeker-ook-optimistisch/926477981550-70acf872

2 ‘Bijeenkomst actiegroep Kick Out Zwarte Piet met geweld verstoord; vijf aanhoudingen’, NOS, 8 november 2019, https://nos.nl/artikel/2309627-bijeenkomst-actiegroep-kick-out-zwarte-piet-met-geweld-verstoord-vijf-aanhoudingen.html

3 Zie Joke Kaviaar, ‘Terugkeerterrorisme 2020: asielrecht afschaffen’, 15 januari 2020, http://jokekaviaar.nl/Terugkeerterrorisme_2020_asielrecht_afschaffen.html

4 Tanja Kits, ‘Syrisch gezin uit Dodewaard opnieuw op de vlucht na brandbom tegen gevel: “We voelen ons niet meer veilig”’, Gelderlander, 14 januari 2020, https://www.gelderlander.nl/neder-betuwe/syrisch-gezin-uit-dodewaard-opnieuw-op-de-vlucht-na-brandbom-tegen-gevel-we-voelen-ons-niet-meer-veilig~ac0f250e/ gevonden via Piet van der Galiën, ‘Woning Syrisch gezin bestookt met brandbom’, Krapuul, 15 januari 2020, https://www.krapuul.nl/politiek-blog/oorlog-2/2744190/woning-syrisch-gezin-bestookt-met-brandbom/

Peter Storm

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor [Artikel Peter Storm]/Valse geruststelling, fascistisch gevaar

Filed under Divers

Ter kennisname aan de oppositiepartijen/Brief aan regeringspartijen over de VS liquidatie van Soleimani

TER KENNISNAME, AAN DE OPPOSITIEPARTIJEN/BRIEF AAN DE REGERINGSPARTIJEN OVER DE VS LIQUIDATIE VAN SOLEIMANI

DOCHTER VAN DE GELIQUIDEERDE GENERAAL SOLEIMANI https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/buitenland/artikel/4975886/qassem-soleimani-dochter-conflict-iran-verenigde-staten
https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html


Ter toelichting:
Zoals u weet heb ik de Tweede Kamerleden van de regeringspartijen een kritische brief gestuurd over het regerings ” begrip.. voor de VS liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani
Zie
AAN CHRISTEN-UNIE
https://www.astridessed.nl/nederlands-kabinet-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-brief-aan-christen-unie-regeringspartij-die-zich-graag-beroept-op-het-christelijke-geloof/
AAN D’66
https://www.astridessed.nl/nederlands-kabinet-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-brief-aan-d66-regeringspartij/

AAN VVD
https://www.astridessed.nl/nederlands-kabinet-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-brief-aan-vvd-regeringspartij/

AAN CDA

Deze brief [en wel die, gericht aan de VVD] heb ik toegestuurd aan alle Tweede Kamerleden van de oppositiepartijen, behalve de fascistische partijen PVV en Forum voor Democratie.Ook de christen-fundamentalistische SGP heeft deze brief niet ontvangen.
Zie hieronder de brief, hier gericht aan de Tweede Kamerleden van de PvdA

KENNISNAMEBRIEF AAN PVDA TWEEDE KAMERLEDEN: 

AANKAMERLEDEN VAN DE PvdA
Onderwerp:Brief aan regeringspartijen over de VS liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani
Geachte dames en heren,
Van hieruit een Gezond 2020 toegewenst
Zoals u uiteraard weet, heeft de Nederlandse regering ”begrip” getoond voor de VS liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal SoleimaniOmdat ik dat verwerpelijk en ONbegrijpelijk vind, zowel vanuit het oogpunt van gevaarlijk VS avonturisme als moreel [buitengerechtelijke executies zijn in strijd met het Internationaal Recht] heb ik de onder P/S vermelde brief naar de regeringspartijen VVD, CDA, D’66 en Christen-Unie gestuurd, met iets afwijkende teksten naar CDA en Christen-Unie, omdat deze partijen en met name het CDA, zich beroepen op hun ”christelijke” moraal
Maar deze brief krijgt u NIET alleen ter kennisname”:
Ook verwacht ik van u, dat u, voor zover nog niet gedaan, kritische Kamervragen aan het kabinet stelt over dit ”begrip”  voor een politiek-militaire daad, die als liquidatie in strijd is met het Internationaal Recht.En dan bedoel ik nadrukkelijk NIET kritiek ”omdat zo Nederlandse militairen in Irak in gevaar komen”, want a horen die militairen daar mi niet thuis en b, kan ik dergelijke kritiek weinig principieel noemen.
Doe dus uw best en toon, dat u, in tegenstelling tot de regering, WEL respect hebt voor het Internationaal Recht.
Ik reken op u

Vriendelijke groetenAstrid EssedAmsterdam
P/S

ZIEHIER DE BRIEF AAN DE REGERINGSPARTIJEN, HIER AAN DE VVD TWEEDE KAMERLEDEN

Astrid Essed To:a.bosman@tweedekamer.nl,h.lodders@tweedekamer.nl,anne.mulder@tweedekamer.nl,e.ziengs@tweedekamer.nl,m.harbers@tweedekamer.nland 27 more…Jan 24 at 7:43 AMAANDE TWEEDE KAMERLEDEN VAN de VVD
Vooraf:
Deze brief is eveneens gezonden aan uw collegae Tweede Kamerleden van de andere regeringspartijen met een iets afwijkende tekst aan het CDA en ter kennisneming aan uw andere collegae in de Tweede Kamer van de oppositiepartijen.
Onderwerp:Liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani in opdracht van de Amerikaanse president TrumpReactie van de Nederlandse regering
”Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
ARTICLE 3, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm

Geachte dames en heren,
Allereerst vanuit hier een Gezond Nieuw Jaar toegewenst met respect voor het Internationaal Recht.
Want aan dat respect voor het Internationaal Recht ontbreekt het soms ten enenmale, in dit geval van de kant van de regering, waartoe uw partij behoort.Onze regering, en daarmee uw partij, is het Nieuwe Jaar namelijk op de meest foute manier begonnen.
Gaat u een belletje rinkelen?Zo niet, dan bij dezen:
Namelijk de reactie van de regering op de liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani, in opdracht van de Amerikaanse president Trump. [1]
Alsof het al niet ernstig genoeg was, dat de VS meende zich het recht te mogen aanmeten, een generaal uit een land, waarmee zij niet in oorlog is, zomaar uit de lucht te schieten, wat niet meer of minder dan een buitengerechtelijke executie was [2], ging de Nederlandse regering zover, dat zij bij monde van CDA  minister Bijleveld van Defensie, verklaarde, wel ”begrip” te hebben voor deze liquidatie. [3]Ik citeer Bijleveld, die werd geinterviewd in het actualiteitenprogramma ”Op 1:”[TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.” [4]
Wat, Geachte dames en heren, VVD Tweede Kamerleden, bezielt deze regering eigenlijk?Niet alleen leidt dit cowboy VS avonturisme tot escalatie in een toch al explosieve regio, met een dergelijk ”begrip” legitimeert dit kabinet een ordinaire moordaanslag, want dat zijn deze buitengerechtelijke executies! [5]De VS is niet met Iran in oorlog [al doen zij er met dergelijke Rambo [6] acties wel erg hun best voor], noch lanceerde generaal Soleimani een aanval op Amerikaanse  bodem, wat een militaire handeling tegen hem gerechtvaardigd zou hebben. [7]Tenzij de Verenigde Staten, Irak, Syrie en die landen in het Midden-Oosten en Voor Azie als hun achtertuin beschouwen, waarop IK zeg:De Verenigde Staten zijn wel ver van huis, he.Trouwens, wat wel te verwachten was:Irak heeft deze liquidatie, waarbij ook een hoge Iraakse militair om het leven kwam en nog een aantal anderen [8], scherp veroordeeld.[9]Logisch:Zij willen de vete tussen de VS en Iran niet zien uitgevochten op hun grondgebied!Irak is immers een soevereine Staat [10], geen achterstaartje van de VS!
SPECIALE VN RAPPORTEUR VOOR BUITENGERECHTELIJKE EXECUTIES
In mijn felle veroordeling van deze VS liquidatie, die een flagrante schending is van het Recht op Leven [11], sta ik bepaald niet alleen, maar verkeer ik in goed gezelschap van Agnes Callamard, Speciale VN rapporteur van Buitengerechtelijke Executies, die deze liquidatie heeft veroordeeld als ”illegaal” [12]
Is het dan niet triest te bedenken, dat de Nederlandse regering, waarvan uw partij deel uitmaakt en volgens artikel 90, Nederlandse Grondwet, de ontwikkeling van de Internationale Rechtsorde dient te bevorderen [13], het bestaat, voor politieke liquidaties als deze ”’begrip” te hebben? [14]
Waarin verschilt een Staatsliquidatie als deze  van liquidaties a la de Bende van Redouan Taghi? [15]In een opzicht slechts:Staatsliquidaties zijn een groter risico voor de wereldvrede.
Voor de rest:
In beide gevallen, ordinaire moordaanslagen.
Onkent u dat?
Wie en wat geeft dan een land, zonder dat er sprake is van een directe militaire aanval op dat land, of een aantoonbaar levensgroot risico daarop [16], het recht, politieke tegenstanders, die ze niet welgevallig zijn, de lucht uit te schieten?
En dan is het NOG erger, als andere landen roepen, daarvoor ”begrip” te hebben! [17]
Uw partij moet zich daarvoor diep schamen!

EPILOOG
Ik kan mij vergissen, maar ik heb VVD Kamerleden niet hard horen protesteren tegen het ”begrip” dat de Nederlandse regering heeft getoond voor Trump’s liquidatie politiek.
Het wordt hoog tijd, dat dat wel gebeurt!
Wilt u serieus genomen worden in de Grondwettelijke plicht, de ontwikkeling van de Internationale Rechtsorde te bevorderen?

TOON DAT DAN en stel Kamervragen over deze weerzinwekkende VS liquidatiepolitiek!
Want Soleimani mag dan, volgens minister Bijleveld ”een echte boef” geweest zijn [18], dat betekent niet, dat mensenrechten en Internationaal Recht op hem niet van toepassing zijn.
Want mensenrechten gelden iedereen.Toch?
Niet alleen de Westerse bondgenoten?
Neem uw verantwoordelijkheid en stel kritische Kamervragen.
Anders bent u, politiek en moreel, medeverantwoordelijk voor het gedogen van executies zonder vorm van proces.
Ik verwacht, dat u uw verantwoordelijkheid neemt.
Begin het Jaar goed.Respecteer het Internationaal Recht!
Respecteer het Recht op Leven!
Vriendelijke groeten
Astrid EssedAmsterdam 

NOTEN

[1]

NOSVS DOODT IRAANSE GENERAAL MET RAKETAANVALLEN OP VLIEGVELD BAGDAD

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317138-vs-doodt-iraanse-generaal-met-raketaanvallen-op-vliegveld-bagdad.html

TEKST

Het Amerikaanse leger heeft een hoge Iraanse militair gedood met raketaanvallen in Irak. De dood van generaal Soleimani van de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde wordt bevestigd door Iran en het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie.

Volgens het Pentagon is de liquidatie bij de internationale luchthaven van Bagdad uitgevoerd op bevel van president Trump. Een drone vuurde raketten af op auto’s bij een vrachtterminal.De Amerikaanse president heeft op Twitter een afbeelding van een Amerikaanse vlag geplaatst.

Soleimani was leider van de Quds-brigade, een elite-eenheid binnen de Revolutionaire Garde. De Iraanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken noemt de moord “uitzonderlijk gevaarlijk en een domme escalatie”. Hij zegt dat de VS verantwoordelijk is voor alle gevolgen van dit “schurkachtige avonturisme”.

VS-correspondent Arjen van der Horst noemt het een “enorme escalatie” van de spanningen tussen de VS en Iran, die de afgelopen weken al waren opgelopen. Het Pentagon hield Soleimani verantwoordelijk voor een aanval in Kirkuk in het noorden van Irak, waarbij een Amerikaanse militair om het leven kwam. Naar aanleiding daarvan zei de minister van Defensie donderdag “the game has changed“. “Nu weten we dat die woorden geen loze dreiging waren.”

In een verklaring zeggen het Witte Huis en het Pentagon dat Soleimani “actief plannen ontwikkelde om Amerikaanse diplomaten en mensen van het leger in Irak en in de regio aan te vallen”. Er wordt daarom gesproken van een defensieve actie.Hij wordt door de Amerikanen verantwoordelijk gehouden voor de dood van honderden Amerikanen en leden van de internationale coalitie. De afgelopen maanden zou hij aanvallen op bases in Irak hebben georkestreerd. Ook zou hij zijn goedkeuring hebben gegeven aan de aanval op de Amerikaanse ambassade in Irak afgelopen woensdag.

Er vielen meer doden. Volgens een door Iran gesteunde Iraakse paramilitaire groep zijn vijf van hun leden omgekomen, onder wie de Iraakse hooggeplaatste commandant Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Zijn militie zei snel na de aanvallen dat “Amerikanen en Israëliërs” erachter zaten.

Muhandis heeft nauw samengewerkt met de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde. Hij leidde een paramilitaire Iraanse groep in Irak en was een van de oprichters van de pro-Iraanse sjiitische militie Kataib Hezbollah.

De aanval komt twee dagen nadat pro-Iraanse demonstranten de Amerikaanse ambassade in Bagdad hadden belaagd. Betogers probeerden het gebouw te bestormen en de Amerikaanse ambassadeur en het personeel werden geëvacueerd. 

Er werd gedemonstreerd naar aanleiding van Amerikaanse luchtaanvallen op bases in Irak van een door Iran gesteunde militie. Bij die aanvallen vielen zeker 25 doden en tientallen mensen raakten gewond. De bombardementen waren een vergelding voor de aanval van die militie op een militaire basis in Kirkuk.

Gisteren kwamen circa 700 Amerikaanse militairen aan in Koeweit, buurland van Irak. Ze dienen als versterking vanwege de verhoogde spanning in de regio.

[2]

WIKIPEDIA

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

[3]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

TEKST

Minister Bijleveld van Defensie zegt dat Nederland begrip heeft voor de Amerikaanse liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Qassem Soleimani. “Als je kijkt wat Iran daar heeft gedaan, is dat ook verschrikkelijk”, zei Bijleveld in de eerste aflevering van het tv-programma Op1.

Soleimani was “een echte boef”, zei de minister:Bijleveld: wij hebben er begrip voor dat de liquidatie is gebeurd

Bijleveld verwees onder meer naar de rol die Soleimani speelde in de oorlog in Syrië, als de leider van sjiitische milities. Ze voegde eraan toe dat er door de liquidatie “een heel fragiele situatie is ontstaan” en dat sprake is van escalatie. Ze noemde dat een gevaar, ook voor de Nederlandse militairen in Irak.

“We moeten tot deëscalatie komen”, zei de minister. Ze refereerde in de uitzending ook aan uitspraken van NAVO-chef Stoltenberg, die specifiek Iran opriep tot kalmte. “Wij doen een beroep op alle landen, ook op de Verenigde Staten. Alle inzet van Nederland is gericht op deëscaleren.”

Toelichting gevraagd

In een Kamerbrief die Bijleveld met haar collega’s Blok (Buitenlandse Zaken) en Kaag (Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking) maandagavond verstuurde, staat dat Iran “instabiliteit in de regio in de hand werkt” en dat Soleimani daarbij een belangrijke rol speelde.

Nederland heeft de VS als NAVO-partner wel om een toelichting gevraagd “op de aangevoerde juridische basis”. Washington zei eerder dat de liquidatie neerkomt op zelfverdediging omdat er een acute dreiging was voor de Amerikanen.

De ministers kijken in de Kamerbrief ook vooruit naar een ingelaste bijeenkomst van de ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken van de EU, aanstaande vrijdag. “Daarbij zal Nederland de negatieve invloed van Iran op de regionale stabiliteit onderstrepen en wijzen op het belang van de soevereiniteit en territoriale integriteit van Irak.”

Later deze maand vertrekt een Nederlands fregat naar de Straat van Hormuz, met als doel het beschermen van de zeevaart. Bijleveld zei in Op1 dat die missie gewoon doorgaat. Het werk van Nederlandse militairen in Irak, in Bagdad en in de Koerdische stad Erbil, is om veiligheidsredenen stilgelegd.

[4]TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.
AFKOMSTIG UIT LINK  NOS BERICHT

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

[5]


WIKIPEDIA

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

[6]

WIKIPEDIA

RAMBO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_(franchise)

[7]

”The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about the strike saying “this test is unlikely to be met”.

BBC

SOLEIMANI ATTACK: WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961

TEXT

US President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq but what are the legal grounds for this course of action?

The US said: “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

So, what are the key issues when considering its legality, according to international law?

What does the law say?

The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about the strike saying “this test is unlikely to be met”.

2010 UN report on “targeted killings” said there was a weighty body of scholarship that viewed the self-defence argument as having the right to use force “against a real and imminent threat when the necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” 

The initial US Department of Defense statement omitted the word “imminent” and said the strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks and that Iran’s top military leader Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region”.

In later statements, US officials including President Trump said Soleimani had been plotting “imminent attacks”.

Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Party candidate for the US presidency, said: “The administration cannot keep its story straight.”

So what evidence is there of planned attacks by Iran?

The legality of the strike under international law may well depend on the US providing evidence of those future attacks, according to Mr Akande.

The US government has not yet shared details publicly, but the administration has said intelligence has been shared with key figures in the US Congress.

Asked by a journalist on 7 January for more details about imminent threats, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted the incidents leading up to the strike, but did not provide any evidence of impending attacks.

There are other justifications it has used in the past, according to Dr Ralph Wilde, an expert in public international law at University College London.

“Since 9/11 the US has taken a view that self-defence can be justified to prevent more longer-term attacks. When the attack is being planned, but is not imminent. The Obama administration used this argument to justify drone strikes.

And what about the issue of consent?

The other issue is whether the US had consent from Iraq to carry out the strike there.

Iraqi MPs reacted angrily and passed a non-binding resolution calling for US troops to leave the country. The Iraqi government has called it a “brazen violation of Iraq’s sovereignty”.

US forces had been invited into Iraq to fight the Islamic State group and to train Iraqi forces.

The US might argue this invitation constituted some form of consent, giving them a right to protect their interests and personnel inside Iraq.

But Mr Akande argues that, in practice, the terms of the agreement to host US forces would not stretch to carrying out an attack like this.

Can you target cultural sites?

On Sunday, Mr Trump tweeted, warning the US would target sites that were “important to Iran and the Iranian culture” if American assets were hit.

The Iran Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif said an attack on a cultural site would amount to a war crime.

Trump’s threat “shows callous disregard for the global rule of law”, said Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch.

The US government insisted it would behave lawfully.

But an attack on a cultural site would violate several international treaties.

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property safeguarded cultural sites in the wake of the destruction of cultural heritage sites during World War Two, and was signed by the US.

In 2017, the UN passed a resolution in response to the Islamic State attacks which condemned “the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, including the destruction of religious sites and artefacts”.

The US was among the harshest critics of the IS destruction of historic site of Palmyra in Syria in 2015, as well as the Taliban’s demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.

In 2016, the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted someone for the destruction of cultural heritage for the first time, after an extremist linked to Al-Qaeda destroyed religious artefacts in Mali.

The US is not part of the ICC but it is a signatory of other agreements to protect cultural property and any attack would represent a significant reversal.

[8]

”Er vielen meer doden. Volgens een door Iran gesteunde Iraakse paramilitaire groep zijn vijf van hun leden omgekomen, onder wie de Iraakse hooggeplaatste commandant Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis”NOSVS DOODT IRAANSE GENERAAL MET RAKETAANVALLEN OP VLIEGVELD BAGDAD

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317138-vs-doodt-iraanse-generaal-met-raketaanvallen-op-vliegveld-bagdad.html

[9]

Schending van voorwaarden

Ook de Iraakse premier Adil Abdul-Mahdi heeft de aanval door de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad veroordeeld. Hij noemde het een grove schending van de voorwaarden voor de aanwezigheid van Amerikaanse militairen in zijn land en sprak van moord.

TROUW

IRAK VEROORDEELT DE AMERIKAANSE LUCHTAANVAL, HEZBOLLAH ROEPT OP TOT WRAAKACTIES

3 JANUARI 2020

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/irak-veroordeelt-de-amerikaanse-luchtaanval-hezbollah-roept-op-tot-wraakacties~b1ff122d/

TEKST

Op verschillende plekken in de wereld is geschokt gereageerd op de raketaanval van de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad. Hezbollah roept op tot wraakacties.  

De Libanese sjiitische beweging Hezbollah heeft opgeroepen waar ook ter wereld de “grote Amerikaanse misdaad” te wreken. De beweging doelt op de moordaanslag waarmee de VS met drones onder anderen de Iraanse generaal Qassem Soleimani uit weg ruimden op het terrein van het vliegveld van Bagdad. Soleimani was naar verluidt net met een vliegtuig uit Syrië of Libanon aangekomen.

Soleimani was een van de bekendste militairen die voor Teheran meer invloed in het Midden-Oosten moesten zien te krijgen. Hij begon met steun aan de Libanese sjiïeten in hun strijd tegen Israël en later in hun strijd tegen soennitische extremisten in Syrië. Hezbollah-leider Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah zei dat zijn beweging doorgaat op de met Soleimani ingeslagen weg. De VS bereiken volgens hem met de moorden niets en zij moeten gestraft worden, berichtte de omroep al-Manar.

Schending van voorwaarden

Ook de Iraakse premier Adil Abdul-Mahdi heeft de aanval door de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad veroordeeld. Hij noemde het een grove schending van de voorwaarden voor de aanwezigheid van Amerikaanse militairen in zijn land en sprak van moord.

Abdul-Mahdi riep het parlement in spoedzitting bijeen. Volgens de premier zal het parlement met wetgeving moeten komen waarmee de Iraakse waardigheid, veiligheid en soevereiniteit moeten worden gewaarborgd.

Risico op escalatie

Ook in eigen land klinkt er kritiek op president Trump.  De leider van de Democraten in het Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden ziet in de aanval een risico op escalatie. Dat kunnen de VS en de wereld zich niet permitteren, schrijft Nancy Pelosi in een verklaring. Ze riep de president op om zo snel mogelijk parlementsleden in te lichten over de aanval.

“De luchtaanval van vanavond riskeert een gevaarlijke escalatie van geweld te provoceren”, aldus Pelosi. “Amerika, en de wereld kunnen zich niet permitteren dat de spanning escaleert tot een punt waarop we niet meer terug kunnen.”

Angst voor represailles 

In Israël is het leger in verhoogde staat van paraatheid gebracht naar aanleiding van de Amerikaanse aanval op de luchthaven van Bagdad en de dood van een Iraanse generaal. Gevreesd wordt dat Iran via zijn bondgenoten in de regio wraak zal proberen te nemen door Israël te bestoken. Israël is een trouwe bondgenoot van de VS.

Onder andere Hezbollah in het aangrenzende Libanon en de Palestijnse militante groepering Hamas in Gaza worden door Iran gesteund. De Israëlische minister van Defensie riep de chefs van het leger en veiligheidsdiensten bijeen om de situatie te bespreken.

Bij de opening van de AEX vrijdag was olie- en gasconcern Shell  de enige stijger bij de hoofdfondsen. Het bedrijf profiteert  van de oplopende olieprijzen door de spanningen in het Midden-Oosten 

[10]

”Abdul-Mahdi riep het parlement in spoedzitting bijeen. Volgens de premier zal het parlement met wetgeving moeten komen waarmee de Iraakse waardigheid, veiligheid en soevereiniteit moeten worden gewaarborgd.  ”

TROUW

IRAK VEROORDEELT DE AMERIKAANSE LUCHTAANVAL, HEZBOLLAH ROEPT OP TOT WRAAKACTIES

3 JANUARI 2020

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/irak-veroordeelt-de-amerikaanse-luchtaanval-hezbollah-roept-op-tot-wraakacties~b1ff122d/

[11]Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
ARTICLE 3, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm

[12]

Agnès Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, maintained that the airstrike “most likely violate[d] international law incl[uding] human rights law“, adding that killing of other individuals alongside Soleimani was “absolutely unlawful””
WIKIPEDIA2020 BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSTRIKEALLEGED VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike#Alleged_violation_of_international_law
ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA2020 BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSTRIKEALLEGED VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike

AGNES CALLAMARD ON TWITTER

https://twitter.com/AgnesCallamard/status/1212918159096864768

Agnes Callamard‏Geverifieerd account @AgnesCallamardVolgen@AgnesCallamard volgenMeer

#Iraq: The targeted killings of Qasem Soleiman and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis are most lokely unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal (1)

WIKIPEDIA

AGNES CALLAMARD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agn%C3%A8s_Callamard

[13]ARTIKEL 90: INTERNATIONALE RECHTSORDEDe regering bevordert de ontwikkeling van de internationale rechtsorde.

https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/id/via0d81dpfwb/artikel_90_internationale_rechtsorde

[14]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html [15]

WIKIPEDIAREDOUAN TAGHI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridouan_Taghi

WIKIPEDIAMARENGO PROCES
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marengo-proces

OMSTRAFPROCES MARENGO
https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/strafzaken/strafzaken/strafproces-marengo/

Criminele organisatie

In de zaak ‘Marengo’ staan 16 verdachten terecht voor verschillende moorden en pogingen tot moord. In het strafdossier komt een beeld naar voren van een geoliede moordmachine. Verschillende verdachten zijn volgens het openbaar ministerie (OM) ingezet om zo efficiënt mogelijk moorden te plegen. Daarbij gold een vaste rolverdeling van chauffeurs, spotters en schutters. Een mensenleven was niets waard, gelet ook op tenminste twee zogenoemde vergismoorden

De drempel om een liquidatie te plegen lijkt vandaag de dag lager te liggen dan voorheen. De daders zijn meestal jonge mannen, gewapend met volautomatische vuurwapens en de daarbij behorende zware munitie. Liquidaties vinden de afgelopen jaren steeds vaker plaats in de openbare ruimten, op straat en midden in woonwijken. Dat omstanders risico lopen en soms geraakt worden, wordt voor lief genomen.  Helaas is vandaag de dag de term  ‘vergismoord’ een gangbaar begrip geworden.

De Moorden – Chronologisch Overzicht

  • Moord op Ronald Bakker op 9 september 2015 in Huizen. Bakker was medewerker van de spyshop in Nieuwegein. Deze spyshop kwam in beeld in het onderzoek 26Koper. Hij is vermoord in zijn auto, voor de deur van zijn woning. Uitspraak Gerechtshof  26Koper
  • Moord op Samir Erraghib op 17 april 2016 in IJsselstein. Erraghib is vermoord terwijl zijn 7-jarig dochtertje bij hem in de auto zat. Zij heeft de aanslag overleefd.
  • Moord op Ranko Scekic op 22 juni 2016 in Utrecht. Scekic liep met een vriend op straat voor zijn woning toen hij werd doodgeschoten. Zijn vrouw en kinderen waren op dat moment thuis.
  • Voorbereiding voor de moord op twee contacten van Scekic.
  • Poging moord op Abdelkarim Ahabad op 11 oktober 2016. Er is iemand op Ahabad afgelopen met een automatisch vuurwapen en daarna is hij klemgereden. Ahabad wist te ontkomen.
  • Moord op Hakim Changachi op 12 januari 2017. Changachi is in zijn portaal van zijn flat doodgeschoten, bij vergissing. Het beoogde doelwit was Khalid Hmidat.
  • Voorbereiding voor de moord op Khalid Hmidat. In de maand januari 2017 is Hmidat gevolgd en in de gaten gehouden. De moord op Hmidat is niet gelukt, de daders die gewapend bij zijn woning klaarstonden zijn overlopen.

Kroongetuige

Lange tijd lukte het niet om de geweldsspiraal te doorbreken. Er was wel TCI-informatie beschikbaar over mogelijke opdrachtgevers van liquidaties, maar onvoldoende om hen met succes te vervolgen.

[16]

The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

BBC

SOLEIMANI ATTACK: WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961

[17]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

[18][BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.
AFKOMSTIG UIT LINK  NAAR INTERVIEW OP NOS BERICHT

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

Bijleveld heeft begrip voor liquidatie Soleimani, maar wil wel toelichting VS 
Bijleveld heeft begrip voor liquidatie Soleimani, maar wil wel toelichti…In talkshow Op1 zei de minister van Defensie dat Soleimani “een echte boef” is.

TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.
Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet. 

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Ter kennisname aan de oppositiepartijen/Brief aan regeringspartijen over de VS liquidatie van Soleimani

Filed under Divers

Nederlands kabinet heeft begrip voor liquidatie Soleimani/Brief aan Christen-Unie, regeringspartij, die zich graag beroept op het christelijke geloof

NEDERLANDS KABINET HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEIMANI/BRIEF AAN CHRISTEN-UNIE, REGERINGSPARTIJ, DIE ZICH ZO GRAAG BEROEPT OP HET CHRISTELIJKE GELOOF

DOCHTER VAN DE GELIQUIDEERDE GENERAAL SOLEIMANI 

https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/buitenland/artikel/4975886/qassem-soleimani-dochter-conflict-iran-verenigde-staten
https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

AANDE TWEEDE KAMERLEDEN VAN DE CHRISTEN-UNIEVooraf:
Deze brief is eveneens gezonden aan uw collegae Tweede Kamerleden van de andere regeringspartijen met een iets afwijkende tekst aan het CDA en ter kennisneming aan uw andere collegae in de Tweede Kamer van de oppositiepartijen.
Onderwerp:Liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani in opdracht van de Amerikaanse president TrumpReactie van de Nederlandse regering
”Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
ARTICLE 3, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm

Geachte dames en heren,
Allereerst vanuit hier een Gezond Nieuw Jaar toegewenst met respect voor het Internationaal Recht.
Want aan dat respect voor het Internationaal Recht ontbreekt het soms ten enenmale, in dit geval van de kant van de regering, waartoe uw partij behoort.Onze regering, en daarmee uw partij, is het Nieuwe Jaar namelijk op de meest foute manier begonnen.
Gaat u een belletje rinkelen?Zo niet, dan bij dezen:
Namelijk de reactie van de regering op de liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani, in opdracht van de Amerikaanse president Trump. [1]
Alsof het al niet ernstig genoeg was, dat de VS meende zich het recht te mogen aanmeten, een generaal uit een land, waarmee zij niet in oorlog is, zomaar uit de lucht te schieten, wat niet meer of minder dan een buitengerechtelijke executie was [2], ging de Nederlandse regering zover, dat zij bij monde van CDA  minister Bijleveld van Defensie, verklaarde, wel ”begrip” te hebben voor deze liquidatie. [3]Ik citeer Bijleveld, die werd geinterviewd in het actualiteitenprogramma ”Op 1:”[TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.” [4]
Wat, Geachte dames en heren, Christen-Unie Tweede Kamerleden, bezielt deze regering eigenlijk?Niet alleen leidt dit cowboy VS avonturisme tot escalatie in een toch al explosieve regio, met een dergelijk ”begrip” legitimeert dit kabinet een ordinaire moordaanslag, want dat zijn deze buitengerechtelijke executies! [5]De VS is niet met Iran in oorlog [al doen zij er met dergelijke Rambo [6] acties wel erg hun best voor], noch lanceerde generaal Soleimani een aanval op Amerikaanse  bodem, wat een militaire handeling tegen hem gerechtvaardigd zou hebben. [7]Tenzij de Verenigde Staten, Irak, Syrie en die landen in het Midden-Oosten en Voor Azie als hun achtertuin beschouwen, waarop IK zeg:De Verenigde Staten zijn wel ver van huis, he.Trouwens, wat wel te verwachten was:Irak heeft deze liquidatie, waarbij ook een hoge Iraakse militair om het leven kwam en nog een aantal anderen [8], scherp veroordeeld.[9]Logisch:Zij willen de vete tussen de VS en Iran niet zien uitgevochten op hun grondgebied!Irak is immers een soevereine Staat [10], geen achterstaartje van de VS!
SPECIALE VN RAPPORTEUR VOOR BUITENGERECHTELIJKE EXECUTIES
In mijn felle veroordeling van deze VS liquidatie, die een flagrante schending is van het Recht op Leven [11], sta ik bepaald niet alleen, maar verkeer ik in goed gezelschap van Agnes Callamard, Speciale VN rapporteur van Buitengerechtelijke Executies, die deze liquidatie heeft veroordeeld als ”illegaal” [12]
Is het dan niet triest te bedenken, dat de Nederlandse regering, waarvan uw partij deel uitmaakt en volgens artikel 90, Nederlandse Grondwet, de ontwikkeling van de Internationale Rechtsorde dient te bevorderen [13], het bestaat, voor politieke liquidaties als deze ”’begrip” te hebben? [14]
Waarin verschilt een Staatsliquidatie als deze  van liquidaties a la de Bende van Redouan Taghi? [15]In een opzicht slechts:Staatsliquidaties zijn een groter risico voor de wereldvrede.
Voor de rest:
In beide gevallen, ordinaire moordaanslagen.
Onkent u dat?
Wie en wat geeft dan een land, zonder dat er sprake is van een directe militaire aanval op dat land, of een aantoonbaar levensgroot risico daarop [16], het recht, politieke tegenstanders, die ze niet welgevallig zijn, de lucht uit te schieten?
En dan is het NOG erger, als andere landen roepen, daarvoor ”begrip” te hebben! [17]
Uw partij moet zich daarvoor diep schamen!Van een Christelijke Partij [en dat heb ik het CDA ook laten weten in woorden van vergelijkbare strekking] mag sowieso verwacht worden, dat het Recht op Leven in het byzonder verdedigd zal wordenWeet u het nog?”Dan zal Hij hun antwoorden en zeggen: Voorwaar ik zeg U: Voor zover gij dit een van deze minsten niet gedaan hebt, zo hebt gij het Mij ook niet gedaan.” [18]

EPILOOG
Ik kan mij vergissen, maar ik heb Christen-Unie  Kamerleden niet hard horen protesteren tegen het ”begrip” dat de Nederlandse regering heeft getoond voor Trump’s liquidatie politiek.
Het wordt hoog tijd, dat dat wel gebeurt!
Wilt u serieus genomen worden in de Grondwettelijke plicht, de ontwikkeling van de Internationale Rechtsorde te bevorderen?

TOON DAT DAN en stel Kamervragen over deze weerzinwekkende VS liquidatiepolitiek!
Want Soleimani mag dan, volgens minister Bijleveld ”een echte boef” geweest zijn [19], dat betekent niet, dat mensenrechten en Internationaal Recht op hem niet van toepassing zijn.
Want mensenrechten gelden iedereen.Toch?
Niet alleen de Westerse bondgenoten?
Neem uw verantwoordelijkheid en stel kritische Kamervragen.
Anders bent u, politiek en moreel, medeverantwoordelijk voor het gedogen van executies zonder vorm van proces.
Ik verwacht, dat u uw verantwoordelijkheid neemt.
Begin het Jaar goed.Respecteer het Internationaal Recht!
Respecteer het Recht op Leven!
Vriendelijke groeten
Astrid EssedAmsterdam 

NOTEN

[1]

NOSVS DOODT IRAANSE GENERAAL MET RAKETAANVALLEN OP VLIEGVELD BAGDAD

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317138-vs-doodt-iraanse-generaal-met-raketaanvallen-op-vliegveld-bagdad.html

TEKST

Het Amerikaanse leger heeft een hoge Iraanse militair gedood met raketaanvallen in Irak. De dood van generaal Soleimani van de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde wordt bevestigd door Iran en het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie.

Volgens het Pentagon is de liquidatie bij de internationale luchthaven van Bagdad uitgevoerd op bevel van president Trump. Een drone vuurde raketten af op auto’s bij een vrachtterminal.De Amerikaanse president heeft op Twitter een afbeelding van een Amerikaanse vlag geplaatst.

Soleimani was leider van de Quds-brigade, een elite-eenheid binnen de Revolutionaire Garde. De Iraanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken noemt de moord “uitzonderlijk gevaarlijk en een domme escalatie”. Hij zegt dat de VS verantwoordelijk is voor alle gevolgen van dit “schurkachtige avonturisme”.

VS-correspondent Arjen van der Horst noemt het een “enorme escalatie” van de spanningen tussen de VS en Iran, die de afgelopen weken al waren opgelopen. Het Pentagon hield Soleimani verantwoordelijk voor een aanval in Kirkuk in het noorden van Irak, waarbij een Amerikaanse militair om het leven kwam. Naar aanleiding daarvan zei de minister van Defensie donderdag “the game has changed“. “Nu weten we dat die woorden geen loze dreiging waren.”

In een verklaring zeggen het Witte Huis en het Pentagon dat Soleimani “actief plannen ontwikkelde om Amerikaanse diplomaten en mensen van het leger in Irak en in de regio aan te vallen”. Er wordt daarom gesproken van een defensieve actie.Hij wordt door de Amerikanen verantwoordelijk gehouden voor de dood van honderden Amerikanen en leden van de internationale coalitie. De afgelopen maanden zou hij aanvallen op bases in Irak hebben georkestreerd. Ook zou hij zijn goedkeuring hebben gegeven aan de aanval op de Amerikaanse ambassade in Irak afgelopen woensdag.

Er vielen meer doden. Volgens een door Iran gesteunde Iraakse paramilitaire groep zijn vijf van hun leden omgekomen, onder wie de Iraakse hooggeplaatste commandant Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Zijn militie zei snel na de aanvallen dat “Amerikanen en Israëliërs” erachter zaten.

Muhandis heeft nauw samengewerkt met de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde. Hij leidde een paramilitaire Iraanse groep in Irak en was een van de oprichters van de pro-Iraanse sjiitische militie Kataib Hezbollah.

De aanval komt twee dagen nadat pro-Iraanse demonstranten de Amerikaanse ambassade in Bagdad hadden belaagd. Betogers probeerden het gebouw te bestormen en de Amerikaanse ambassadeur en het personeel werden geëvacueerd. 

Er werd gedemonstreerd naar aanleiding van Amerikaanse luchtaanvallen op bases in Irak van een door Iran gesteunde militie. Bij die aanvallen vielen zeker 25 doden en tientallen mensen raakten gewond. De bombardementen waren een vergelding voor de aanval van die militie op een militaire basis in Kirkuk.

Gisteren kwamen circa 700 Amerikaanse militairen aan in Koeweit, buurland van Irak. Ze dienen als versterking vanwege de verhoogde spanning in de regio.

[2]

WIKIPEDIA

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

[3]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

TEKST

Minister Bijleveld van Defensie zegt dat Nederland begrip heeft voor de Amerikaanse liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Qassem Soleimani. “Als je kijkt wat Iran daar heeft gedaan, is dat ook verschrikkelijk”, zei Bijleveld in de eerste aflevering van het tv-programma Op1.

Soleimani was “een echte boef”, zei de minister:Bijleveld: wij hebben er begrip voor dat de liquidatie is gebeurd

Bijleveld verwees onder meer naar de rol die Soleimani speelde in de oorlog in Syrië, als de leider van sjiitische milities. Ze voegde eraan toe dat er door de liquidatie “een heel fragiele situatie is ontstaan” en dat sprake is van escalatie. Ze noemde dat een gevaar, ook voor de Nederlandse militairen in Irak.

“We moeten tot deëscalatie komen”, zei de minister. Ze refereerde in de uitzending ook aan uitspraken van NAVO-chef Stoltenberg, die specifiek Iran opriep tot kalmte. “Wij doen een beroep op alle landen, ook op de Verenigde Staten. Alle inzet van Nederland is gericht op deëscaleren.”

Toelichting gevraagd

In een Kamerbrief die Bijleveld met haar collega’s Blok (Buitenlandse Zaken) en Kaag (Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking) maandagavond verstuurde, staat dat Iran “instabiliteit in de regio in de hand werkt” en dat Soleimani daarbij een belangrijke rol speelde.

Nederland heeft de VS als NAVO-partner wel om een toelichting gevraagd “op de aangevoerde juridische basis”. Washington zei eerder dat de liquidatie neerkomt op zelfverdediging omdat er een acute dreiging was voor de Amerikanen.

De ministers kijken in de Kamerbrief ook vooruit naar een ingelaste bijeenkomst van de ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken van de EU, aanstaande vrijdag. “Daarbij zal Nederland de negatieve invloed van Iran op de regionale stabiliteit onderstrepen en wijzen op het belang van de soevereiniteit en territoriale integriteit van Irak.”

Later deze maand vertrekt een Nederlands fregat naar de Straat van Hormuz, met als doel het beschermen van de zeevaart. Bijleveld zei in Op1 dat die missie gewoon doorgaat. Het werk van Nederlandse militairen in Irak, in Bagdad en in de Koerdische stad Erbil, is om veiligheidsredenen stilgelegd.

[4]TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.
AFKOMSTIG UIT LINK  NOS BERICHT

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

[5]


WIKIPEDIA

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

[6]

WIKIPEDIA

RAMBO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_(franchise)

[7]

”The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about the strike saying “this test is unlikely to be met”.

BBC

SOLEIMANI ATTACK: WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961

TEXT

US President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq but what are the legal grounds for this course of action?

The US said: “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

So, what are the key issues when considering its legality, according to international law?

What does the law say?

The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about the strike saying “this test is unlikely to be met”.

2010 UN report on “targeted killings” said there was a weighty body of scholarship that viewed the self-defence argument as having the right to use force “against a real and imminent threat when the necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” 

The initial US Department of Defense statement omitted the word “imminent” and said the strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks and that Iran’s top military leader Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region”.

In later statements, US officials including President Trump said Soleimani had been plotting “imminent attacks”.

Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Party candidate for the US presidency, said: “The administration cannot keep its story straight.”

So what evidence is there of planned attacks by Iran?

The legality of the strike under international law may well depend on the US providing evidence of those future attacks, according to Mr Akande.

The US government has not yet shared details publicly, but the administration has said intelligence has been shared with key figures in the US Congress.

Asked by a journalist on 7 January for more details about imminent threats, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted the incidents leading up to the strike, but did not provide any evidence of impending attacks.

There are other justifications it has used in the past, according to Dr Ralph Wilde, an expert in public international law at University College London.

“Since 9/11 the US has taken a view that self-defence can be justified to prevent more longer-term attacks. When the attack is being planned, but is not imminent. The Obama administration used this argument to justify drone strikes.

And what about the issue of consent?

The other issue is whether the US had consent from Iraq to carry out the strike there.

Iraqi MPs reacted angrily and passed a non-binding resolution calling for US troops to leave the country. The Iraqi government has called it a “brazen violation of Iraq’s sovereignty”.

US forces had been invited into Iraq to fight the Islamic State group and to train Iraqi forces.

The US might argue this invitation constituted some form of consent, giving them a right to protect their interests and personnel inside Iraq.

But Mr Akande argues that, in practice, the terms of the agreement to host US forces would not stretch to carrying out an attack like this.

Can you target cultural sites?

On Sunday, Mr Trump tweeted, warning the US would target sites that were “important to Iran and the Iranian culture” if American assets were hit.

The Iran Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif said an attack on a cultural site would amount to a war crime.

Trump’s threat “shows callous disregard for the global rule of law”, said Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch.

The US government insisted it would behave lawfully.

But an attack on a cultural site would violate several international treaties.

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property safeguarded cultural sites in the wake of the destruction of cultural heritage sites during World War Two, and was signed by the US.

In 2017, the UN passed a resolution in response to the Islamic State attacks which condemned “the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, including the destruction of religious sites and artefacts”.

The US was among the harshest critics of the IS destruction of historic site of Palmyra in Syria in 2015, as well as the Taliban’s demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.

In 2016, the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted someone for the destruction of cultural heritage for the first time, after an extremist linked to Al-Qaeda destroyed religious artefacts in Mali.

The US is not part of the ICC but it is a signatory of other agreements to protect cultural property and any attack would represent a significant reversal.

[8]

”Er vielen meer doden. Volgens een door Iran gesteunde Iraakse paramilitaire groep zijn vijf van hun leden omgekomen, onder wie de Iraakse hooggeplaatste commandant Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis”NOSVS DOODT IRAANSE GENERAAL MET RAKETAANVALLEN OP VLIEGVELD BAGDAD

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317138-vs-doodt-iraanse-generaal-met-raketaanvallen-op-vliegveld-bagdad.html

[9]

Schending van voorwaarden

Ook de Iraakse premier Adil Abdul-Mahdi heeft de aanval door de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad veroordeeld. Hij noemde het een grove schending van de voorwaarden voor de aanwezigheid van Amerikaanse militairen in zijn land en sprak van moord.

TROUW

IRAK VEROORDEELT DE AMERIKAANSE LUCHTAANVAL, HEZBOLLAH ROEPT OP TOT WRAAKACTIES

3 JANUARI 2020

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/irak-veroordeelt-de-amerikaanse-luchtaanval-hezbollah-roept-op-tot-wraakacties~b1ff122d/

TEKST

Op verschillende plekken in de wereld is geschokt gereageerd op de raketaanval van de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad. Hezbollah roept op tot wraakacties.  

De Libanese sjiitische beweging Hezbollah heeft opgeroepen waar ook ter wereld de “grote Amerikaanse misdaad” te wreken. De beweging doelt op de moordaanslag waarmee de VS met drones onder anderen de Iraanse generaal Qassem Soleimani uit weg ruimden op het terrein van het vliegveld van Bagdad. Soleimani was naar verluidt net met een vliegtuig uit Syrië of Libanon aangekomen.

Soleimani was een van de bekendste militairen die voor Teheran meer invloed in het Midden-Oosten moesten zien te krijgen. Hij begon met steun aan de Libanese sjiïeten in hun strijd tegen Israël en later in hun strijd tegen soennitische extremisten in Syrië. Hezbollah-leider Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah zei dat zijn beweging doorgaat op de met Soleimani ingeslagen weg. De VS bereiken volgens hem met de moorden niets en zij moeten gestraft worden, berichtte de omroep al-Manar.

Schending van voorwaarden

Ook de Iraakse premier Adil Abdul-Mahdi heeft de aanval door de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad veroordeeld. Hij noemde het een grove schending van de voorwaarden voor de aanwezigheid van Amerikaanse militairen in zijn land en sprak van moord.

Abdul-Mahdi riep het parlement in spoedzitting bijeen. Volgens de premier zal het parlement met wetgeving moeten komen waarmee de Iraakse waardigheid, veiligheid en soevereiniteit moeten worden gewaarborgd.

Risico op escalatie

Ook in eigen land klinkt er kritiek op president Trump.  De leider van de Democraten in het Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden ziet in de aanval een risico op escalatie. Dat kunnen de VS en de wereld zich niet permitteren, schrijft Nancy Pelosi in een verklaring. Ze riep de president op om zo snel mogelijk parlementsleden in te lichten over de aanval.

“De luchtaanval van vanavond riskeert een gevaarlijke escalatie van geweld te provoceren”, aldus Pelosi. “Amerika, en de wereld kunnen zich niet permitteren dat de spanning escaleert tot een punt waarop we niet meer terug kunnen.”

Angst voor represailles 

In Israël is het leger in verhoogde staat van paraatheid gebracht naar aanleiding van de Amerikaanse aanval op de luchthaven van Bagdad en de dood van een Iraanse generaal. Gevreesd wordt dat Iran via zijn bondgenoten in de regio wraak zal proberen te nemen door Israël te bestoken. Israël is een trouwe bondgenoot van de VS.

Onder andere Hezbollah in het aangrenzende Libanon en de Palestijnse militante groepering Hamas in Gaza worden door Iran gesteund. De Israëlische minister van Defensie riep de chefs van het leger en veiligheidsdiensten bijeen om de situatie te bespreken.

Bij de opening van de AEX vrijdag was olie- en gasconcern Shell  de enige stijger bij de hoofdfondsen. Het bedrijf profiteert  van de oplopende olieprijzen door de spanningen in het Midden-Oosten 

[10]

”Abdul-Mahdi riep het parlement in spoedzitting bijeen. Volgens de premier zal het parlement met wetgeving moeten komen waarmee de Iraakse waardigheid, veiligheid en soevereiniteit moeten worden gewaarborgd.  ”

TROUW

IRAK VEROORDEELT DE AMERIKAANSE LUCHTAANVAL, HEZBOLLAH ROEPT OP TOT WRAAKACTIES

3 JANUARI 2020

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/irak-veroordeelt-de-amerikaanse-luchtaanval-hezbollah-roept-op-tot-wraakacties~b1ff122d/

[11]Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
ARTICLE 3, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm

[12]

Agnès Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, maintained that the airstrike “most likely violate[d] international law incl[uding] human rights law“, adding that killing of other individuals alongside Soleimani was “absolutely unlawful””
WIKIPEDIA2020 BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSTRIKEALLEGED VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike#Alleged_violation_of_international_law
ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA2020 BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSTRIKEALLEGED VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike

AGNES CALLAMARD ON TWITTER

https://twitter.com/AgnesCallamard/status/1212918159096864768

Agnes Callamard‏Geverifieerd account @AgnesCallamardVolgen@AgnesCallamard volgenMeer

#Iraq: The targeted killings of Qasem Soleiman and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis are most lokely unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal (1)

WIKIPEDIA

AGNES CALLAMARD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agn%C3%A8s_Callamard

[13]ARTIKEL 90: INTERNATIONALE RECHTSORDEDe regering bevordert de ontwikkeling van de internationale rechtsorde.

https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/id/via0d81dpfwb/artikel_90_internationale_rechtsorde

[14]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html [15]

WIKIPEDIAREDOUAN TAGHI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridouan_Taghi

WIKIPEDIAMARENGO PROCES
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marengo-proces

OMSTRAFPROCES MARENGO
https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/strafzaken/strafzaken/strafproces-marengo/

Criminele organisatie

In de zaak ‘Marengo’ staan 16 verdachten terecht voor verschillende moorden en pogingen tot moord. In het strafdossier komt een beeld naar voren van een geoliede moordmachine. Verschillende verdachten zijn volgens het openbaar ministerie (OM) ingezet om zo efficiënt mogelijk moorden te plegen. Daarbij gold een vaste rolverdeling van chauffeurs, spotters en schutters. Een mensenleven was niets waard, gelet ook op tenminste twee zogenoemde vergismoorden

De drempel om een liquidatie te plegen lijkt vandaag de dag lager te liggen dan voorheen. De daders zijn meestal jonge mannen, gewapend met volautomatische vuurwapens en de daarbij behorende zware munitie. Liquidaties vinden de afgelopen jaren steeds vaker plaats in de openbare ruimten, op straat en midden in woonwijken. Dat omstanders risico lopen en soms geraakt worden, wordt voor lief genomen.  Helaas is vandaag de dag de term  ‘vergismoord’ een gangbaar begrip geworden.

De Moorden – Chronologisch Overzicht

  • Moord op Ronald Bakker op 9 september 2015 in Huizen. Bakker was medewerker van de spyshop in Nieuwegein. Deze spyshop kwam in beeld in het onderzoek 26Koper. Hij is vermoord in zijn auto, voor de deur van zijn woning. Uitspraak Gerechtshof  26Koper
  • Moord op Samir Erraghib op 17 april 2016 in IJsselstein. Erraghib is vermoord terwijl zijn 7-jarig dochtertje bij hem in de auto zat. Zij heeft de aanslag overleefd.
  • Moord op Ranko Scekic op 22 juni 2016 in Utrecht. Scekic liep met een vriend op straat voor zijn woning toen hij werd doodgeschoten. Zijn vrouw en kinderen waren op dat moment thuis.
  • Voorbereiding voor de moord op twee contacten van Scekic.
  • Poging moord op Abdelkarim Ahabad op 11 oktober 2016. Er is iemand op Ahabad afgelopen met een automatisch vuurwapen en daarna is hij klemgereden. Ahabad wist te ontkomen.
  • Moord op Hakim Changachi op 12 januari 2017. Changachi is in zijn portaal van zijn flat doodgeschoten, bij vergissing. Het beoogde doelwit was Khalid Hmidat.
  • Voorbereiding voor de moord op Khalid Hmidat. In de maand januari 2017 is Hmidat gevolgd en in de gaten gehouden. De moord op Hmidat is niet gelukt, de daders die gewapend bij zijn woning klaarstonden zijn overlopen.

Kroongetuige

Lange tijd lukte het niet om de geweldsspiraal te doorbreken. Er was wel TCI-informatie beschikbaar over mogelijke opdrachtgevers van liquidaties, maar onvoldoende om hen met succes te vervolgen.

[16]

The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

BBC

SOLEIMANI ATTACK: WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961

[17]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

[18]

Dan zal Hij hun antwoorden en zeggen: Voorwaar zeg Ik u: Voor zoveel gij dit een van deze minsten niet gedaan hebt, zo hebt gij het Mij ook niet gedaan.  

MATTHEUS 25, VERS 45

https://www.online-bijbel.nl/bijbelboek/Mattheus/25/31-46

[19][BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.
AFKOMSTIG UIT LINK  NAAR INTERVIEW OP NOS BERICHT

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Nederlands kabinet heeft begrip voor liquidatie Soleimani/Brief aan Christen-Unie, regeringspartij, die zich graag beroept op het christelijke geloof

Filed under Divers

Nederlands kabinet heeft begrip voor liquidatie Soleimani/Brief aan D’66, regeringspartij

NEDERLANDS KABINET HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEIMANI/BRIEF AAN D’66, REGERINGSPARTIJ
AANDE TWEEDE KAMERLEDEN VAN D’66

DOCHTER VAN DE GELIQUIDEERDE GENERAAL SOLEIMANI 

https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/buitenland/artikel/4975886/qassem-soleimani-dochter-conflict-iran-verenigde-statenhttps://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.htmlhttps://www.astridessed.nl/nederlands-kabinet-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-brief-aan-d66-regeringspartij/


Vooraf:
Deze brief is eveneens gezonden aan uw collegae Tweede Kamerleden van de andere regeringspartijen met een iets afwijkende tekst aan het CDA en ter kennisneming aan uw andere collegae in de Tweede Kamer van de oppositiepartijen.
Onderwerp:Liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani in opdracht van de Amerikaanse president TrumpReactie van de Nederlandse regering
”Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
ARTICLE 3, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm

Geachte dames en heren,
Allereerst vanuit hier een Gezond Nieuw Jaar toegewenst met respect voor het Internationaal Recht.
Want aan dat respect voor het Internationaal Recht ontbreekt het soms ten enenmale, in dit geval van de kant van de regering, waartoe uw partij behoort.Onze regering, en daarmee uw partij, is het Nieuwe Jaar namelijk op de meest foute manier begonnen.
Gaat u een belletje rinkelen?Zo niet, dan bij dezen:
Namelijk de reactie van de regering op de liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani, in opdracht van de Amerikaanse president Trump. [1]
Alsof het al niet ernstig genoeg was, dat de VS meende zich het recht te mogen aanmeten, een generaal uit een land, waarmee zij niet in oorlog is, zomaar uit de lucht te schieten, wat niet meer of minder dan een buitengerechtelijke executie was [2], ging de Nederlandse regering zover, dat zij bij monde van CDA  minister Bijleveld van Defensie, verklaarde, wel ”begrip” te hebben voor deze liquidatie. [3]Ik citeer Bijleveld, die werd geinterviewd in het actualiteitenprogramma ”Op 1:”[TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.” [4]
Wat, Geachte dames en heren, D’66 Tweede Kamerleden, bezielt deze regering eigenlijk?Niet alleen leidt dit cowboy VS avonturisme tot escalatie in een toch al explosieve regio, met een dergelijk ”begrip” legitimeert dit kabinet een ordinaire moordaanslag, want dat zijn deze buitengerechtelijke executies! [5]De VS is niet met Iran in oorlog [al doen zij er met dergelijke Rambo [6] acties wel erg hun best voor], noch lanceerde generaal Soleimani een aanval op Amerikaanse  bodem, wat een militaire handeling tegen hem gerechtvaardigd zou hebben. [7]Tenzij de Verenigde Staten, Irak, Syrie en die landen in het Midden-Oosten en Voor Azie als hun achtertuin beschouwen, waarop IK zeg:De Verenigde Staten zijn wel ver van huis, he.Trouwens, wat wel te verwachten was:Irak heeft deze liquidatie, waarbij ook een hoge Iraakse militair om het leven kwam en nog een aantal anderen [8], scherp veroordeeld.[9]Logisch:Zij willen de vete tussen de VS en Iran niet zien uitgevochten op hun grondgebied!Irak is immers een soevereine Staat [10], geen achterstaartje van de VS!
SPECIALE VN RAPPORTEUR VOOR BUITENGERECHTELIJKE EXECUTIES
In mijn felle veroordeling van deze VS liquidatie, die een flagrante schending is van het Recht op Leven [11], sta ik bepaald niet alleen, maar verkeer ik in goed gezelschap van Agnes Callamard, Speciale VN rapporteur van Buitengerechtelijke Executies, die deze liquidatie heeft veroordeeld als ”illegaal” [12]
Is het dan niet triest te bedenken, dat de Nederlandse regering, waarvan uw partij deel uitmaakt en volgens artikel 90, Nederlandse Grondwet, de ontwikkeling van de Internationale Rechtsorde dient te bevorderen [13], het bestaat, voor politieke liquidaties als deze ”’begrip” te hebben? [14]
Waarin verschilt een Staatsliquidatie als deze  van liquidaties a la de Bende van Redouan Taghi? [15]In een opzicht slechts:Staatsliquidaties zijn een groter risico voor de wereldvrede.
Voor de rest:
In beide gevallen, ordinaire moordaanslagen.
Onkent u dat?
Wie en wat geeft dan een land, zonder dat er sprake is van een directe militaire aanval op dat land, of een aantoonbaar levensgroot risico daarop [16], het recht, politieke tegenstanders, die ze niet welgevallig zijn, de lucht uit te schieten?
En dan is het NOG erger, als andere landen roepen, daarvoor ”begrip” te hebben! [17]
Uw partij moet zich daarvoor diep schamen!

EPILOOG
Ik kan mij vergissen, maar ik heb D’66 Kamerleden niet hard horen protesteren tegen het ”begrip” dat de Nederlandse regering heeft getoond voor Trump’s liquidatie politiek.
Het wordt hoog tijd, dat dat wel gebeurt!
Wilt u serieus genomen worden in de Grondwettelijke plicht, de ontwikkeling van de Internationale Rechtsorde te bevorderen?

TOON DAT DAN en stel Kamervragen over deze weerzinwekkende VS liquidatiepolitiek!
Want Soleimani mag dan, volgens minister Bijleveld ”een echte boef” geweest zijn [18], dat betekent niet, dat mensenrechten en Internationaal Recht op hem niet van toepassing zijn.
Want mensenrechten gelden iedereen.Toch?
Niet alleen de Westerse bondgenoten?
Neem uw verantwoordelijkheid en stel kritische Kamervragen.
Anders bent u, politiek en moreel, medeverantwoordelijk voor het gedogen van executies zonder vorm van proces.
Ik verwacht, dat u uw verantwoordelijkheid neemt.
Begin het Jaar goed.Respecteer het Internationaal Recht!
Respecteer het Recht op Leven!
Vriendelijke groeten
Astrid EssedAmsterdam 

NOTEN

[1]

NOSVS DOODT IRAANSE GENERAAL MET RAKETAANVALLEN OP VLIEGVELD BAGDAD

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317138-vs-doodt-iraanse-generaal-met-raketaanvallen-op-vliegveld-bagdad.html

TEKST

Het Amerikaanse leger heeft een hoge Iraanse militair gedood met raketaanvallen in Irak. De dood van generaal Soleimani van de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde wordt bevestigd door Iran en het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie.

Volgens het Pentagon is de liquidatie bij de internationale luchthaven van Bagdad uitgevoerd op bevel van president Trump. Een drone vuurde raketten af op auto’s bij een vrachtterminal.De Amerikaanse president heeft op Twitter een afbeelding van een Amerikaanse vlag geplaatst.

Soleimani was leider van de Quds-brigade, een elite-eenheid binnen de Revolutionaire Garde. De Iraanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken noemt de moord “uitzonderlijk gevaarlijk en een domme escalatie”. Hij zegt dat de VS verantwoordelijk is voor alle gevolgen van dit “schurkachtige avonturisme”.

VS-correspondent Arjen van der Horst noemt het een “enorme escalatie” van de spanningen tussen de VS en Iran, die de afgelopen weken al waren opgelopen. Het Pentagon hield Soleimani verantwoordelijk voor een aanval in Kirkuk in het noorden van Irak, waarbij een Amerikaanse militair om het leven kwam. Naar aanleiding daarvan zei de minister van Defensie donderdag “the game has changed“. “Nu weten we dat die woorden geen loze dreiging waren.”

In een verklaring zeggen het Witte Huis en het Pentagon dat Soleimani “actief plannen ontwikkelde om Amerikaanse diplomaten en mensen van het leger in Irak en in de regio aan te vallen”. Er wordt daarom gesproken van een defensieve actie.Hij wordt door de Amerikanen verantwoordelijk gehouden voor de dood van honderden Amerikanen en leden van de internationale coalitie. De afgelopen maanden zou hij aanvallen op bases in Irak hebben georkestreerd. Ook zou hij zijn goedkeuring hebben gegeven aan de aanval op de Amerikaanse ambassade in Irak afgelopen woensdag.

Er vielen meer doden. Volgens een door Iran gesteunde Iraakse paramilitaire groep zijn vijf van hun leden omgekomen, onder wie de Iraakse hooggeplaatste commandant Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Zijn militie zei snel na de aanvallen dat “Amerikanen en Israëliërs” erachter zaten.

Muhandis heeft nauw samengewerkt met de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde. Hij leidde een paramilitaire Iraanse groep in Irak en was een van de oprichters van de pro-Iraanse sjiitische militie Kataib Hezbollah.

De aanval komt twee dagen nadat pro-Iraanse demonstranten de Amerikaanse ambassade in Bagdad hadden belaagd. Betogers probeerden het gebouw te bestormen en de Amerikaanse ambassadeur en het personeel werden geëvacueerd. 

Er werd gedemonstreerd naar aanleiding van Amerikaanse luchtaanvallen op bases in Irak van een door Iran gesteunde militie. Bij die aanvallen vielen zeker 25 doden en tientallen mensen raakten gewond. De bombardementen waren een vergelding voor de aanval van die militie op een militaire basis in Kirkuk.

Gisteren kwamen circa 700 Amerikaanse militairen aan in Koeweit, buurland van Irak. Ze dienen als versterking vanwege de verhoogde spanning in de regio.

[2]

WIKIPEDIA

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

[3]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

TEKST

Minister Bijleveld van Defensie zegt dat Nederland begrip heeft voor de Amerikaanse liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Qassem Soleimani. “Als je kijkt wat Iran daar heeft gedaan, is dat ook verschrikkelijk”, zei Bijleveld in de eerste aflevering van het tv-programma Op1.

Soleimani was “een echte boef”, zei de minister:Bijleveld: wij hebben er begrip voor dat de liquidatie is gebeurd

Bijleveld verwees onder meer naar de rol die Soleimani speelde in de oorlog in Syrië, als de leider van sjiitische milities. Ze voegde eraan toe dat er door de liquidatie “een heel fragiele situatie is ontstaan” en dat sprake is van escalatie. Ze noemde dat een gevaar, ook voor de Nederlandse militairen in Irak.

“We moeten tot deëscalatie komen”, zei de minister. Ze refereerde in de uitzending ook aan uitspraken van NAVO-chef Stoltenberg, die specifiek Iran opriep tot kalmte. “Wij doen een beroep op alle landen, ook op de Verenigde Staten. Alle inzet van Nederland is gericht op deëscaleren.”

Toelichting gevraagd

In een Kamerbrief die Bijleveld met haar collega’s Blok (Buitenlandse Zaken) en Kaag (Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking) maandagavond verstuurde, staat dat Iran “instabiliteit in de regio in de hand werkt” en dat Soleimani daarbij een belangrijke rol speelde.

Nederland heeft de VS als NAVO-partner wel om een toelichting gevraagd “op de aangevoerde juridische basis”. Washington zei eerder dat de liquidatie neerkomt op zelfverdediging omdat er een acute dreiging was voor de Amerikanen.

De ministers kijken in de Kamerbrief ook vooruit naar een ingelaste bijeenkomst van de ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken van de EU, aanstaande vrijdag. “Daarbij zal Nederland de negatieve invloed van Iran op de regionale stabiliteit onderstrepen en wijzen op het belang van de soevereiniteit en territoriale integriteit van Irak.”

Later deze maand vertrekt een Nederlands fregat naar de Straat van Hormuz, met als doel het beschermen van de zeevaart. Bijleveld zei in Op1 dat die missie gewoon doorgaat. Het werk van Nederlandse militairen in Irak, in Bagdad en in de Koerdische stad Erbil, is om veiligheidsredenen stilgelegd.

[4]TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.
AFKOMSTIG UIT LINK  NOS BERICHT

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

[5]


WIKIPEDIA

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

[6]

WIKIPEDIA

RAMBO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_(franchise)

[7]

”The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about the strike saying “this test is unlikely to be met”.

BBC

SOLEIMANI ATTACK: WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961

TEXT

US President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq but what are the legal grounds for this course of action?

The US said: “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

So, what are the key issues when considering its legality, according to international law?

What does the law say?

The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about the strike saying “this test is unlikely to be met”.

2010 UN report on “targeted killings” said there was a weighty body of scholarship that viewed the self-defence argument as having the right to use force “against a real and imminent threat when the necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” 

The initial US Department of Defense statement omitted the word “imminent” and said the strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks and that Iran’s top military leader Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region”.

In later statements, US officials including President Trump said Soleimani had been plotting “imminent attacks”.

Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Party candidate for the US presidency, said: “The administration cannot keep its story straight.”

So what evidence is there of planned attacks by Iran?

The legality of the strike under international law may well depend on the US providing evidence of those future attacks, according to Mr Akande.

The US government has not yet shared details publicly, but the administration has said intelligence has been shared with key figures in the US Congress.

Asked by a journalist on 7 January for more details about imminent threats, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted the incidents leading up to the strike, but did not provide any evidence of impending attacks.

There are other justifications it has used in the past, according to Dr Ralph Wilde, an expert in public international law at University College London.

“Since 9/11 the US has taken a view that self-defence can be justified to prevent more longer-term attacks. When the attack is being planned, but is not imminent. The Obama administration used this argument to justify drone strikes.

And what about the issue of consent?

The other issue is whether the US had consent from Iraq to carry out the strike there.

Iraqi MPs reacted angrily and passed a non-binding resolution calling for US troops to leave the country. The Iraqi government has called it a “brazen violation of Iraq’s sovereignty”.

US forces had been invited into Iraq to fight the Islamic State group and to train Iraqi forces.

The US might argue this invitation constituted some form of consent, giving them a right to protect their interests and personnel inside Iraq.

But Mr Akande argues that, in practice, the terms of the agreement to host US forces would not stretch to carrying out an attack like this.

Can you target cultural sites?

On Sunday, Mr Trump tweeted, warning the US would target sites that were “important to Iran and the Iranian culture” if American assets were hit.

The Iran Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif said an attack on a cultural site would amount to a war crime.

Trump’s threat “shows callous disregard for the global rule of law”, said Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch.

The US government insisted it would behave lawfully.

But an attack on a cultural site would violate several international treaties.

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property safeguarded cultural sites in the wake of the destruction of cultural heritage sites during World War Two, and was signed by the US.

In 2017, the UN passed a resolution in response to the Islamic State attacks which condemned “the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, including the destruction of religious sites and artefacts”.

The US was among the harshest critics of the IS destruction of historic site of Palmyra in Syria in 2015, as well as the Taliban’s demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.

In 2016, the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted someone for the destruction of cultural heritage for the first time, after an extremist linked to Al-Qaeda destroyed religious artefacts in Mali.

The US is not part of the ICC but it is a signatory of other agreements to protect cultural property and any attack would represent a significant reversal.

[8]

”Er vielen meer doden. Volgens een door Iran gesteunde Iraakse paramilitaire groep zijn vijf van hun leden omgekomen, onder wie de Iraakse hooggeplaatste commandant Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis”NOSVS DOODT IRAANSE GENERAAL MET RAKETAANVALLEN OP VLIEGVELD BAGDAD

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317138-vs-doodt-iraanse-generaal-met-raketaanvallen-op-vliegveld-bagdad.html

[9]

Schending van voorwaarden

Ook de Iraakse premier Adil Abdul-Mahdi heeft de aanval door de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad veroordeeld. Hij noemde het een grove schending van de voorwaarden voor de aanwezigheid van Amerikaanse militairen in zijn land en sprak van moord.

TROUW

IRAK VEROORDEELT DE AMERIKAANSE LUCHTAANVAL, HEZBOLLAH ROEPT OP TOT WRAAKACTIES

3 JANUARI 2020

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/irak-veroordeelt-de-amerikaanse-luchtaanval-hezbollah-roept-op-tot-wraakacties~b1ff122d/

TEKST

Op verschillende plekken in de wereld is geschokt gereageerd op de raketaanval van de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad. Hezbollah roept op tot wraakacties.  

De Libanese sjiitische beweging Hezbollah heeft opgeroepen waar ook ter wereld de “grote Amerikaanse misdaad” te wreken. De beweging doelt op de moordaanslag waarmee de VS met drones onder anderen de Iraanse generaal Qassem Soleimani uit weg ruimden op het terrein van het vliegveld van Bagdad. Soleimani was naar verluidt net met een vliegtuig uit Syrië of Libanon aangekomen.

Soleimani was een van de bekendste militairen die voor Teheran meer invloed in het Midden-Oosten moesten zien te krijgen. Hij begon met steun aan de Libanese sjiïeten in hun strijd tegen Israël en later in hun strijd tegen soennitische extremisten in Syrië. Hezbollah-leider Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah zei dat zijn beweging doorgaat op de met Soleimani ingeslagen weg. De VS bereiken volgens hem met de moorden niets en zij moeten gestraft worden, berichtte de omroep al-Manar.

Schending van voorwaarden

Ook de Iraakse premier Adil Abdul-Mahdi heeft de aanval door de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad veroordeeld. Hij noemde het een grove schending van de voorwaarden voor de aanwezigheid van Amerikaanse militairen in zijn land en sprak van moord.

Abdul-Mahdi riep het parlement in spoedzitting bijeen. Volgens de premier zal het parlement met wetgeving moeten komen waarmee de Iraakse waardigheid, veiligheid en soevereiniteit moeten worden gewaarborgd.

Risico op escalatie

Ook in eigen land klinkt er kritiek op president Trump.  De leider van de Democraten in het Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden ziet in de aanval een risico op escalatie. Dat kunnen de VS en de wereld zich niet permitteren, schrijft Nancy Pelosi in een verklaring. Ze riep de president op om zo snel mogelijk parlementsleden in te lichten over de aanval.

“De luchtaanval van vanavond riskeert een gevaarlijke escalatie van geweld te provoceren”, aldus Pelosi. “Amerika, en de wereld kunnen zich niet permitteren dat de spanning escaleert tot een punt waarop we niet meer terug kunnen.”

Angst voor represailles 

In Israël is het leger in verhoogde staat van paraatheid gebracht naar aanleiding van de Amerikaanse aanval op de luchthaven van Bagdad en de dood van een Iraanse generaal. Gevreesd wordt dat Iran via zijn bondgenoten in de regio wraak zal proberen te nemen door Israël te bestoken. Israël is een trouwe bondgenoot van de VS.

Onder andere Hezbollah in het aangrenzende Libanon en de Palestijnse militante groepering Hamas in Gaza worden door Iran gesteund. De Israëlische minister van Defensie riep de chefs van het leger en veiligheidsdiensten bijeen om de situatie te bespreken.

Bij de opening van de AEX vrijdag was olie- en gasconcern Shell  de enige stijger bij de hoofdfondsen. Het bedrijf profiteert  van de oplopende olieprijzen door de spanningen in het Midden-Oosten 

[10]

”Abdul-Mahdi riep het parlement in spoedzitting bijeen. Volgens de premier zal het parlement met wetgeving moeten komen waarmee de Iraakse waardigheid, veiligheid en soevereiniteit moeten worden gewaarborgd.  ”

TROUW

IRAK VEROORDEELT DE AMERIKAANSE LUCHTAANVAL, HEZBOLLAH ROEPT OP TOT WRAAKACTIES

3 JANUARI 2020

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/irak-veroordeelt-de-amerikaanse-luchtaanval-hezbollah-roept-op-tot-wraakacties~b1ff122d/

[11]Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
ARTICLE 3, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm

[12]

Agnès Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, maintained that the airstrike “most likely violate[d] international law incl[uding] human rights law“, adding that killing of other individuals alongside Soleimani was “absolutely unlawful””
WIKIPEDIA2020 BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSTRIKEALLEGED VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike#Alleged_violation_of_international_law
ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA2020 BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSTRIKEALLEGED VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike

AGNES CALLAMARD ON TWITTER

https://twitter.com/AgnesCallamard/status/1212918159096864768

Agnes Callamard‏Geverifieerd account @AgnesCallamardVolgen@AgnesCallamard volgenMeer

#Iraq: The targeted killings of Qasem Soleiman and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis are most lokely unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal (1)

WIKIPEDIA

AGNES CALLAMARD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agn%C3%A8s_Callamard

[13]ARTIKEL 90: INTERNATIONALE RECHTSORDEDe regering bevordert de ontwikkeling van de internationale rechtsorde.

https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/id/via0d81dpfwb/artikel_90_internationale_rechtsorde

[14]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html [15]

WIKIPEDIAREDOUAN TAGHI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridouan_Taghi

WIKIPEDIAMARENGO PROCES
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marengo-proces

OMSTRAFPROCES MARENGO
https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/strafzaken/strafzaken/strafproces-marengo/

Criminele organisatie

In de zaak ‘Marengo’ staan 16 verdachten terecht voor verschillende moorden en pogingen tot moord. In het strafdossier komt een beeld naar voren van een geoliede moordmachine. Verschillende verdachten zijn volgens het openbaar ministerie (OM) ingezet om zo efficiënt mogelijk moorden te plegen. Daarbij gold een vaste rolverdeling van chauffeurs, spotters en schutters. Een mensenleven was niets waard, gelet ook op tenminste twee zogenoemde vergismoorden

De drempel om een liquidatie te plegen lijkt vandaag de dag lager te liggen dan voorheen. De daders zijn meestal jonge mannen, gewapend met volautomatische vuurwapens en de daarbij behorende zware munitie. Liquidaties vinden de afgelopen jaren steeds vaker plaats in de openbare ruimten, op straat en midden in woonwijken. Dat omstanders risico lopen en soms geraakt worden, wordt voor lief genomen.  Helaas is vandaag de dag de term  ‘vergismoord’ een gangbaar begrip geworden.

De Moorden – Chronologisch Overzicht

  • Moord op Ronald Bakker op 9 september 2015 in Huizen. Bakker was medewerker van de spyshop in Nieuwegein. Deze spyshop kwam in beeld in het onderzoek 26Koper. Hij is vermoord in zijn auto, voor de deur van zijn woning. Uitspraak Gerechtshof  26Koper
  • Moord op Samir Erraghib op 17 april 2016 in IJsselstein. Erraghib is vermoord terwijl zijn 7-jarig dochtertje bij hem in de auto zat. Zij heeft de aanslag overleefd.
  • Moord op Ranko Scekic op 22 juni 2016 in Utrecht. Scekic liep met een vriend op straat voor zijn woning toen hij werd doodgeschoten. Zijn vrouw en kinderen waren op dat moment thuis.
  • Voorbereiding voor de moord op twee contacten van Scekic.
  • Poging moord op Abdelkarim Ahabad op 11 oktober 2016. Er is iemand op Ahabad afgelopen met een automatisch vuurwapen en daarna is hij klemgereden. Ahabad wist te ontkomen.
  • Moord op Hakim Changachi op 12 januari 2017. Changachi is in zijn portaal van zijn flat doodgeschoten, bij vergissing. Het beoogde doelwit was Khalid Hmidat.
  • Voorbereiding voor de moord op Khalid Hmidat. In de maand januari 2017 is Hmidat gevolgd en in de gaten gehouden. De moord op Hmidat is niet gelukt, de daders die gewapend bij zijn woning klaarstonden zijn overlopen.

Kroongetuige

Lange tijd lukte het niet om de geweldsspiraal te doorbreken. Er was wel TCI-informatie beschikbaar over mogelijke opdrachtgevers van liquidaties, maar onvoldoende om hen met succes te vervolgen.

[16]

The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

BBC

SOLEIMANI ATTACK: WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961

[17]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

[18][BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.
AFKOMSTIG UIT LINK  NAAR INTERVIEW OP NOS BERICHT

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Nederlands kabinet heeft begrip voor liquidatie Soleimani/Brief aan D’66, regeringspartij

Filed under Divers

Nederlands kabinet heeft begrip voor liquidatie Soleimani/Brief aan VVD, regeringspartij

NEDERLANDS KABINET HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEIMANI/BRIEF AAN VVD, LIBERAAL-KAPITALISTISCHE REGERINGSPARTIJ

DOCHTER VAN DE GELIQUIDEERDE GENERAAL SOLEIMANI 

https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/buitenland/artikel/4975886/qassem-soleimani-dochter-conflict-iran-verenigde-statenhttps://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

AANDE TWEEDE KAMERLEDEN VAN de VVD
Vooraf:
Deze brief is eveneens gezonden aan uw collegae Tweede Kamerleden van de andere regeringspartijen met een iets afwijkende tekst aan het CDA en ter kennisneming aan uw andere collegae in de Tweede Kamer van de oppositiepartijen.
Onderwerp:Liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani in opdracht van de Amerikaanse president TrumpReactie van de Nederlandse regering
”Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
ARTICLE 3, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm

Geachte dames en heren,
Allereerst vanuit hier een Gezond Nieuw Jaar toegewenst met respect voor het Internationaal Recht.
Want aan dat respect voor het Internationaal Recht ontbreekt het soms ten enenmale, in dit geval van de kant van de regering, waartoe uw partij behoort.Onze regering, en daarmee uw partij, is het Nieuwe Jaar namelijk op de meest foute manier begonnen.
Gaat u een belletje rinkelen?Zo niet, dan bij dezen:
Namelijk de reactie van de regering op de liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani, in opdracht van de Amerikaanse president Trump. [1]
Alsof het al niet ernstig genoeg was, dat de VS meende zich het recht te mogen aanmeten, een generaal uit een land, waarmee zij niet in oorlog is, zomaar uit de lucht te schieten, wat niet meer of minder dan een buitengerechtelijke executie was [2], ging de Nederlandse regering zover, dat zij bij monde van CDA  minister Bijleveld van Defensie, verklaarde, wel ”begrip” te hebben voor deze liquidatie. [3]Ik citeer Bijleveld, die werd geinterviewd in het actualiteitenprogramma ”Op 1:”[TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.” [4]
Wat, Geachte dames en heren, VVD Tweede Kamerleden, bezielt deze regering eigenlijk?Niet alleen leidt dit cowboy VS avonturisme tot escalatie in een toch al explosieve regio, met een dergelijk ”begrip” legitimeert dit kabinet een ordinaire moordaanslag, want dat zijn deze buitengerechtelijke executies! [5]De VS is niet met Iran in oorlog [al doen zij er met dergelijke Rambo [6] acties wel erg hun best voor], noch lanceerde generaal Soleimani een aanval op Amerikaanse  bodem, wat een militaire handeling tegen hem gerechtvaardigd zou hebben. [7]Tenzij de Verenigde Staten, Irak, Syrie en die landen in het Midden-Oosten en Voor Azie als hun achtertuin beschouwen, waarop IK zeg:De Verenigde Staten zijn wel ver van huis, he.Trouwens, wat wel te verwachten was:Irak heeft deze liquidatie, waarbij ook een hoge Iraakse militair om het leven kwam en nog een aantal anderen [8], scherp veroordeeld.[9]Logisch:Zij willen de vete tussen de VS en Iran niet zien uitgevochten op hun grondgebied!Irak is immers een soevereine Staat [10], geen achterstaartje van de VS!
SPECIALE VN RAPPORTEUR VOOR BUITENGERECHTELIJKE EXECUTIES
In mijn felle veroordeling van deze VS liquidatie, die een flagrante schending is van het Recht op Leven [11], sta ik bepaald niet alleen, maar verkeer ik in goed gezelschap van Agnes Callamard, Speciale VN rapporteur van Buitengerechtelijke Executies, die deze liquidatie heeft veroordeeld als ”illegaal” [12]
Is het dan niet triest te bedenken, dat de Nederlandse regering, waarvan uw partij deel uitmaakt en volgens artikel 90, Nederlandse Grondwet, de ontwikkeling van de Internationale Rechtsorde dient te bevorderen [13], het bestaat, voor politieke liquidaties als deze ”’begrip” te hebben? [14]
Waarin verschilt een Staatsliquidatie als deze  van liquidaties a la de Bende van Redouan Taghi? [15]In een opzicht slechts:Staatsliquidaties zijn een groter risico voor de wereldvrede.
Voor de rest:
In beide gevallen, ordinaire moordaanslagen.
Onkent u dat?
Wie en wat geeft dan een land, zonder dat er sprake is van een directe militaire aanval op dat land, of een aantoonbaar levensgroot risico daarop [16], het recht, politieke tegenstanders, die ze niet welgevallig zijn, de lucht uit te schieten?
En dan is het NOG erger, als andere landen roepen, daarvoor ”begrip” te hebben! [17]
Uw partij moet zich daarvoor diep schamen!

EPILOOG
Ik kan mij vergissen, maar ik heb VVD Kamerleden niet hard horen protesteren tegen het ”begrip” dat de Nederlandse regering heeft getoond voor Trump’s liquidatie politiek.
Het wordt hoog tijd, dat dat wel gebeurt!
Wilt u serieus genomen worden in de Grondwettelijke plicht, de ontwikkeling van de Internationale Rechtsorde te bevorderen?

TOON DAT DAN en stel Kamervragen over deze weerzinwekkende VS liquidatiepolitiek!
Want Soleimani mag dan, volgens minister Bijleveld ”een echte boef” geweest zijn [18], dat betekent niet, dat mensenrechten en Internationaal Recht op hem niet van toepassing zijn.
Want mensenrechten gelden iedereen.Toch?
Niet alleen de Westerse bondgenoten?
Neem uw verantwoordelijkheid en stel kritische Kamervragen.
Anders bent u, politiek en moreel, medeverantwoordelijk voor het gedogen van executies zonder vorm van proces.
Ik verwacht, dat u uw verantwoordelijkheid neemt.
Begin het Jaar goed.Respecteer het Internationaal Recht!
Respecteer het Recht op Leven!
Vriendelijke groeten
Astrid EssedAmsterdam 

NOTEN

[1]

NOSVS DOODT IRAANSE GENERAAL MET RAKETAANVALLEN OP VLIEGVELD BAGDAD

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317138-vs-doodt-iraanse-generaal-met-raketaanvallen-op-vliegveld-bagdad.html

TEKST

Het Amerikaanse leger heeft een hoge Iraanse militair gedood met raketaanvallen in Irak. De dood van generaal Soleimani van de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde wordt bevestigd door Iran en het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie.

Volgens het Pentagon is de liquidatie bij de internationale luchthaven van Bagdad uitgevoerd op bevel van president Trump. Een drone vuurde raketten af op auto’s bij een vrachtterminal.De Amerikaanse president heeft op Twitter een afbeelding van een Amerikaanse vlag geplaatst.

Soleimani was leider van de Quds-brigade, een elite-eenheid binnen de Revolutionaire Garde. De Iraanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken noemt de moord “uitzonderlijk gevaarlijk en een domme escalatie”. Hij zegt dat de VS verantwoordelijk is voor alle gevolgen van dit “schurkachtige avonturisme”.

VS-correspondent Arjen van der Horst noemt het een “enorme escalatie” van de spanningen tussen de VS en Iran, die de afgelopen weken al waren opgelopen. Het Pentagon hield Soleimani verantwoordelijk voor een aanval in Kirkuk in het noorden van Irak, waarbij een Amerikaanse militair om het leven kwam. Naar aanleiding daarvan zei de minister van Defensie donderdag “the game has changed“. “Nu weten we dat die woorden geen loze dreiging waren.”

In een verklaring zeggen het Witte Huis en het Pentagon dat Soleimani “actief plannen ontwikkelde om Amerikaanse diplomaten en mensen van het leger in Irak en in de regio aan te vallen”. Er wordt daarom gesproken van een defensieve actie.Hij wordt door de Amerikanen verantwoordelijk gehouden voor de dood van honderden Amerikanen en leden van de internationale coalitie. De afgelopen maanden zou hij aanvallen op bases in Irak hebben georkestreerd. Ook zou hij zijn goedkeuring hebben gegeven aan de aanval op de Amerikaanse ambassade in Irak afgelopen woensdag.

Er vielen meer doden. Volgens een door Iran gesteunde Iraakse paramilitaire groep zijn vijf van hun leden omgekomen, onder wie de Iraakse hooggeplaatste commandant Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Zijn militie zei snel na de aanvallen dat “Amerikanen en Israëliërs” erachter zaten.

Muhandis heeft nauw samengewerkt met de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde. Hij leidde een paramilitaire Iraanse groep in Irak en was een van de oprichters van de pro-Iraanse sjiitische militie Kataib Hezbollah.

De aanval komt twee dagen nadat pro-Iraanse demonstranten de Amerikaanse ambassade in Bagdad hadden belaagd. Betogers probeerden het gebouw te bestormen en de Amerikaanse ambassadeur en het personeel werden geëvacueerd. 

Er werd gedemonstreerd naar aanleiding van Amerikaanse luchtaanvallen op bases in Irak van een door Iran gesteunde militie. Bij die aanvallen vielen zeker 25 doden en tientallen mensen raakten gewond. De bombardementen waren een vergelding voor de aanval van die militie op een militaire basis in Kirkuk.

Gisteren kwamen circa 700 Amerikaanse militairen aan in Koeweit, buurland van Irak. Ze dienen als versterking vanwege de verhoogde spanning in de regio.

[2]

WIKIPEDIA

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

[3]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

TEKST

Minister Bijleveld van Defensie zegt dat Nederland begrip heeft voor de Amerikaanse liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Qassem Soleimani. “Als je kijkt wat Iran daar heeft gedaan, is dat ook verschrikkelijk”, zei Bijleveld in de eerste aflevering van het tv-programma Op1.

Soleimani was “een echte boef”, zei de minister:Bijleveld: wij hebben er begrip voor dat de liquidatie is gebeurd

Bijleveld verwees onder meer naar de rol die Soleimani speelde in de oorlog in Syrië, als de leider van sjiitische milities. Ze voegde eraan toe dat er door de liquidatie “een heel fragiele situatie is ontstaan” en dat sprake is van escalatie. Ze noemde dat een gevaar, ook voor de Nederlandse militairen in Irak.

“We moeten tot deëscalatie komen”, zei de minister. Ze refereerde in de uitzending ook aan uitspraken van NAVO-chef Stoltenberg, die specifiek Iran opriep tot kalmte. “Wij doen een beroep op alle landen, ook op de Verenigde Staten. Alle inzet van Nederland is gericht op deëscaleren.”

Toelichting gevraagd

In een Kamerbrief die Bijleveld met haar collega’s Blok (Buitenlandse Zaken) en Kaag (Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking) maandagavond verstuurde, staat dat Iran “instabiliteit in de regio in de hand werkt” en dat Soleimani daarbij een belangrijke rol speelde.

Nederland heeft de VS als NAVO-partner wel om een toelichting gevraagd “op de aangevoerde juridische basis”. Washington zei eerder dat de liquidatie neerkomt op zelfverdediging omdat er een acute dreiging was voor de Amerikanen.

De ministers kijken in de Kamerbrief ook vooruit naar een ingelaste bijeenkomst van de ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken van de EU, aanstaande vrijdag. “Daarbij zal Nederland de negatieve invloed van Iran op de regionale stabiliteit onderstrepen en wijzen op het belang van de soevereiniteit en territoriale integriteit van Irak.”

Later deze maand vertrekt een Nederlands fregat naar de Straat van Hormuz, met als doel het beschermen van de zeevaart. Bijleveld zei in Op1 dat die missie gewoon doorgaat. Het werk van Nederlandse militairen in Irak, in Bagdad en in de Koerdische stad Erbil, is om veiligheidsredenen stilgelegd.

[4]TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.
AFKOMSTIG UIT LINK  NOS BERICHT

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

[5]


WIKIPEDIA

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

[6]

WIKIPEDIA

RAMBO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_(franchise)

[7]

”The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about the strike saying “this test is unlikely to be met”.

BBC

SOLEIMANI ATTACK: WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961

TEXT

US President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq but what are the legal grounds for this course of action?

The US said: “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

So, what are the key issues when considering its legality, according to international law?

What does the law say?

The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about the strike saying “this test is unlikely to be met”.

2010 UN report on “targeted killings” said there was a weighty body of scholarship that viewed the self-defence argument as having the right to use force “against a real and imminent threat when the necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” 

The initial US Department of Defense statement omitted the word “imminent” and said the strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks and that Iran’s top military leader Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region”.

In later statements, US officials including President Trump said Soleimani had been plotting “imminent attacks”.

Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Party candidate for the US presidency, said: “The administration cannot keep its story straight.”

So what evidence is there of planned attacks by Iran?

The legality of the strike under international law may well depend on the US providing evidence of those future attacks, according to Mr Akande.

The US government has not yet shared details publicly, but the administration has said intelligence has been shared with key figures in the US Congress.

Asked by a journalist on 7 January for more details about imminent threats, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted the incidents leading up to the strike, but did not provide any evidence of impending attacks.

There are other justifications it has used in the past, according to Dr Ralph Wilde, an expert in public international law at University College London.

“Since 9/11 the US has taken a view that self-defence can be justified to prevent more longer-term attacks. When the attack is being planned, but is not imminent. The Obama administration used this argument to justify drone strikes.

And what about the issue of consent?

The other issue is whether the US had consent from Iraq to carry out the strike there.

Iraqi MPs reacted angrily and passed a non-binding resolution calling for US troops to leave the country. The Iraqi government has called it a “brazen violation of Iraq’s sovereignty”.

US forces had been invited into Iraq to fight the Islamic State group and to train Iraqi forces.

The US might argue this invitation constituted some form of consent, giving them a right to protect their interests and personnel inside Iraq.

But Mr Akande argues that, in practice, the terms of the agreement to host US forces would not stretch to carrying out an attack like this.

Can you target cultural sites?

On Sunday, Mr Trump tweeted, warning the US would target sites that were “important to Iran and the Iranian culture” if American assets were hit.

The Iran Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif said an attack on a cultural site would amount to a war crime.

Trump’s threat “shows callous disregard for the global rule of law”, said Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch.

The US government insisted it would behave lawfully.

But an attack on a cultural site would violate several international treaties.

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property safeguarded cultural sites in the wake of the destruction of cultural heritage sites during World War Two, and was signed by the US.

In 2017, the UN passed a resolution in response to the Islamic State attacks which condemned “the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, including the destruction of religious sites and artefacts”.

The US was among the harshest critics of the IS destruction of historic site of Palmyra in Syria in 2015, as well as the Taliban’s demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.

In 2016, the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted someone for the destruction of cultural heritage for the first time, after an extremist linked to Al-Qaeda destroyed religious artefacts in Mali.

The US is not part of the ICC but it is a signatory of other agreements to protect cultural property and any attack would represent a significant reversal.

[8]

”Er vielen meer doden. Volgens een door Iran gesteunde Iraakse paramilitaire groep zijn vijf van hun leden omgekomen, onder wie de Iraakse hooggeplaatste commandant Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis”NOSVS DOODT IRAANSE GENERAAL MET RAKETAANVALLEN OP VLIEGVELD BAGDAD

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317138-vs-doodt-iraanse-generaal-met-raketaanvallen-op-vliegveld-bagdad.html

[9]

Schending van voorwaarden

Ook de Iraakse premier Adil Abdul-Mahdi heeft de aanval door de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad veroordeeld. Hij noemde het een grove schending van de voorwaarden voor de aanwezigheid van Amerikaanse militairen in zijn land en sprak van moord.

TROUW

IRAK VEROORDEELT DE AMERIKAANSE LUCHTAANVAL, HEZBOLLAH ROEPT OP TOT WRAAKACTIES

3 JANUARI 2020

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/irak-veroordeelt-de-amerikaanse-luchtaanval-hezbollah-roept-op-tot-wraakacties~b1ff122d/

TEKST

Op verschillende plekken in de wereld is geschokt gereageerd op de raketaanval van de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad. Hezbollah roept op tot wraakacties.  

De Libanese sjiitische beweging Hezbollah heeft opgeroepen waar ook ter wereld de “grote Amerikaanse misdaad” te wreken. De beweging doelt op de moordaanslag waarmee de VS met drones onder anderen de Iraanse generaal Qassem Soleimani uit weg ruimden op het terrein van het vliegveld van Bagdad. Soleimani was naar verluidt net met een vliegtuig uit Syrië of Libanon aangekomen.

Soleimani was een van de bekendste militairen die voor Teheran meer invloed in het Midden-Oosten moesten zien te krijgen. Hij begon met steun aan de Libanese sjiïeten in hun strijd tegen Israël en later in hun strijd tegen soennitische extremisten in Syrië. Hezbollah-leider Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah zei dat zijn beweging doorgaat op de met Soleimani ingeslagen weg. De VS bereiken volgens hem met de moorden niets en zij moeten gestraft worden, berichtte de omroep al-Manar.

Schending van voorwaarden

Ook de Iraakse premier Adil Abdul-Mahdi heeft de aanval door de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad veroordeeld. Hij noemde het een grove schending van de voorwaarden voor de aanwezigheid van Amerikaanse militairen in zijn land en sprak van moord.

Abdul-Mahdi riep het parlement in spoedzitting bijeen. Volgens de premier zal het parlement met wetgeving moeten komen waarmee de Iraakse waardigheid, veiligheid en soevereiniteit moeten worden gewaarborgd.

Risico op escalatie

Ook in eigen land klinkt er kritiek op president Trump.  De leider van de Democraten in het Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden ziet in de aanval een risico op escalatie. Dat kunnen de VS en de wereld zich niet permitteren, schrijft Nancy Pelosi in een verklaring. Ze riep de president op om zo snel mogelijk parlementsleden in te lichten over de aanval.

“De luchtaanval van vanavond riskeert een gevaarlijke escalatie van geweld te provoceren”, aldus Pelosi. “Amerika, en de wereld kunnen zich niet permitteren dat de spanning escaleert tot een punt waarop we niet meer terug kunnen.”

Angst voor represailles 

In Israël is het leger in verhoogde staat van paraatheid gebracht naar aanleiding van de Amerikaanse aanval op de luchthaven van Bagdad en de dood van een Iraanse generaal. Gevreesd wordt dat Iran via zijn bondgenoten in de regio wraak zal proberen te nemen door Israël te bestoken. Israël is een trouwe bondgenoot van de VS.

Onder andere Hezbollah in het aangrenzende Libanon en de Palestijnse militante groepering Hamas in Gaza worden door Iran gesteund. De Israëlische minister van Defensie riep de chefs van het leger en veiligheidsdiensten bijeen om de situatie te bespreken.

Bij de opening van de AEX vrijdag was olie- en gasconcern Shell  de enige stijger bij de hoofdfondsen. Het bedrijf profiteert  van de oplopende olieprijzen door de spanningen in het Midden-Oosten 

[10]

”Abdul-Mahdi riep het parlement in spoedzitting bijeen. Volgens de premier zal het parlement met wetgeving moeten komen waarmee de Iraakse waardigheid, veiligheid en soevereiniteit moeten worden gewaarborgd.  ”

TROUW

IRAK VEROORDEELT DE AMERIKAANSE LUCHTAANVAL, HEZBOLLAH ROEPT OP TOT WRAAKACTIES

3 JANUARI 2020

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/irak-veroordeelt-de-amerikaanse-luchtaanval-hezbollah-roept-op-tot-wraakacties~b1ff122d/

[11]Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
ARTICLE 3, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm

[12]

Agnès Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, maintained that the airstrike “most likely violate[d] international law incl[uding] human rights law“, adding that killing of other individuals alongside Soleimani was “absolutely unlawful””
WIKIPEDIA2020 BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSTRIKEALLEGED VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike#Alleged_violation_of_international_law
ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA2020 BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSTRIKEALLEGED VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike

AGNES CALLAMARD ON TWITTER

https://twitter.com/AgnesCallamard/status/1212918159096864768

Agnes Callamard‏Geverifieerd account @AgnesCallamardVolgen@AgnesCallamard volgenMeer

#Iraq: The targeted killings of Qasem Soleiman and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis are most lokely unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal (1)

WIKIPEDIA

AGNES CALLAMARD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agn%C3%A8s_Callamard

[13]ARTIKEL 90: INTERNATIONALE RECHTSORDEDe regering bevordert de ontwikkeling van de internationale rechtsorde.

https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/id/via0d81dpfwb/artikel_90_internationale_rechtsorde

[14]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html [15]

WIKIPEDIAREDOUAN TAGHI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridouan_Taghi

WIKIPEDIAMARENGO PROCES
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marengo-proces

OMSTRAFPROCES MARENGO
https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/strafzaken/strafzaken/strafproces-marengo/

Criminele organisatie

In de zaak ‘Marengo’ staan 16 verdachten terecht voor verschillende moorden en pogingen tot moord. In het strafdossier komt een beeld naar voren van een geoliede moordmachine. Verschillende verdachten zijn volgens het openbaar ministerie (OM) ingezet om zo efficiënt mogelijk moorden te plegen. Daarbij gold een vaste rolverdeling van chauffeurs, spotters en schutters. Een mensenleven was niets waard, gelet ook op tenminste twee zogenoemde vergismoorden

De drempel om een liquidatie te plegen lijkt vandaag de dag lager te liggen dan voorheen. De daders zijn meestal jonge mannen, gewapend met volautomatische vuurwapens en de daarbij behorende zware munitie. Liquidaties vinden de afgelopen jaren steeds vaker plaats in de openbare ruimten, op straat en midden in woonwijken. Dat omstanders risico lopen en soms geraakt worden, wordt voor lief genomen.  Helaas is vandaag de dag de term  ‘vergismoord’ een gangbaar begrip geworden.

De Moorden – Chronologisch Overzicht

  • Moord op Ronald Bakker op 9 september 2015 in Huizen. Bakker was medewerker van de spyshop in Nieuwegein. Deze spyshop kwam in beeld in het onderzoek 26Koper. Hij is vermoord in zijn auto, voor de deur van zijn woning. Uitspraak Gerechtshof  26Koper
  • Moord op Samir Erraghib op 17 april 2016 in IJsselstein. Erraghib is vermoord terwijl zijn 7-jarig dochtertje bij hem in de auto zat. Zij heeft de aanslag overleefd.
  • Moord op Ranko Scekic op 22 juni 2016 in Utrecht. Scekic liep met een vriend op straat voor zijn woning toen hij werd doodgeschoten. Zijn vrouw en kinderen waren op dat moment thuis.
  • Voorbereiding voor de moord op twee contacten van Scekic.
  • Poging moord op Abdelkarim Ahabad op 11 oktober 2016. Er is iemand op Ahabad afgelopen met een automatisch vuurwapen en daarna is hij klemgereden. Ahabad wist te ontkomen.
  • Moord op Hakim Changachi op 12 januari 2017. Changachi is in zijn portaal van zijn flat doodgeschoten, bij vergissing. Het beoogde doelwit was Khalid Hmidat.
  • Voorbereiding voor de moord op Khalid Hmidat. In de maand januari 2017 is Hmidat gevolgd en in de gaten gehouden. De moord op Hmidat is niet gelukt, de daders die gewapend bij zijn woning klaarstonden zijn overlopen.

Kroongetuige

Lange tijd lukte het niet om de geweldsspiraal te doorbreken. Er was wel TCI-informatie beschikbaar over mogelijke opdrachtgevers van liquidaties, maar onvoldoende om hen met succes te vervolgen.

[16]

The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

BBC

SOLEIMANI ATTACK: WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961

[17]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

[18][BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.
AFKOMSTIG UIT LINK  NAAR INTERVIEW OP NOS BERICHT

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Nederlands kabinet heeft begrip voor liquidatie Soleimani/Brief aan VVD, regeringspartij

Filed under Divers

Nederlands kabinet heeft begrip voor liquidatie Soleimani/Brief aan CDA, regeringspartij, die zich laat voorstaan op haar ”christelijke” moraal

NEDERLANDS KABINET HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR VS LIQUIDATIE SOLEIMANI/BRIEF AAN CDA, REGERINGSPARTIJ, DIE ZICH LAAT VOORSTAAN OP HAAR ”CHRISTELIJKE” MORAAL

DOCHTER VAN DE GELIQUIDEERDE GENERAAL SOLEIMANI 

https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/buitenland/artikel/4975886/qassem-soleimani-dochter-conflict-iran-verenigde-statenhttps://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

 

AANDE TWEEDE KAMERLEDEN VAN CDA
Vooraf:
Deze brief is eveneens gezonden aan uw collegae Tweede Kamerleden van de andere regeringspartijen en ter kennisneming aan uw andere collegae in de Tweede Kamer van de oppositiepartijen.
Onderwerp:Liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani in opdracht van de Amerikaanse president TrumpReactie van de Nederlandse regering
”Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
ARTICLE 3, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm

Geachte dames en heren,
Allereerst vanuit hier een Gezond Nieuw Jaar toegewenst met respect voor het Internationaal Recht.
Want aan dat respect voor het Internationaal Recht ontbreekt het soms ten enenmale, in dit geval van de kant van de regering, waartoe uw partij behoort.Onze regering, en daarmee uw partij, is het Nieuwe Jaar namelijk op de meest foute manier begonnen.
Gaat u een belletje rinkelen?Zo niet, dan bij dezen:
Namelijk de reactie van de regering op de liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Soleimani, in opdracht van de Amerikaanse president Trump. [1]
Alsof het al niet ernstig genoeg was, dat de VS meende zich het recht te mogen aanmeten, een generaal uit een land, waarmee zij niet in oorlog is, zomaar uit de lucht te schieten, wat niet meer of minder dan een buitengerechtelijke executie was [2], ging de Nederlandse regering zover, dat zij bij monde van CDA [uw partij dus!] minister Bijleveld van Defensie, verklaarde, wel ”begrip” te hebben voor deze liquidatie. [3]Ik citeer Bijleveld, die werd geinterviewd in het actualiteitenprogramma ”Op 1:”[TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.” [4]
Wat, Geachte dames en heren, CDA Tweede Kamerleden, bezielt deze regering eigenlijk?Niet alleen leidt dit cowboy VS avonturisme tot escalatie in een toch al explosieve regio, met een dergelijk ”begrip” legitimeert dit kabinet een ordinaire moordaanslag, want dat zijn deze buitengerechtelijke executies! [5]De VS is niet met Iran in oorlog [al doen zij er met dergelijke Rambo [6] acties wel erg hun best voor], noch lanceerde generaal Soleimani een aanval op Amerikaanse  bodem, wat een militaire handeling tegen hem gerechtvaardigd zou hebben. [7]Tenzij de Verenigde Staten, Irak, Syrie en die landen in het Midden-Oosten en Voor Azie als hun achtertuin beschouwen, waarop IK zeg:De Verenigde Staten zijn wel ver van huis, he.Trouwens, wat wel te verwachten was:Irak heeft deze liquidatie, waarbij ook een hoge Iraakse militair om het leven kwam en nog een aantal anderen [8], scherp veroordeeld.[9]Logisch:Zij willen de vete tussen de VS en Iran niet zien uitgevochten op hun grondgebied!Irak is immers een soevereine Staat [10], geen achterstaartje van de VS!
SPECIALE VN RAPPORTEUR VOOR BUITENGERECHTELIJKE EXECUTIES
In mijn felle veroordeling van deze VS liquidatie, die een flagrante schending is van het Recht op Leven [11], sta ik bepaald niet alleen, maar verkeer ik in goed gezelschap van Agnes Callamard, Speciale VN rapporteur van Buitengerechtelijke Executies, die deze liquidatie heeft veroordeeld als ”illegaal” [12]
Is het dan niet triest te bedenken, dat de Nederlandse regering, waarvan uw partij deel uitmaakt en volgens artikel 90, Nederlandse Grondwet, de ontwikkeling van de Internationale Rechtsorde dient te bevorderen [13], het bestaat, voor politieke liquidaties als deze ”’begrip” te hebben? [14]
Waarin verschilt een Staatsliquidaties als deze  van liquidaties a la de Bende van Redouan Taghi? [15]In een opzicht slechts:Staatsliquidaties zijn een groter risico voor de wereldvrede.
Voor de rest:
In beide gevallen, ordinaire moordaanslagen.
Onkent u dat?
Wie en wat geeft dan een land, zonder dat er sprake is van een directe militaire aanval op dat land, of een aantoonbaar levensgroot risico daarop [16], politieke tegenstanders, die ze niet welgevallig zijn, de lucht uit te schieten?
En dan is het NOG erger, als andere landen roepen, daarvoor ”begrip” te hebben! [17]
Uw partij, die nota bene beweert, een christelijke achtergrond te hebben [18], moet zich daarvoor diep schamen!
Op het CDA is, naar mijn mening, deze uitspraak uit het Nieuwe Testament van toepassing
”Wee u, gij Schriftgeleerden en Farizeën, gij geveinsden, want gij zijt den witgepleisterden graven gelijk, die van buiten wel schoon schijnen, maar van binnen zijn zij vol doodsbeenderen en alle onreinigheid.” [19]
NIET?Waarom dan. niet een keer, zoals bij deze liquidatie, maar wel vaker handelen/standpunten verdedigen, die lijnrecht staan tegenover het Internationaal Recht.Een voorbeeld, onder noot 20, gun ik u.

EPILOOG
Ik kan mij vergissen, maar ik heb CDA Kamerleden niet hard horen protesteren tegen het ”begrip” dat de Nederlandse regering heeft getoond voor Trump’s liquidatie politiek.
Het wordt hoog tijd, dat dat wel gebeurt!
Wilt u serieus genomen worden in de Grondwettelijke plicht, de ontwikkeling van de Internationale Rechtsorde te bevorderen?In het CDA adagium ”dat elk menselijk leven recht heeft op bescherming” [21], of geldt dat alleen voor het ongeboren leven? [22]
TOON DAT DAN en stel Kamervragen over deze weerzinwekkende VS liquidatiepolitiek!
Want Soleimani mag dan, volgens minister Bijleveld ”een echte boef” geweest zijn [23], dat betekent niet, dat mensenrechten en Internationaal Recht op hem niet van toepassing zijn.
Want mensenrechten gelden iedereen.Toch?
Niet alleen de Westerse bondgenoten?
Neem uw verantwoordelijkheid en stel kritische Kamervragen.
Anders bent u, politiek en moreel, medeverantwoordelijk voor het gedogen van executies zonder vorm van proces.
Ik verwacht, dat u uw verantwoordelijkheid neemt.
Begin het Jaar goed.Respecteer het Internationaal Recht!
Respecteer het Recht op Leven!
Vriendelijke groeten
Astrid EssedAmsterdam

NOTEN

[1]

NOSVS DOODT IRAANSE GENERAAL MET RAKETAANVALLEN OP VLIEGVELD BAGDAD

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317138-vs-doodt-iraanse-generaal-met-raketaanvallen-op-vliegveld-bagdad.html

TEKST

Het Amerikaanse leger heeft een hoge Iraanse militair gedood met raketaanvallen in Irak. De dood van generaal Soleimani van de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde wordt bevestigd door Iran en het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie.

Volgens het Pentagon is de liquidatie bij de internationale luchthaven van Bagdad uitgevoerd op bevel van president Trump. Een drone vuurde raketten af op auto’s bij een vrachtterminal.De Amerikaanse president heeft op Twitter een afbeelding van een Amerikaanse vlag geplaatst.

Soleimani was leider van de Quds-brigade, een elite-eenheid binnen de Revolutionaire Garde. De Iraanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken noemt de moord “uitzonderlijk gevaarlijk en een domme escalatie”. Hij zegt dat de VS verantwoordelijk is voor alle gevolgen van dit “schurkachtige avonturisme”.

VS-correspondent Arjen van der Horst noemt het een “enorme escalatie” van de spanningen tussen de VS en Iran, die de afgelopen weken al waren opgelopen. Het Pentagon hield Soleimani verantwoordelijk voor een aanval in Kirkuk in het noorden van Irak, waarbij een Amerikaanse militair om het leven kwam. Naar aanleiding daarvan zei de minister van Defensie donderdag “the game has changed“. “Nu weten we dat die woorden geen loze dreiging waren.”

In een verklaring zeggen het Witte Huis en het Pentagon dat Soleimani “actief plannen ontwikkelde om Amerikaanse diplomaten en mensen van het leger in Irak en in de regio aan te vallen”. Er wordt daarom gesproken van een defensieve actie.Hij wordt door de Amerikanen verantwoordelijk gehouden voor de dood van honderden Amerikanen en leden van de internationale coalitie. De afgelopen maanden zou hij aanvallen op bases in Irak hebben georkestreerd. Ook zou hij zijn goedkeuring hebben gegeven aan de aanval op de Amerikaanse ambassade in Irak afgelopen woensdag.

Er vielen meer doden. Volgens een door Iran gesteunde Iraakse paramilitaire groep zijn vijf van hun leden omgekomen, onder wie de Iraakse hooggeplaatste commandant Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Zijn militie zei snel na de aanvallen dat “Amerikanen en Israëliërs” erachter zaten.

Muhandis heeft nauw samengewerkt met de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde. Hij leidde een paramilitaire Iraanse groep in Irak en was een van de oprichters van de pro-Iraanse sjiitische militie Kataib Hezbollah.

De aanval komt twee dagen nadat pro-Iraanse demonstranten de Amerikaanse ambassade in Bagdad hadden belaagd. Betogers probeerden het gebouw te bestormen en de Amerikaanse ambassadeur en het personeel werden geëvacueerd. 

Er werd gedemonstreerd naar aanleiding van Amerikaanse luchtaanvallen op bases in Irak van een door Iran gesteunde militie. Bij die aanvallen vielen zeker 25 doden en tientallen mensen raakten gewond. De bombardementen waren een vergelding voor de aanval van die militie op een militaire basis in Kirkuk.

Gisteren kwamen circa 700 Amerikaanse militairen aan in Koeweit, buurland van Irak. Ze dienen als versterking vanwege de verhoogde spanning in de regio.

[2]

WIKIPEDIA

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

[3]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

TEKST

Minister Bijleveld van Defensie zegt dat Nederland begrip heeft voor de Amerikaanse liquidatie van de Iraanse generaal Qassem Soleimani. “Als je kijkt wat Iran daar heeft gedaan, is dat ook verschrikkelijk”, zei Bijleveld in de eerste aflevering van het tv-programma Op1.

Soleimani was “een echte boef”, zei de minister:Bijleveld: wij hebben er begrip voor dat de liquidatie is gebeurd

Bijleveld verwees onder meer naar de rol die Soleimani speelde in de oorlog in Syrië, als de leider van sjiitische milities. Ze voegde eraan toe dat er door de liquidatie “een heel fragiele situatie is ontstaan” en dat sprake is van escalatie. Ze noemde dat een gevaar, ook voor de Nederlandse militairen in Irak.

“We moeten tot deëscalatie komen”, zei de minister. Ze refereerde in de uitzending ook aan uitspraken van NAVO-chef Stoltenberg, die specifiek Iran opriep tot kalmte. “Wij doen een beroep op alle landen, ook op de Verenigde Staten. Alle inzet van Nederland is gericht op deëscaleren.”

Toelichting gevraagd

In een Kamerbrief die Bijleveld met haar collega’s Blok (Buitenlandse Zaken) en Kaag (Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking) maandagavond verstuurde, staat dat Iran “instabiliteit in de regio in de hand werkt” en dat Soleimani daarbij een belangrijke rol speelde.

Nederland heeft de VS als NAVO-partner wel om een toelichting gevraagd “op de aangevoerde juridische basis”. Washington zei eerder dat de liquidatie neerkomt op zelfverdediging omdat er een acute dreiging was voor de Amerikanen.

De ministers kijken in de Kamerbrief ook vooruit naar een ingelaste bijeenkomst van de ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken van de EU, aanstaande vrijdag. “Daarbij zal Nederland de negatieve invloed van Iran op de regionale stabiliteit onderstrepen en wijzen op het belang van de soevereiniteit en territoriale integriteit van Irak.”

Later deze maand vertrekt een Nederlands fregat naar de Straat van Hormuz, met als doel het beschermen van de zeevaart. Bijleveld zei in Op1 dat die missie gewoon doorgaat. Het werk van Nederlandse militairen in Irak, in Bagdad en in de Koerdische stad Erbil, is om veiligheidsredenen stilgelegd.

[4]TRANSCRIPTIE DEEL INTERVIEW”'[INTERVIEWER]”Staat Nederland, staat het kabinet achter deze liquidatie?”[BIJLEVELD]”Wij staan wel achter het feit, dat eh, ja, wij hebben begrip voor het feit, dat het is gebeurd.””Omdat, als je kijkt naar wat Iran heeft gedaan en als je kijkt naar wat Soleimani is, dat is denk ik ook wel goed om te zeggen, dat is natuurlijk geen heilig Boontje.”[INTERVIEWER]”Dat was een boef”[BIJLEVELD]:”Dat is een echte boef he, die echt sjiitische milities voor een deel daar heeft geleid, hij heeft …er zijn vreselijke dingen gebeurd in Syrie en daar is hij voor verantwoordelijk.Wat Iran sowiewo doet is echt heel verkeerd in dat land.Dus daar hebben wij begrip voor, ook voor beroep op het feit, dat het zelfverdediging is.Maar tegelijkertijd en dat hebben we ook aan de orde gesteld Nederland en dat zal mijn collega Blok ook aanstaande vrijdag in de Europese Raad aan de orde stellen-tegelijkertijd kom je daarmee in een situatie die het voor het land en de mensen daar nog veel ingewikkelder maakt en dat mag eigenlijk niet.
AFKOMSTIG UIT LINK  NOS BERICHT

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

[5]


WIKIPEDIA

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

[6]

WIKIPEDIA

RAMBO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_(franchise)

[7]

”The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about the strike saying “this test is unlikely to be met”.

BBC

SOLEIMANI ATTACK: WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961

TEXT

US President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq but what are the legal grounds for this course of action?

The US said: “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

So, what are the key issues when considering its legality, according to international law?

What does the law say?

The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about the strike saying “this test is unlikely to be met”.

2010 UN report on “targeted killings” said there was a weighty body of scholarship that viewed the self-defence argument as having the right to use force “against a real and imminent threat when the necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” 

The initial US Department of Defense statement omitted the word “imminent” and said the strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks and that Iran’s top military leader Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region”.

In later statements, US officials including President Trump said Soleimani had been plotting “imminent attacks”.

Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Party candidate for the US presidency, said: “The administration cannot keep its story straight.”

So what evidence is there of planned attacks by Iran?

The legality of the strike under international law may well depend on the US providing evidence of those future attacks, according to Mr Akande.

The US government has not yet shared details publicly, but the administration has said intelligence has been shared with key figures in the US Congress.

Asked by a journalist on 7 January for more details about imminent threats, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted the incidents leading up to the strike, but did not provide any evidence of impending attacks.

There are other justifications it has used in the past, according to Dr Ralph Wilde, an expert in public international law at University College London.

“Since 9/11 the US has taken a view that self-defence can be justified to prevent more longer-term attacks. When the attack is being planned, but is not imminent. The Obama administration used this argument to justify drone strikes.

And what about the issue of consent?

The other issue is whether the US had consent from Iraq to carry out the strike there.

Iraqi MPs reacted angrily and passed a non-binding resolution calling for US troops to leave the country. The Iraqi government has called it a “brazen violation of Iraq’s sovereignty”.

US forces had been invited into Iraq to fight the Islamic State group and to train Iraqi forces.

The US might argue this invitation constituted some form of consent, giving them a right to protect their interests and personnel inside Iraq.

But Mr Akande argues that, in practice, the terms of the agreement to host US forces would not stretch to carrying out an attack like this.

Can you target cultural sites?

On Sunday, Mr Trump tweeted, warning the US would target sites that were “important to Iran and the Iranian culture” if American assets were hit.

The Iran Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif said an attack on a cultural site would amount to a war crime.

Trump’s threat “shows callous disregard for the global rule of law”, said Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch.

The US government insisted it would behave lawfully.

But an attack on a cultural site would violate several international treaties.

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property safeguarded cultural sites in the wake of the destruction of cultural heritage sites during World War Two, and was signed by the US.

In 2017, the UN passed a resolution in response to the Islamic State attacks which condemned “the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, including the destruction of religious sites and artefacts”.

The US was among the harshest critics of the IS destruction of historic site of Palmyra in Syria in 2015, as well as the Taliban’s demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.

In 2016, the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted someone for the destruction of cultural heritage for the first time, after an extremist linked to Al-Qaeda destroyed religious artefacts in Mali.

The US is not part of the ICC but it is a signatory of other agreements to protect cultural property and any attack would represent a significant reversal.

[8]

”Er vielen meer doden. Volgens een door Iran gesteunde Iraakse paramilitaire groep zijn vijf van hun leden omgekomen, onder wie de Iraakse hooggeplaatste commandant Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis”NOSVS DOODT IRAANSE GENERAAL MET RAKETAANVALLEN OP VLIEGVELD BAGDAD

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317138-vs-doodt-iraanse-generaal-met-raketaanvallen-op-vliegveld-bagdad.html

[9]

Schending van voorwaarden

Ook de Iraakse premier Adil Abdul-Mahdi heeft de aanval door de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad veroordeeld. Hij noemde het een grove schending van de voorwaarden voor de aanwezigheid van Amerikaanse militairen in zijn land en sprak van moord.

TROUW

IRAK VEROORDEELT DE AMERIKAANSE LUCHTAANVAL, HEZBOLLAH ROEPT OP TOT WRAAKACTIES

3 JANUARI 2020

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/irak-veroordeelt-de-amerikaanse-luchtaanval-hezbollah-roept-op-tot-wraakacties~b1ff122d/

TEKST

Op verschillende plekken in de wereld is geschokt gereageerd op de raketaanval van de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad. Hezbollah roept op tot wraakacties.  

De Libanese sjiitische beweging Hezbollah heeft opgeroepen waar ook ter wereld de “grote Amerikaanse misdaad” te wreken. De beweging doelt op de moordaanslag waarmee de VS met drones onder anderen de Iraanse generaal Qassem Soleimani uit weg ruimden op het terrein van het vliegveld van Bagdad. Soleimani was naar verluidt net met een vliegtuig uit Syrië of Libanon aangekomen.

Soleimani was een van de bekendste militairen die voor Teheran meer invloed in het Midden-Oosten moesten zien te krijgen. Hij begon met steun aan de Libanese sjiïeten in hun strijd tegen Israël en later in hun strijd tegen soennitische extremisten in Syrië. Hezbollah-leider Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah zei dat zijn beweging doorgaat op de met Soleimani ingeslagen weg. De VS bereiken volgens hem met de moorden niets en zij moeten gestraft worden, berichtte de omroep al-Manar.

Schending van voorwaarden

Ook de Iraakse premier Adil Abdul-Mahdi heeft de aanval door de VS op de luchthaven van Bagdad veroordeeld. Hij noemde het een grove schending van de voorwaarden voor de aanwezigheid van Amerikaanse militairen in zijn land en sprak van moord.

Abdul-Mahdi riep het parlement in spoedzitting bijeen. Volgens de premier zal het parlement met wetgeving moeten komen waarmee de Iraakse waardigheid, veiligheid en soevereiniteit moeten worden gewaarborgd.

Risico op escalatie

Ook in eigen land klinkt er kritiek op president Trump.  De leider van de Democraten in het Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden ziet in de aanval een risico op escalatie. Dat kunnen de VS en de wereld zich niet permitteren, schrijft Nancy Pelosi in een verklaring. Ze riep de president op om zo snel mogelijk parlementsleden in te lichten over de aanval.

“De luchtaanval van vanavond riskeert een gevaarlijke escalatie van geweld te provoceren”, aldus Pelosi. “Amerika, en de wereld kunnen zich niet permitteren dat de spanning escaleert tot een punt waarop we niet meer terug kunnen.”

Angst voor represailles 

In Israël is het leger in verhoogde staat van paraatheid gebracht naar aanleiding van de Amerikaanse aanval op de luchthaven van Bagdad en de dood van een Iraanse generaal. Gevreesd wordt dat Iran via zijn bondgenoten in de regio wraak zal proberen te nemen door Israël te bestoken. Israël is een trouwe bondgenoot van de VS.

Onder andere Hezbollah in het aangrenzende Libanon en de Palestijnse militante groepering Hamas in Gaza worden door Iran gesteund. De Israëlische minister van Defensie riep de chefs van het leger en veiligheidsdiensten bijeen om de situatie te bespreken.

Bij de opening van de AEX vrijdag was olie- en gasconcern Shell  de enige stijger bij de hoofdfondsen. Het bedrijf profiteert  van de oplopende olieprijzen door de spanningen in het Midden-Oosten 

[10]

”Abdul-Mahdi riep het parlement in spoedzitting bijeen. Volgens de premier zal het parlement met wetgeving moeten komen waarmee de Iraakse waardigheid, veiligheid en soevereiniteit moeten worden gewaarborgd.  ”

TROUW

IRAK VEROORDEELT DE AMERIKAANSE LUCHTAANVAL, HEZBOLLAH ROEPT OP TOT WRAAKACTIES

3 JANUARI 2020

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/irak-veroordeelt-de-amerikaanse-luchtaanval-hezbollah-roept-op-tot-wraakacties~b1ff122d/

[11]Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
ARTICLE 3, UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm

[12]

Agnès Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, maintained that the airstrike “most likely violate[d] international law incl[uding] human rights law“, adding that killing of other individuals alongside Soleimani was “absolutely unlawful””
WIKIPEDIA2020 BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSTRIKEALLEGED VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike#Alleged_violation_of_international_law
ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA2020 BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSTRIKEALLEGED VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike

AGNES CALLAMARD ON TWITTER

https://twitter.com/AgnesCallamard/status/1212918159096864768

Agnes Callamard‏Geverifieerd account @AgnesCallamardVolgen@AgnesCallamard volgenMeer

#Iraq: The targeted killings of Qasem Soleiman and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis are most lokely unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal (1)

WIKIPEDIA

AGNES CALLAMARD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agn%C3%A8s_Callamard

[13]ARTIKEL 90: INTERNATIONALE RECHTSORDEDe regering bevordert de ontwikkeling van de internationale rechtsorde.

https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/id/via0d81dpfwb/artikel_90_internationale_rechtsorde

[14]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html [15]

WIKIPEDIAREDOUAN TAGHI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridouan_Taghi

WIKIPEDIAMARENGO PROCES
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marengo-proces

OMSTRAFPROCES MARENGO
https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/strafzaken/strafzaken/strafproces-marengo/

Criminele organisatie

In de zaak ‘Marengo’ staan 16 verdachten terecht voor verschillende moorden en pogingen tot moord. In het strafdossier komt een beeld naar voren van een geoliede moordmachine. Verschillende verdachten zijn volgens het openbaar ministerie (OM) ingezet om zo efficiënt mogelijk moorden te plegen. Daarbij gold een vaste rolverdeling van chauffeurs, spotters en schutters. Een mensenleven was niets waard, gelet ook op tenminste twee zogenoemde vergismoorden

De drempel om een liquidatie te plegen lijkt vandaag de dag lager te liggen dan voorheen. De daders zijn meestal jonge mannen, gewapend met volautomatische vuurwapens en de daarbij behorende zware munitie. Liquidaties vinden de afgelopen jaren steeds vaker plaats in de openbare ruimten, op straat en midden in woonwijken. Dat omstanders risico lopen en soms geraakt worden, wordt voor lief genomen.  Helaas is vandaag de dag de term  ‘vergismoord’ een gangbaar begrip geworden.

De Moorden – Chronologisch Overzicht

  • Moord op Ronald Bakker op 9 september 2015 in Huizen. Bakker was medewerker van de spyshop in Nieuwegein. Deze spyshop kwam in beeld in het onderzoek 26Koper. Hij is vermoord in zijn auto, voor de deur van zijn woning. Uitspraak Gerechtshof  26Koper
  • Moord op Samir Erraghib op 17 april 2016 in IJsselstein. Erraghib is vermoord terwijl zijn 7-jarig dochtertje bij hem in de auto zat. Zij heeft de aanslag overleefd.
  • Moord op Ranko Scekic op 22 juni 2016 in Utrecht. Scekic liep met een vriend op straat voor zijn woning toen hij werd doodgeschoten. Zijn vrouw en kinderen waren op dat moment thuis.
  • Voorbereiding voor de moord op twee contacten van Scekic.
  • Poging moord op Abdelkarim Ahabad op 11 oktober 2016. Er is iemand op Ahabad afgelopen met een automatisch vuurwapen en daarna is hij klemgereden. Ahabad wist te ontkomen.
  • Moord op Hakim Changachi op 12 januari 2017. Changachi is in zijn portaal van zijn flat doodgeschoten, bij vergissing. Het beoogde doelwit was Khalid Hmidat.
  • Voorbereiding voor de moord op Khalid Hmidat. In de maand januari 2017 is Hmidat gevolgd en in de gaten gehouden. De moord op Hmidat is niet gelukt, de daders die gewapend bij zijn woning klaarstonden zijn overlopen.

Kroongetuige

Lange tijd lukte het niet om de geweldsspiraal te doorbreken. Er was wel TCI-informatie beschikbaar over mogelijke opdrachtgevers van liquidaties, maar onvoldoende om hen met succes te vervolgen.

[16]

The relevant law in the UN Charter allows for a state to act in self-defence “if an armed attack occurs”.

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

“In the Soleimani case, the US is claiming it acted in self-defence to prevent imminent attacks, a category of action which, if in fact true, is generally seen as being permissible under the UN Charter,” says Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

BBC

SOLEIMANI ATTACK: WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51007961

[17]

NOS

BIJLEVELD HEEFT BEGRIP VOOR LIQUIDATIE SOLEDIMANI, MAAR WIL WEL TOELICHTING VS

7 JANUARI 2020

https://nos.nl/artikel/2317598-bijleveld-heeft-begrip-voor-liquidatie-soleimani-maar-wil-wel-toelichting-vs.html

[18]

WIKIPEDIA

CHRISTEN DEMOCRATISCH APPEL

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christen-Democratisch_App%C3%A8l

[19]

Wee u, gij Schriftgeleerden en Farizeën, gij geveinsden, want gij zijt den witgepleisterden graven gelijk, die van buiten wel schoon schijnen, maar van binnen zijn zij vol doodsbeenderen en alle onreinigheid.”

MATTHEUS 21,  VERS 27

https://www.statenvertaling.net/bijbel/matt/23.html

[20]

UITPERS.BE

HET CDA EN LIBANON/FARIZEISME VERSUS

HUMANITEIT

ASTRID ESSED

OCTOBER 2006

http://www.uitpers.be/BUP/archief/artikel_view.php?id=1442 [21]

”Het CDA vindt dat elke vorm van menselijk leven recht op bescherming heeft.”

CDASTANDPUNTENABORTUS
https://www.cda.nl/standpunten/abortus/

[22]

CDASTANDPUNTENABORTUS
https://www.cda.nl/standpunten/abortus/

Het CDA vindt het belangrijk om ongewenste zwangerschappen in de eerste plaats zoveel mogelijk te voorkomen. Dat betekent dat we moeten blijven investeren in goede voorlichting. Zeker jongeren moeten tijdig worden voorgelicht over relaties en het risico om ongewenst zwanger te raken. Hierbij moet niet alleen de mogelijkheid van een abortus worden besproken, maar ook alle andere alternatieven.

Het CDA vindt dat elke vorm van menselijk leven recht op bescherming heeft. Dat geldt ook voor het ongeboren menselijk leven. De beslissing om een abortus te ondergaan moet zorgvuldig worden genomen. Een zwangere vrouw die een abortus overweegt, kan zich (tot 24 weken)  tot een arts wenden. Deze arts moet zorgen voor goede informatievoorziening. Niet alleen over abortus maar ook over alle andere mogelijke oplossingen. Om een goede keuze te kunnen maken bij deze moeilijke beslissing krijgt een vrouw vijf dagen bedenktijd. Voor het CDA zijn deze vijf dagen erg belangrijk. Het geeft de vrouw de tijd om de beste oplossing voor haar situatie te kiezen.

Abortus valt onder de Wet afbreking zwangerschap (WAZ). Het CDA staat achter de uitgangspunten van deze wet: het bieden van bescherming aan ongeboren leven en hulp bieden aan vrouwen die zich als gevolg van een ongewenste zwangerschap in een noodsituatie bevinden.

Het kabinet  gaat heel zorgvuldig om met discussies over dit thema. Soms zijn er verschillen in opvatting tussen partijen en personen over bijvoorbeeld abortus of andere medisch ethische zaken. Het CDA vindt het belangrijk dat deze zorgvuldigheid en het respect tegenover elkaar de leidraad vormt bij al deze thema’s.

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Nederlands kabinet heeft begrip voor liquidatie Soleimani/Brief aan CDA, regeringspartij, die zich laat voorstaan op haar ”christelijke” moraal

Filed under Divers

Kom uit je Bubbel borrel van Jonge Socialisten Brabant met jongerenclub Forum voor Democratie/Normalisering fascisme/Brief!

KOM UIT JE BUBBEL BORREL VAN JONGE SOCIALISTEN BRABANT MET JONGERENCLUB FORUM VOOR DEMOCRATIE/NORMALISERING FASCISME
AANHET BESTUUR VAN JONGE SOCIALISTEN BRABANT

Image result for Thierry Baudet/Images
Image result for Thierry Baudet/Images

THIERRY BAUDET, LEIDER FORUM VOOR DEMOCRATIE:”IK WIL GRAAG DAT EUROPA DOMINANT,BLANK EN  CULTUREEL BLIJFT, ZOALS HET IS”
YOUTUBE.COM
THIERRY BAUDET BIJ HET DEBAT ”DE VLUCHTWEEK”,RADIOZENDER FM, DONDERDAG 17 SEPTEMBER 2015

‘”Het fundamentele gebrek aan zelfvertrouwen, dat wijhebben in onze cultuur, die zelfhaat……de Nederlandsebevolking homeopathisch te verdunnen met alle volkerenvan de wereld, doordat we….er nooit meer een Nederlander zal bestaan,zodat wie wij zijn niet meer gestalte…….heeft allemaal EEN oorzaak en die oorzaak is onze cultuur van zelfhaat.”


YOUTUBE.COM
DE ZELFHAAT VAN THIERRY BAUDET

”Door de komst van grote groepen (islamitische) immigranten zijn een aantal verworvenheden en kernwaarden van onze samenleving onder druk komen te staan. ”
FORUM VOOR DEMOCRATIEWET BESCHERMING NEDERLANDSE WAARDEN

https://forumvoordemocratie.nl/standpunten/wet-bnw

jfvdborrel

Image result for ouderwetse vulpen/Foto's
Image result for middeleeuws zwaard

BESTRIJD FASCISME MET DE PEN EN HET ZWAARD!


Onderwerp: ”Buiten je bubbel borrel met JFVD”

Geacht Bestuur,Beste Jonge Socialisten
Om te beginnen een Gezond, Goed en Strijdbaar 2020 toegewenst.Om maar met de deur in huis te vallen:Wat die Strijdbaarheid betreft zijn jullie het Nieuwe Jaar wel heel slecht begonnen, door voor aanstaande donderdag, 23 januari, een borrel te ”kom uit je bubbel” genaamd, te organiseren met de jongerenclub van Neerlands Boreale Partij, het Forum voor Democratie, met als voorman Thierry Baudet. [1]Hoe halen jullie het in jullie Rode Hoofd?
Moet aan jullie nogmaals worden uitgelegd, wat het Forum voor Democratie is en waar zij voor staat?Het lijkt er veel op en in onderstaande dus een nadere toelichting, waaraan gekoppeld een dringende oproep, met de snelheid van Zoef de Haas [2] deze borrel te cancelen.
Maar eerst het volgende
JULLIE STATEMENT
Uiteraard was/ben ik benieuwd naar jullie motieven, aangezien ik ervan overtuigd was/ben, dat jullie het verderfelijke gedachtegoed van Baudet en consorten niet delen.Ik kwam toen dus uit bij het Statement over ”kom uit je bubbel” [3], waarvan ik aanneem, dat het van jullie komt en niet van het Landelijk Bestuur.Dat concludeer ik uit de zin”Ten eerste willen wij duidelijk maken dat het niet de bedoeling is dat andere afdelingen vragen of commentaar krijgen over onze activiteit. Wij dragen als afdeling Brabant de verantwoordelijkheid voor onze activiteit en doen dat dan ook graag.” [4]

Ik heb die verklaring zo eens doorgelezen en vind het eerlijk gezegd maar slappe was.Want jullie hebben het dan wel over ”verwerpelijke standpunten” [5], maar dat beschrijft, mijns inziens nog in de verste verte niet, hoe gevaarlijk deze partij is.Waarom om de hete brij heendraaien en niet gewoon benoemen, wat FvD is.Een fascistische partij! [6]
En met fascisten praat je niet, die bestrijd je.
Wat jullie schrijven en met die borrel denken te bereiken, is dan ook een volledige illusie, een luchtspiegeling!Ik citeer
”Juist doordat wij de standpunten van het Forum zo verwerpelijk vinden willen wij met de leden van deze partij in gesprek. In onze ogen kan het publieke debat niet gevoerd worden zonder dat partijen weten hoe hun tegenstanders in elkaar zitten.” [7]
In de eerste plaats weet het FvD, en dus ook hun jongerenclub, heel goed, hoe jullie in elkaar zitten en waar jullie voor staan.En dat weten jullie ook van hen.In de tweede plaats heeft praten met fascisten geen zin, omdat het enige, dat zij willen, is de geesten rijp maken voor een allesvernietigende en mensvijandige maatschappijstructuur en dan de macht grijpen.En in de derde plaats en dat vind ik nog wel het gevaarlijkste, door met hen te borrelen, normaliseren jullie deze partij, die helaas al verregaand een arrivee is in het politiek-maatschappelijke klimaat.En daarmee: het fascisme…..Dat heeft het verleden meer dan duidelijk gemaakt.

NOG EVEN/FORUM VOOR DEMOCRATIE IN A NUTSHELL
Een uitleg dus over FvD en waar zij voor staat:Daarvoor enkele uitspraken van Thierry Baudet, Forum voor Democratie’s voorman, geciteerd:
””’Ik wil graag, dat Europa dominant blank en cultureel blijft zoals het is”EN ”Ik wil niet dat Europa Afrikaniseert” [8]
Baudet  over de ”homeopathische verdunning vande Nederlandse bevolking.
Ik citeer hem :””Het fundamentele gebrek aan zelfvertrouwen, dat wijhebben in onze cultuur, die zelfhaat……de Nederlandsebevolking homeopathisch te verdunnen met alle volkerenvan de wereld, doordat we….er nooit meer een Nederlander zal bestaan,zodat wie wij zijn niet meer gestalte…….heeft allemaal EEN oorzaaken die oorzaak is onze cultuur van zelfhaat.”  [9]
Deze uitspraken zijn, moet ik dat nog zeggen? onversneden klassiek racisme, het ”blank”willen houden van Europa, de afkeer van andere [hier Afrikaanse]culturen, de weerzin tegen ”vermenging” van volkeren, opgemerkt in de ”homeopathische verdunning van de Nederlandse bevolking [10]
Ook is Baudet kennelijk niet vies van het Nederlandse slavernij enkoloniale verleden:
Ik citeer:
””Inderdaad, we zijn in Europa eigenlijk nooit teruggeschrokken voor idealen die voorbij onze horizon lagen. Integendeel: we kozen ze juist als leidraad: eerst het verre Jerusalem, daarna het oude Athene – weer later waren het de uitgestrekte zeeën en niet-ontdekte landen daarginds, waarheen we zeilden en waarvan we terugkwamen met nieuwe specerijen, nieuwe uitvindingen, nieuwe technieken.Hoe verder weg, hoe uitdagender. Xenofobie is ons wezensvreemd – geen enkele andere cultuur op aarde is ooit zo open en pluriform geweest als de onze altijd geweest is, en mede daardoor hebben wij ons, onder deze sterrenhemel, op het schiereiland van Azië, in de delta van continentale riviermondingen, altijd kunnen vernieuwen en ontwikkelen – heeft ons boreaal Europa steeds de bouwstenen gevonden voor kruisbestuiving, nieuwe vonken: wedergeboortes.”  [11]
Baudet ziet het koloniale Verleden dus als iets glorieus, wat raakt aan een van de belangrijkste kenmerken van het fascisme.Het verheerlijken van het ”glorieuze”’verleden.In Nazi Duitsland waren het de Vrije Germaanse stammen [uit de tijd, dat het concept of race niet bestond, dat zou komen in de 17e eeuw, als een gemarkeerde ”rechtvaardiging voor de transatlantische slavenhandel/slavernij]Voor Mussolini was het het Romeinse Rijk [lang voor het concept of race dus]

Voor Baudet is dat het ”Boreale Europa”, whatever that may be.
Deze Gevaarlijke Boreale Nonsens zie je ook terugkomen in de superenge verkiezingsoverwinningsspeech van Baudet [na de FvD overwinning bij de Provinciale Staten verkiezingen], waarbij hij zijn superioriteitswaan en ook nog eens a historische nonsens [want de door hem geprezen ”Westerse beschaving” had zijn wortels, via Griekenland, in het Oosten en was, na de chaos van de vroege Middeleeuwen, via de Moren/Spanje, weer gedeeltelijk hersteld [12] vrolijk en vrijelijk spuideIk citeer”Te midden van de brokstukken van wat ooit de mooiste, grootste beschaving was die de wereld ooit heeft gekend. Een beschaving die alle uithoeken van de wereld bestreek, die vol zelfvertrouwen was….[13]En ook zijn afkeer van alles wat niet-westers isIk citeer uit zijn overwinningsspeech” De schoonheid van Nederland was mij niet zo duidelijk op het netvlies gekomen als ons mooie land niet zo was verkwanseld door de bestuurders van het kartel. Sterker, als dit alles niet was gebeurd, deze ongecontroleerde immigratie die ons straatbeeld zo vertekent……” [14]

Moet ik nog meer voorbeelden noemen”Ik dacht het niet.
Jullie kennen ze ook en weten dondersgoed wie en wat Forum voor Democratie is en waar zij voor staan.Waarom jullie dan tochj het onzalige idee gekomen zijn, met de leden van een dergelijke club te gaan borrelen, is mij en vele anderen een raadsel.
Ik verwijs naar de brief van Antifa Brabant, die ook, terecht, heeft geprotesteerd tegen jullie hopelijk NIET aanstaande ”Kom uit je Bubbel” borrel [15]
TENSLOTTE
Het is al erg genoeg, dat deze club, het FvD door grote delen van het politiek-maatschappelijke veld is geaccepteerd en salonfahig is gemaakt, ook door organisaties, die beter zouden moeten weten, het Nationaal Comite 4 en 5 mei  [16]

GENOEG GEPRAAT!
Tegen het licht van wat deze partij is en waar ze voor staat, hetgeen jullie bekend is- rest er jullie maar een optie en dat is:
Zo snel mogelijk jullie ”Bubbel” borrel met de JFVD cancelen.
Met fascisten praat je niet.Die bestrijd je.
Ik hoop op jullie blijvend te kunnen rekenen bij de bestrijding van fascisme, te beginnen bij het cancelen van deze Borrel.

Vriendelijke groeten
Astrid EssedAmsterdam 

NOTEN

[1]
BRABANT,JS.NLSTATEMENT OVER DE ”KOM UIT JE BUBBEL BORREL”
https://brabant.js.nl/nieuws/statement-over-de-kom-uit-je-bubbel-borrel/
31 DECEMBER 2019

Lieve leden,

Allereerst willen wij jullie natuurlijk een gelukkig nieuw jaar wensen. Wij hebben ontzettend veel zin om het komende jaar weer veel activiteiten en acties te organiseren, maar eerst moeten we het hebben over onze komende activiteit met het JFVD.

Sinds wij de aankondigingen van de ‘kom uit je bubbel borrel’ met JFVD online hebben gezet, hebben wij veel reacties gekregen. Vele van die reacties waren positief en enthousiast, maar we hebben ook wat negatievere reacties binnen gekregen. Eerder waren er binnen verschillende JS-afdelingen en facebookgroepen al discussies ontstaan. Deze week werd onze activiteit gedeeld door Sylvana Simons, wat weer een nieuwe lading aan reacties veroorzaakte. Het is wegens deze reacties dat wij dit statement schrijven.

Ten eerste willen wij duidelijk maken dat het niet de bedoeling is dat andere afdelingen vragen of commentaar krijgen over onze activiteit. Wij dragen als afdeling Brabant de verantwoordelijkheid voor onze activiteit en doen dat dan ook graag. Voor vragen over de activiteit kunnen jullie uiteraard bij ons terecht, en niet bij andere besturen binnen de JS.

Daarnaast willen wij benadrukken dat het Forum voor Democratie in onze ogen verwerpelijke standpunten uitdraagt. De waarden van het FVD staan in elk opzicht lijnrecht tegenover die van ons en zullen daarom altijd door ons van een menselijker en rechtvaardiger tegengeluid worden voorzien.

Dit is ook de reden waarom wij het nog steeds toegevoegde waarde vinden hebben om de borrel met het JFVD te organiseren. Juist doordat wij de standpunten van het Forum zo verwerpelijk vinden willen wij met de leden van deze partij in gesprek. In onze ogen kan het publieke debat niet gevoerd worden zonder dat partijen weten hoe hun tegenstanders in elkaar zitten.

Door uit onze eigen bubbel te stappen zijn wij beter in staat om de standpunten van het JFVD te leren kennen, om daarna ons eigen geluid beter vorm te geven. Alleen zo kunnen wij de Nederlandse kiezer, die het FVD als een serieuze optie ziet, echt begrijpen en overtuigen. Alleen met echte kennis van elkaars standpunten komen we verder in het onze maatschappij.

Er is gekozen voor een borrel in plaats van een debat, om zo veel mogelijk individuele leden de kans te geven om te praten over de onderwerpen die het dichtst bij hen liggen. Dit zou niet mogelijk zijn in een debat, omdat dan via een beperkt aantal stellingen gewerkt zou moeten worden. Verder zouden wij het niet wenselijk vinden als een kleine groep steeds het woord neemt, terwijl wij juist iedereen bij de discussie willen betrekken.

Natuurlijk begrijpen wij dat deze borrel niet voor iedereen geschikt is. We kunnen het ons heel goed voorstellen dat sommige leden niet zitten te wachten op een borrel met mensen met een compleet ander wereldbeeld. Echter willen wij de leden die dat gesprek juist wel willen voeren ook de kans daartoe aanbieden. Zelf kijken wij enorm uit naar de borrel en we hopen natuurlijk om veel van jullie te zien in Tilburg.

Wij hopen met dit bericht duidelijkheid te hebben geschept over deze borrel. Voor verdere vragen kunnen jullie terecht bij Lukas.

Met onverminderd rode groet,Het Bestuur 

[2]

WIKIPEDIAZOEF DE HAAS

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoef_de_Haas

[3]

BRABANT,JS.NLSTATEMENT OVER DE ”KOM UIT JE BUBBEL BORREL”
https://brabant.js.nl/nieuws/statement-over-de-kom-uit-je-bubbel-borrel/
31 DECEMBER 2019

Lieve leden,

Allereerst willen wij jullie natuurlijk een gelukkig nieuw jaar wensen. Wij hebben ontzettend veel zin om het komende jaar weer veel activiteiten en acties te organiseren, maar eerst moeten we het hebben over onze komende activiteit met het JFVD.

Sinds wij de aankondigingen van de ‘kom uit je bubbel borrel’ met JFVD online hebben gezet, hebben wij veel reacties gekregen. Vele van die reacties waren positief en enthousiast, maar we hebben ook wat negatievere reacties binnen gekregen. Eerder waren er binnen verschillende JS-afdelingen en facebookgroepen al discussies ontstaan. Deze week werd onze activiteit gedeeld door Sylvana Simons, wat weer een nieuwe lading aan reacties veroorzaakte. Het is wegens deze reacties dat wij dit statement schrijven.

Ten eerste willen wij duidelijk maken dat het niet de bedoeling is dat andere afdelingen vragen of commentaar krijgen over onze activiteit. Wij dragen als afdeling Brabant de verantwoordelijkheid voor onze activiteit en doen dat dan ook graag. Voor vragen over de activiteit kunnen jullie uiteraard bij ons terecht, en niet bij andere besturen binnen de JS.

Daarnaast willen wij benadrukken dat het Forum voor Democratie in onze ogen verwerpelijke standpunten uitdraagt. De waarden van het FVD staan in elk opzicht lijnrecht tegenover die van ons en zullen daarom altijd door ons van een menselijker en rechtvaardiger tegengeluid worden voorzien.

Dit is ook de reden waarom wij het nog steeds toegevoegde waarde vinden hebben om de borrel met het JFVD te organiseren. Juist doordat wij de standpunten van het Forum zo verwerpelijk vinden willen wij met de leden van deze partij in gesprek. In onze ogen kan het publieke debat niet gevoerd worden zonder dat partijen weten hoe hun tegenstanders in elkaar zitten.

Door uit onze eigen bubbel te stappen zijn wij beter in staat om de standpunten van het JFVD te leren kennen, om daarna ons eigen geluid beter vorm te geven. Alleen zo kunnen wij de Nederlandse kiezer, die het FVD als een serieuze optie ziet, echt begrijpen en overtuigen. Alleen met echte kennis van elkaars standpunten komen we verder in het onze maatschappij.

Er is gekozen voor een borrel in plaats van een debat, om zo veel mogelijk individuele leden de kans te geven om te praten over de onderwerpen die het dichtst bij hen liggen. Dit zou niet mogelijk zijn in een debat, omdat dan via een beperkt aantal stellingen gewerkt zou moeten worden. Verder zouden wij het niet wenselijk vinden als een kleine groep steeds het woord neemt, terwijl wij juist iedereen bij de discussie willen betrekken.

Natuurlijk begrijpen wij dat deze borrel niet voor iedereen geschikt is. We kunnen het ons heel goed voorstellen dat sommige leden niet zitten te wachten op een borrel met mensen met een compleet ander wereldbeeld. Echter willen wij de leden die dat gesprek juist wel willen voeren ook de kans daartoe aanbieden. Zelf kijken wij enorm uit naar de borrel en we hopen natuurlijk om veel van jullie te zien in Tilburg.

Wij hopen met dit bericht duidelijkheid te hebben geschept over deze borrel. Voor verdere vragen kunnen jullie terecht bij Lukas.

Met onverminderd rode groet,Het Bestuur

[4]

”Ten eerste willen wij duidelijk maken dat het niet de bedoeling is dat andere afdelingen vragen of commentaar krijgen over onze activiteit. Wij dragen als afdeling Brabant de verantwoordelijkheid voor onze activiteit en doen dat dan ook graag.

BRABANT,JS.NLSTATEMENT OVER DE ”KOM UIT JE BUBBEL BORREL”
https://brabant.js.nl/nieuws/statement-over-de-kom-uit-je-bubbel-borrel/

[5]

”Daarnaast willen wij benadrukken dat het Forum voor Democratie in onze ogen verwerpelijke standpunten uitdraagt.
BRABANT,JS.NLSTATEMENT OVER DE ”KOM UIT JE BUBBEL BORREL”
https://brabant.js.nl/nieuws/statement-over-de-kom-uit-je-bubbel-borrel/

[6]
DE WERELD MORGEN. BENATIONAAL COMITE 4 EN 5 MEI INTERVIEWT THIERRY BAUDET EN NOEMT HEM ”INSPIREREND”/NORMALISERING FASCISMEASTRID ESSED6 MEI 2019
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/nationaal-comite-4-en-5-mei-interviewt-thierry-baudet-en-noemt-hem-inspirerend-normalisering-fascisme/

DE VALSE PIANO VAN BAUDET
https://valsepianobaudet.noblogs.org/

IKJEBLOGSPOTIS THIERRY BAUDET GEEN FASCIST 2.0? ECHT NIET?
http://ikje.blogspot.com/2016/02/is-thierry-baudet-geen-neofascist-20.html

ZIE OOK
http://ikje.blogspot.com/2016/02/is-thierry-baudet-geen-neofascist-20.html#bijlage-alt-right

ZIE OOK
IKJEBLOGSPOTOLLONGREN VERSUS BAUDET. MORRELT FVD AAN HET TABOE OP RACISME?
http://ikje.blogspot.com/2018/02/ollengren-versus-baudet.html

[7]

”Juist doordat wij de standpunten van het Forum zo verwerpelijk vinden willen wij met de leden van deze partij in gesprek. In onze ogen kan het publieke debat niet gevoerd worden zonder dat partijen weten hoe hun tegenstanders in elkaar zitten.” 

BRABANT,JS.NLSTATEMENT OVER DE ”KOM UIT JE BUBBEL BORREL”
https://brabant.js.nl/nieuws/statement-over-de-kom-uit-je-bubbel-borrel/

[8] 

YOUTUBE.COM
THIERRY BAUDET: ”IK WIL GRAAG DAT EUROPA DOMINANT,BLANK EN  CULTUREEL BLIJFT, ZOALS HET IS”[THIERRY BAUDET BIJ HET DEBAT ”DE VLUCHTWEEK”,RADIOZENDER FM, DONDERDAG 17 SEPTEMBER 2015]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpBzt9PyU5w

TRANSCRIPTIE  [GESPREKSPARTNER]”Wat maakt het uit, als die mensen niet teruggaan?Dat is helemaal niet relevant.[PRESENTRATRICE]”Maar…..”[GESPREKSPARTNER]”Ik erger mij een beetje aan de houding….”[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik vind het wel relevant!”[PRESENTRATRICE]”Maar Thierry, waarom is….[THIERRY BAUDET]”Omdat ik niet wil, dat Europa Afrikaniseert….”[GESPREKSPARTNER];;”Deze opmerking van Thierry vind ik best wel kwalijk,als je bedenkt, dat 20 procent van migranten, die naar Europakomen, Afrikanen zijn.Dus zo’n complete demonisering van Afrikanen is niet nodig.Tegelijkertijd…..[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik demoniseer niet, ik zeg wat ik wil, wat ik wenselijk vind enwat ik niet wenselijk vind.En wat ik  niet wenselijk vind, is dat wij veel meer gaan lijkenop delen van de wereld waar heel veel mensen weg willen….”[PRESENTRATRICE]”Je wil zeg maar een bepaald Europees goed.wil je eigenlijkzo houden zoals het is..Op zich mag dat….”’[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik wil graag, dat Europa dominant, blank en cultureel blijft zoals het is.”
  EINDE YOUTUBE FILMPJE 

[9] 
YOUTUBE.COMDE ZELFHAAT VAN THIERRY BAUDET  

TRANSCRIPTIE
  ”Het fundamentele gebrek aan zelfvertrouwen, dat wijhebben in onze cultuur, die zelfhaat……de Nederlandsebevolking homeopathisch te verdunnen met alle volkerenvan de wereld, doordat we….er nooit meer een Nederlander zal bestaan,zodat wie wij zijn niet meer gestalte…….heeft allemaal EEN oorzaaken die oorzaak is onze cultuur van zelfhaat.”  EINDE YOUTUBE FILMPJE

[10]

YOUTUBE.COMDE ZELFHAAT VAN THIERRY BAUDET  

TRANSCRIPTIE
  ”Het fundamentele gebrek aan zelfvertrouwen, dat wijhebben in onze cultuur, die zelfhaat……de Nederlandsebevolking homeopathisch te verdunnen met alle volkerenvan de wereld, doordat we….er nooit meer een Nederlander zal bestaan,zodat wie wij zijn niet meer gestalte…….heeft allemaal EEN oorzaaken die oorzaak is onze cultuur van zelfhaat.”  EINDE YOUTUBE FILMPJE

[10]
”Inderdaad, we zijn in Europa eigenlijk nooit teruggeschrokken voor idealen die voorbij onze horizon lagen. Integendeel: we kozen ze juist als leidraad: eerst het verre Jerusalem, daarna het oude Athene – weer later waren het de uitgestrekte zeeën en niet-ontdekte landen daarginds, waarheen we zeilden en waarvan we terugkwamen met nieuwe specerijen, nieuwe uitvindingen, nieuwe technieken.Hoe verder weg, hoe uitdagender. Xenofobie is ons wezensvreemd – geen enkele andere cultuur op aarde is ooit zo open en pluriform geweest als de onze altijd geweest is, en mede daardoor hebben wij ons, onder deze sterrenhemel, op het schiereiland van Azië, in de delta van continentale riviermondingen, altijd kunnen vernieuwen en ontwikkelen – heeft ons boreaal Europa steeds de bouwstenen gevonden voor kruisbestuiving, nieuwe vonken: wedergeboortes.” 
THIERRY BAUDET: FVD IS HET VLAGGESCHIP VAN DE RENASSANCEVLOOT15 JANUARI 2017
https://forumvoordemocratie.nl/actueel/toespraak-thierry-baudet-fvd-alv-2017

TEKST  

Je hoeft de metafysische stellingnames van het Christendom niet te onderschrijven om de wederopstandingsgedachte als toonaangevend motief van onze beschaving te kunnen waarderen. Het idee dat iets dat ‘dood’ was, iets dat achter ons ligt, iets dat voorgoed voorbij was, opnieuw tot bloei kan komen, heeft heel veel voor ons betekend. Zo inspireerde het ons bijvoorbeeld aan het eind van de Middeleeuwen om de klassieke oudheid weer in onze cultuur te incorporeren – in de periode die we aanduiden als de renaissance.

Waar Mao Zedong het verleden van China heeft willen uitwissen; waar de Communistische revolutie alles wat er daarvoor bestond vernietigde; waar de Islamitische staat vandaag de dag musea met de grond gelijkmaakt – daar kozen wij in het Westen ervoor om alles te onderzoeken en het goede te behouden; om juist voorbij ons eigen begripsveld te kijken naar wat ons kon verrijken.

Inderdaad, we zijn in Europa eigenlijk nooit teruggeschrokken voor idealen die voorbij onze horizon lagen. Integendeel: we kozen ze juist als leidraad: eerst het verre Jerusalem, daarna het oude Athene – weer later waren het de uitgestrekte zeeën en niet-ontdekte landen daarginds, waarheen we zeilden en waarvan we terugkwamen met nieuwe specerijen, nieuwe uitvindingen, nieuwe technieken.

Hoe verder weg, hoe uitdagender. Xenofobie is ons wezensvreemd – geen enkele andere cultuur op aarde is ooit zo open en pluriform geweest als de onze altijd geweest is, en mede daardoor hebben wij ons, onder deze sterrenhemel, op het schiereiland van Azië, in de delta van continentale riviermondingen, altijd kunnen vernieuwen en ontwikkelen – heeft ons boreaal Europa steeds de bouwstenen gevonden voor kruisbestuiving, nieuwe vonken: wedergeboortes.

Maar onze openheid staat onder druk. Onze vrije, tolerante, vrijzinnige, nieuwsgierige, humoristische, vrolijke en democratische samenleving verkeert in levensgevaar – is zelfs dodelijk gewond.

We moeten haar echter niet achterlaten; we moeten niet denken dat wat voorbij is, voor altijd voorbij is: we moeten haar juist in de beste traditie van het Westen, opnieuw tot leven wekken. We moeten een Europese renaissance teweeg brengen.

Deze grote taak wil Forum voor Democratie samen met anderen op zich nemen. Ik ben vereerd en blij dat we vandaag met zovelen bij elkaar zijn om daar samen een begin mee te maken.

Misschien stonden we nooit voor een grotere, meer existentiële uitdaging dan nu. Misschien waren de tijden nooit moeilijker dan nu. We zijn in het verleden natuurlijk weleens aangevallen, zelfs veroverd. Het water heeft ons in dit mooie land ook letterlijk weleens aan de lippen gestaan. We hebben glorierijke momenten gekend, maar we hebben ook diepe crises met elkaar meegemaakt in de vele eeuwen van onze gedeelde geschiedenis. En we hebben ons er steeds doorheen geslagen.

Nu worden we aangevallen door een vijand die we nog niet eerder tegenover ons hebben gehad. Een atypische vijand. Een vijand die ons eigen uniform draagt.

We worden aangevallen door degenen die ons zouden moeten beschermen.

Zij die zouden moeten waken over onze integriteit, onze cultuur en onze tradities: zij die een verantwoordelijkheid dragen voor het voortbestaan van de gemeenschap; juist zij, juist deze mensen hebben zich – van binnenuit – tegen ons gekeerd.

Het Westen lijdt aan een auto-immuunziekte. Een deel van ons organisme – een belangrijk deel: ons afweersysteem, datgene wat ons zou moeten beschermen – heeft zich tegen ons gekeerd. Op elk vlak worden we verzwakt, ondermijnd, overgeleverd.

Kwaadwillende, agressieve elementen worden ons maatschappelijk lichaam in ongehoorde aantallen binnengeloodst, en de werkelijke toedracht en gevolgen worden verdoezeld. Politierapporten over geweld in AZC’s worden niet in de openbaarheid gebracht. Het openbaar ministerie knijpt een oogje toe wanneer het shariarechtbanken tegenkomt.

Op universiteiten wordt het vrije woord ingeperkt, het open debat mag niet meer plaatsvinden. Kritiek op Islam, maar ook onderzoek naar de kosten van de massa-immigratie en überhaupt het debat over de botsing van culturen wordt gefrustreerd.

Al decennia domineert in de internationale betrekkingen een al even zelfdestructieve politiek, waarin Westers gezinde leiders, of in elk geval mensen waarmee we afspraken konden maken – van de Sjah in Perzië tot Assad in Syrië – worden ondermijnd of zelfs ten val gebracht, ten gunste van wat de NPO ‘gematigde rebellen’ noemt: islamisten die vrouwen en homo’s onderdrukken en alle Westerse waarden verachten. Ook sturen onze elites aan op oorlog met Rusland, zonder enige reden, zonder enig belang – terwijl we zoete broodjes bakken met Turkije.

De controle over ons bestaan wordt ons ondertussen op sluipende wijze steeds verder ontnomen door doortrapte soevereiniteitsoverdrachten naar onpersoonlijke politieke megaprojecten waarin burgers elke democratische controle zijn verloren. Zo werden het afgelopen jaar zelfs de pensioenen in een achternamiddag onder EU-toezicht gesteld. Tegelijkertijd werd elke maand 80 miljard euro geld bijgedrukt door Draghi. Multinationals profiteren van continentale regelgeving maar het MKB zucht onder verstikkende bureaucratie.

De reden dat al deze zaken kunnen voortduren is dat wij als bevolking vrijwel niets te zeggen hebben. We leven in een schijndemocratie, waarin verschillende politieke spelers tezamen een kartel vormen, en een publieke omroep hebben gecoöpteerd die dagelijks hun schijndebatten uitzendt. Minder dan 10.000 mensen draaien rond in een baantjescarrousel, waarin ze van topfunctie bij de zorgverzekeraars, naar burgemeesterspost, naar bestuursfunctie in de onderwijsraden en bouwend Nederland gaan. De enige kwaliteit van deze kartelleden is hun loyaliteit aan de partijtop, en hun enige activiteit is vergaderen. Vandaar dat overal regels voor zijn en de kosten van de bureaucratie de spuigaten uitlopen. Nog fundamenteler: de dynamiek is uit de samenleving verdwenen. Het partijkartel ligt als een dikke deken over de samenleving en houdt de gelederen gesloten. Als bevolking kunnen we geen kant op. Waar moet je op stemmen als je verandering wil?

Jarenlang was er geen serieuze optie. Even leek er een lichtpuntje te verschijnen in de donkere nacht van onze ten grave gedragen democratie toen we een campagne voerden voor een referendum. Maar dames en heren, gister zat ik in de rechtszaal voor de meervoudige kamer van de rechtbank Den Haag. Op 6 april gingen 4.2 miljoen Nederlanders naar de stembus. Ruim 61 procent stemde TEGEN.

En ik zat in de rechtszaal om een uitspraak van de rechter te krijgen over het getreuzel en gepruttel van onze minister-president. Zo ver is het gekomen in ons land: we moeten een rechtszaak voeren om te zorgen dat onze regering zich aan de wet houdt. Alles om de burger buiten spel te houden.

De nasleep van dat tweede genegeerde referendum, na het eerste genegeerde referendum van 1 juni 2005, heeft ons vanuit Forum voor Democratie doen besluiten dat het noodzakelijk is om een politieke partij te vormen en Den Haag van binnenuit open te breken.

Als wij met miljoenen naar de stembus gaan om onze stem te laten horen, en zelfs dan wordt er helemaal niets mee gedaan: dan moeten we onze stem zelf gaan terugpakken.

Dames en heren, het is nooit urgenter geweest dan nu; het is nooit noodzakelijker geweest dan nu, dat mensen van goede wil de handen ineen slaan om de banden met onze tradities te herstellen, om onze kracht te hervinden en nieuwe kruisbestuivingen tot stand te laten komen: om al het goede dat we in de wereld kunnen vinden te verbinden met onze oude wortels en zo het land weer te laten bloeien.

Wij gaan bouwen. We gaan een partij bouwen met een opleidingsinstituut, lokale afdelingen, een sociaal netwerk. We gaan een nieuwe elite opleiden; we gaan de huidige leiders vervangen en verslaan. Jullie hebben vandaag ons team gezien – fantastische mensen met verschillende discplines, maar allemaal een grote drive om de noodzakelijke veranderingen te realiseren.

Wij hebben de mensen om de Europese Unie te verslaan; wij hebben concrete oplossingen om de massa-immigratie te stoppen; wij hebben de mensen die de controle over onze grenzen kunnen herstellen en de euromunt te ontvlechten: zodat we weer baas worden over ons eigen land.

We zullen niet rusten totdat onze democratie is hersteld en het partijkartel is gebroken. We gaan bindende referenda en volksinitiatieven introduceren, open solicitaties voor publieke functies, gekozen burgemeesters en sanering van de partijdige en vooringenomen NPO.

We gaan opnieuw voorbij onze horizon reiken: we gaan een renaissance teweeg brengen, waarin ons zelfvertrouwen is hersteld, waarin we weer veilig kunnen leven in een vertrouwde omgeving: waarin de democratische rechtsstaat is hersteld en de economische en culturele dynamiek kan terugkeren.

Dat doen we graag samen met alle andere partijen en bewegingen die ons willen versterken. Forum voor Democratie is het vlaggeschip van de renaissancevloot, en andere schepen kunnen zich bij ons voegen. We willen met iedereen samenwerken. We gaan niet onderling ruziemaken. Maar we gaan ook geen lijstverbindingen aan: we vertrouwen op eigen kracht – eigenlijk zoals Nederland ook weer op eigen kracht zou moeten vertrouwen.Dames en Heren, we gaan deze partij van de grond krijgen, we gaan op deze rots onze zuil bouwen, we gaan ons land terugveroveren en onze democratie herstellen – WE PAKKEN ONZE STEM TERUG op 15 maart!
THIERRY BAUDET: FVD IS HET VLAGGESCHIP VAN DE RENASSANCEVLOOT15 JANUARI 2017
https://forumvoordemocratie.nl/actueel/toespraak-thierry-baudet-fvd-alv-2017

[12]

DE WERELD MORGEN.BETHE MOORISH RULE IN MEDIEVAL SPAIN/HOW THE MOORS BROUGHT CIVILIZATION TO EUROPEASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/the-moorish-rule-in-medieval-spain-how-the-moors-brought-civilization-to-europe/

https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/the-moorish-rule-in-medieval-spain-how-the-moors-brought-civilization-to-europe/

YOUTUBE.COM

WHEN THE MOORS RULED IN EUROPE

[13] 

Te midden van de brokstukken van wat ooit de mooiste, grootste beschaving was die de wereld ooit heeft gekend. Een beschaving die alle uithoeken van de wereld bestreek, die vol zelfvertrouwen was…. 

LEEUWARDER COURANT

LEES HIER DE VOLLEDIGE TOESPRAAK VAN THIERRY BAUDET TERUG

https://www.lc.nl/extra/Lees-hier-de-volledige-toespraak-van-Thierry-Baudet-terug-24292228.html

De Uil van Minerva spreidt zijn vleugels bij het vallen van de avond. En dat geldt niet alleen voor deze avond, beste vrienden, beste campagnegenoten, beste partijgenoten, beste kompanen. Nu pas in deze laatste uren van de dag namelijk komen de polls binnen, komen de nieuwtjes binnen, weten we hoe we er voorstaan, hebben we kennis over wat er vandaag gebeurd is.

Maar die Uil van Minerva die slaat niet alleen op deze avond pas zijn vleugels op. Het is breder, vaak duurt het tot het moment dat het bijna voorbij is, voordat we ons realiseren wat we hebben, en wat we hadden moeten koesteren.

Als het bijna te laat is. En zo staan we hier. Vanavond, te elfder ure, letterlijk. Te midden van de brokstukken van wat ooit de mooiste, grootste beschaving was die de wereld ooit heeft gekend. Een beschaving die alle uithoeken van de wereld bestreek, die vol zelfvertrouwen was. En die de mooiste architectuur, de mooiste muziek en de mooiste schilderkunst heeft voortgebracht die ooit onder de sterrenhemel heeft bestaan. Ons land maakt onder deel uit van die beschavingsfamilie. Maar net als die andere landen van die boreale wereld, worden we kapotgemaakt door mensen die ons juist zouden moeten beschermen. We worden ondermijnd door onze universiteiten, onze journalisten, door de mensen die onze kunstsubsidies ontvangen, en die onze gebouwen ontwerpen. En bovenal worden we ondermijnd door onze bestuurders. Een kliekje, een kliekje omhooggevallen netwerkers, beroepsvergaderaars, mensen die nog nooit een boek hebben gelezen in hun leven, en geen idee hebben wat op de langere termijn de belangrijke issues zijn. Zij beheersen helaas de besluitvormingsorganen van ons land en maken in een merkwaardige mengeling van onkunde en cynisch eigenbelang keer op keer de verkeerde keuzes. Niet lang meer!

Economische onbenul Mark Rutte verhoogt de belastingen op het dieptepunt van de crisis, waardoor de koopkracht ernstig afneemt, de pensioenen niet kunnen worden geïndexeerd en nu, vandaag, in totaal 2,5 miljoen mensen langs de kant staan in onze samenleving. Onder de armoedegrens, werkloos of quasi-werkloos. Vervolgens lieten achtereenvolgende kabinetten Rutte de grenzen wagenwijd open staan en braken die kabinetten immigratierecord na immigratierecord. Met alle immigratie- en integratieproblemen die we al hebben, werden opnieuw honderdduizenden mensen uit totaal andere culturen dan de onze binnengelaten en stemde de coalitie ook nog eens tegen onze motie om de Syriërs die terugkunnen ook te helpen terug te keren. Vervolgens tekenden zij het Marrakech immigratiepact met alle gevolgen die dat de komende jaren ook weer zal hebben.

Een absolute crisis bij de politie dreigt, waardoor onze veiligheid op straat, die al nauwelijks meer kan worden gewaarborgd nog verder onder druk zal komen te staan en we natuurlijk ook afgelopen maandag in Utrecht zagen dat verkrachters, roofovervallers, levensgevaarlijke mensen gewoon vrij rondlopen. Het is een schande.

En er is een kaalslag gaande in ons onderwijs. Er is een bureaucratische woeker in de gezondheidszorg. En beide moeten worden aangepakt. Maar dat zijn niet alle fouten van Rutte. Hij liet bijvoorbeeld ook alle plannen van die verschrikkelijke Europese Unie om de baas over ons te spelen gewoon doorgang vinden. Hij offerde de pulsvissers op. Liet de boeren met hun fosfaatrechten stikken en accepteerde dat ook onze pensioenen nu geleidelijk onder EU-toezicht worden gebracht.

Wat is hier aan de hand? Waarom gebeurde dit allemaal? Men gelooft niet meer in Nederland, dat is zeker. Niet meer in de Westerse beschaving ook. Niet meer in onze taal, die inmiddels is afgeschaft op onze universiteiten. Men gelooft niet meer in onze kunsten, in ons verleden. Men gelooft niet meer in onze feestdagen. Onze helden, onze traditionele stedenbouw. Maar in al dat ongeloof, dat immense vacuüm, dat culturele en spirituele vacuum is tegelijkertijd haast ongemerkt een grandioze ketterij binnengedrongen, een nieuwe immanente religie. Een politieke theologie. De leden van het kartel. Ze geloven in niets, maar vereren tegelijk één afgod, genaamd transitie. Honderden miljarden, wij denken zelfs duizend miljard, als je alle kosten bij elkaar optelt, willen zij offeren op het altaar van deze afgod, in de vorm van windmolens, warmtepompen, zonnepanelen en andere volkomen onrendabele projecten die ons niets brengen, die de planeet niets verder helpen, maar die ons wel heel veel geld kosten en dus heel erg straffen. Het is een masochistische ketterij, dit geseculariseerde zondvloedgeloof dat zich in onze tijd heeft meester gemaakt van de harten en geesten van onze bestuurders. Een manie vergelijkbaar met de doodscultus die ooit Paaseiland teisterde.

En deze duurzaamheidsafgoderij stort niet alleen onze economie in de totale ondergang. Hij is ook bedoeld om onze geest, ons zelfbewustzijn, nog verder te krenken. Inderdaad: schuldgevoel is hetgeen waarmee deze klimaathekserij zich mee voedt. Wij moeten boeten, zo papegaaien de machtszoekende bestuurders van dit land de ecologische hogepriesters na. Het is pure oikofobie, pure zelfhaat. Het is een schuldcomplex, dat blijkbaar een uitweg nodig heeft. En als u er iets van wil zeggen. Als de bevolking zich keert tegen de algehele capitulatie van dit land, als de mensen protesteren. Weet u wat ze dan doen? Dan schaffen ze het referendum af. Dat is de toestand van ons land vandaag.

Die arrogantie, dames en heren, vrienden, die stupiditeit, die is vandaag afgestraft.

Want op deze dag, nu we in deze crisis verkeren, deze schemer, deze zonsondergang. Op deze dag is de Uil van Minerva dan toch opgestegen. Vandaag is Forum van Democratie ofwel de grootste, ofwel de gedeeld grootste, ofwel de een-na-grootste partij van Nederland geworden. De kiezers in Nederland hebben net als de Uil van Minerva hun vleugels uitgespreid, hebben hun ware macht getoond, de uil der wijzen is gaan vliegen en heeft de hele aardkring in beweging gebracht. Want deze vleugels zijn niet alleen vleugels om mee te vliegen. Het zijn ook wieken om lucht mee te slaan. Om een veranderingswind in gang te zetten. Om ons land weer van ons te maken en een einde te maken aan het tijdperk van culturele, economische en politieke capitulatie.

Vrienden, vrienden. Wij hebben niet stilgestaan de afgelopen tijd. We hebben meer dan 2000 cv’s doorgespit, we hebben meer dan 1300 mensen gesproken, we hebben meer dan 600 diepteinterviews afgenomen, we hebben honderden mensen getraind. We hebben fantastische lijsten samengesteld en met die mensen een hoopvolle, optimistische en serieuze campagne gevoerd. Heel Nederland hebben we bezocht in zalen, op straten, in winkelcentra, bij bedrijven zijn we geweest. Scholen, ziekenhuizen, overal. We hebben het land in beweging gekregen.

En het resultaat, dames en heren, het resultaat, vanavond, het resultaat. De zon was mij nooit opgevallen zegt Menno Wigman als hij niet steeds was ondergegaan. De schoonheid van Nederland was mij niet zo duidelijk op het netvlies gekomen als ons mooie land niet zo was verkwanseld door de bestuurders van het kartel. Sterker, als dit alles niet was gebeurd, deze ongecontroleerde immigratie die ons straatbeeld zo vertekent, al die linkse indoctrinatie in het onderwijs, al die lelijke architectuur. En die machtsuitbreiding van de EU, al die klimaatketterij. Als al die gekte niet was gebeurd dan was ik nooit de politiek ingegaan. Maar… maar wij zijn naar het front geroepen. Omdat het moet. Omdat ons land ons nodig heeft. En wij, beste vrienden, wij zijn het product van 300.000 jaar evolutie. Wij hebben meerdere ijstijden overleefd, wij hebben mammoeten gevloerd. Wij zijn dragers, wij zijn erfgenamen van de grootste beschaving die ooit heeft bestaan. Wij dragen een unieke kracht. En, enkele tientallen jaren van indoctrinatie door de media en het onderwijs kunnen dat nooit begraven. Iets wat in ons zit, wat nooit kan worden afgepakt. En vandaag, en dat voel je ook in de zaal, vandaag hebben we gekozen om weer te strijden. Weer te dromen, weer te hopen, weer te vechten. En als ik nu terugkijk op de afgelopen drie jaar, dan is dat het sterkste gevoel dat ik heb. Wat wij samen hebben bereikt. Die zin om weer te bouwen. Die zin om er samen voor te gaan. Dat geloof in de toekomst, en daar wil ik jullie voor bedanken.

Toen wij begonnen, toen wij begonnen aan deze reis om samen met alle mensen die hier nu zijn en nog veel meer mensen handtekeningen te verzamelen voor het referendum over het associatieverdrag met Oekraïne, toen zei iedereen. Iedereen zei: lukt je nooit. Daarna moesten we de 30 procent opkomstdrempel halen. 6 april 2016. Iedereen zei: lukt je nooit. Wij zijn het hele land doorgegaan. Overal geweest, overal gedebatteerd. Iedereen dacht dat het ons niet ging lukken, maar het lukte ons wel. We haalden het, het werd een overweldigend nee. Rutte lachte, iedereen lachte, want er was een inlegvelletje tevoorschijn getoverd weet u nog, waarmee de stem van de bevolking terzijde werd geschoven. Wij namen het niet. Wij accepteerden het niet en wij startten onze eigen partij. En iedereen had het over versplintering en had het over Peppi en Kokki en dit en dat en iedereen zei: lukt je nooit. Maar het lukte ons wel en we kwamen met twee zetels in de Tweede Kamer op 15 maart 2017. En ook toen, ook toen hadden ze hun woorden klaar. Ook toen lachte Mark Rutte en zei: met twee zetels in de Tweede Kamer effectief oppositie voeren lukt je nooit. En hier staan we vanavond. In alle provincies zijn we vertegenwoordigd. In de Eerste Kamer zijn we vertegenwoordigd. Jullie hebben Annabel gehoord.. In Amsterdam zijn we er. Vanavond is hier ook Derk Jan Eppink, die de lijst aanvoert in het Europees Parlement. Ook daar staan we er. En vandaag is dus het moment om een boodschap te sturen aan Mark Rutte en de gevestigde machten. Forum voor Democratie nog langer negeren dat lukt je nooit!

Wij weten als FvD’ers dat je de metafysische grondslagen van het christendom niet hoeft te aanvaarden, om toch de wederopstandingsgedachte als leidend motief van de westerse beschaving te kunnen aanvaarden. Iets dat dood leek, iets dat voorbij leek, iets dat achter ons zou liggen, iets dat definitief achter ons zou liggen, dat kan, zo weten wij, weer tot bloei komen. Het idee dat iets dat dood was, iets dat voorgoed voorbij was, weer tot bloei kan komen, precies dat is onze leidraad, ons leidende motief, ons levensmotto. Want wij zijn de partij van de Wedergeboorte. Van de Renaissance. Dat is wat wij willen bewerkstelligen, en het is nooit urgenter geweest dan nu om dat te bewerkstelligen. Nooit noodzakelijker geweest dan nu, dat mensen van goede wil de handen ineen slaan. Om de banden met onze tradities te herstellen. Om onze kracht te hervinden en nieuwe kruisbestuivingen tot stand te brengen. Om al het goede dat we in de wereld kunnen vinden te verbinden met onze oude wortels en zo ons land weer te laten bloeien.

Wij zijn aan het bouwen. We zijn bezig een partij te bouwen, met een opleidingsinstituut, met lokale afdelingen, met provinciale fracties, met een Eerste Kamerfractie, met een Tweede Kamerfractie, met een Europese Parlementsfractie. We gaan een nieuwe generatie opleiden en we gaan de huidige leiders vervangen en verslaan. Wij hebben de mensen om de EU te verslaan. We hebben concrete oplossingen om de massa-integratie te stoppen. We hebben de mensen die de controle over onze grenzen kunnen herstellen. En om de euromunt te ontvlechten. Zodat wij eindelijk weer de baas worden in ons eigen land. We zullen niet rusten totdat onze democratie is hersteld en het partijkartel is gebroken. We gaan bindende referenda introduceren. Volksinitiatieven. Open sollicitaties voor publieke functies. Gekozen burgemeesters. En wij saneren de NPO. Zo is het. Opnieuw gaan we voorbij onze horizonten reiken. We gaan een renaissance teweegbrengen. Waarin ons zelfvertrouwen is hersteld. Waarin we weer veilig kunnen leven in een vertrouwde omgeving, waarin de democratische rechtsstaat is hersteld. En de economische en culturele dynamiek kan terugkeren. En zoals u weet, doen we dat graag met alle andere partijen en bewegingen die ons willen versterken, want wij zijn het vlaggenschip van de renaissancevloot. En andere schepen kunnen zich bij ons voegen. We willen met iedereen samenwerken. Dat gaan we gestalte geven in de provincies, dat gaan we gestalte geven op nationaal niveau en dat gaan we gestalte geven op Europees niveau.

Want vrienden, wij gaan met deze partij de trots van ons land herstellen. Op deze rots gaan wij onze zuil bouwen. We gaan onze democratie herstellen en vandaag is de eerste grote veldslag gewonnen.

[14]

 De schoonheid van Nederland was mij niet zo duidelijk op het netvlies gekomen als ons mooie land niet zo was verkwanseld door de bestuurders van het kartel. Sterker, als dit alles niet was gebeurd, deze ongecontroleerde immigratie die ons straatbeeld zo vertekent……” 


LEEUWARDER COURANT

LEES HIER DE VOLLEDIGE TOESPRAAK VAN THIERRY BAUDET TERUG

https://www.lc.nl/extra/Lees-hier-de-volledige-toespraak-van-Thierry-Baudet-terug-24292228.html

[15]

ANTIFA BRABANT

OPEN BRIEF AAN JS BRABANT: NIET BORRELEN MET EXTREEM RECHTS!

Op 23 januari houden de Jonge Socialisten Brabant (JS Brabant) samen met de jongerenclub van Forum voor Democratie JFVD in Tilburg samen een bijeenkomst: de Buiten de Bubbel Borrel.(1) Antifa Brabant is van mening dat hiermee het Forum voor Democratie met haar fascistische denkbeelden ten onrechte behandeld wordt als een doodgewone politieke organisatie met wie je gezellig kunt gaan borrelen. Deze normalisering van fascistische organisatie en gedachtengoed dient te worden bestreden. Geen boreaal geborrel, maar strijd tegen fascisme in al haar vormen.

Daarom stelde Antifa Brabant onderstaande brief op. Deze wordt verstuurd aan JS Brabant. Hiermee vragen we aan JS Brabant om niet met deze borrel door te gaan. We vragen mensen om zelf ook soortgelijke brieven op te sturen. Je kunt onderstaande brief overnemen en naar eigen inzicht bewerken om vervolgens op te sturen. Je kunt bijvoorbeeld ‘wij’ vervangen door ‘ik’ als je de brief persoonlijk verstuurt. We hopen dat JS brabant snel besluit omgeen bijdrage te leveren aan het normaliseren van fascisme, en dus aan deze borrel niet deel te nemen.

Stuur je brief aan: jsbrabant@js.nl

Het is aardig, maar absoluut geen must, als je ons een kopietje stuurt, via CC of BCC. Ons mailadres vind je in onze contactinformatie.

Antifa Brabant

Noot:

(1) https://brabant.js.nl/evenement/jfvd-x-js-buiten-je-bubbel-borrel/

——

Tilburg/Eindhoven, 3 januari 2020

Beste mensen van de Jonge Socialisten,

Recent is ons ter ore gekomen dat de Jonge Socialisten een “buiten je bubbel borrel” gepland hebben met de jongeren afdeling van de FVD. Wij jullie met klem om je terug te trekken uit dit evenement.

De normalisering van extreemrechts in Nederland is een serieus probleem waar we al jaren mee kampen. Partijen als de FVD en de PVV groeien maar door met hun extreem-rechtse ideeën. Dit omdat de gewone mens kampt met problemen die voortkomen uit tekortkomingen van onze neoliberale overheid. Zij worden voorgelogen door deze met racistische en gevaarlijke ideeën.

Door een borrel te houden met een dergelijke partij worden deze ideeën genormaliseerd. Wij moeten alles doen wat we kunnen om te zorgen dat de extreme en valse ideeën die bij de FvD aan de orde van de dag zijn niet de ideeën worden waarmee we ons land gaan leiden.

In deze tijden van onzekerheid is het belangrijker dan ooit dat we niet alleen mensen die in Nederland wonen, maar ook mensen die in Nederland toevlucht zoeken voor oorlog, geweld en armoede zo goed als wij kunnen, helpen. De ideeën van bijvoorbeeld de FvD zijn het omgekeerde: laat ze maar stikken. Partijen als de FvD zorgen voor de demonisering van gemarginaliseerde groepen. Zo heeft Thierry Baudet bijvoorbeeld gezegd “er is een reden waarom alle Nobelprijswinnaars blank zijn.” Hiermee suggereert hij dat donkere mensen minderwaardig zijn. Ook zei hij dat hij “niet wil dat Europa afrikaniseert” en dat hij wil dat Europa “dominant blank blijft”. Dan is onversneden racistisch. Dat verdient bestrijding, geen gezellig geborrel.

Het lijkt ons daarom ook belangrijk dat jullie, als Jonge Socialisten, jullie terugtrekken uit dit evenement. Waar de Jonge Socialisten voor staan staat lijnrecht tegenover de ideeën van de FvD. We vragen jullie dan ook om niet te gaan, om op die manier de normalisering van extreemrechts niet verder te helpen maar juist tegen te gaan. Daarom verzoeken wij jullie met klem om jullie terug te trekken uit deze borrel.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Antifa Brabant

https://antifabrabant.noblogs.org

[16] 

MIJN BRIEF AAN HET COMITE 4 EN 5 MEI HERDENKING

NATIONAAL COMITE 4 EN 5 MEI INTERVIEWT THIERRY BAUDET EN NOEMT HEM” INSPIREREND”/NORMALISERING FASCISME

ASTRID ESSED

6 MEI 2019

https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/nationaal-comite-4-en-5-mei-interviewt-thierry-baudet-en-noemt-hem-inspirerend-normalisering-fascisme/

OVER DE LINK NATIONAAL COMITE 4 EN 5 MEI EN THIERRY BAUDET:/

”Wat is vrijheid? Die vraag stelde het Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei aan veertien inspirerende Nederlanders, onder wie hiphopartiest Glenn de Randamie (Typhoon), Auschwitz-overlevende Lotty Huffener-Veffer, publicist Thierry Baudet, schrijfster Marion Bloem, historicus Chris van der Heijden, oud-minister Jan Pronk en politica Samira Bouchibti.”


4 EN 5 MEI COMITE

VRIJHEIDSBOEK

ACHTERGROND

https://www.4en5mei.nl/vrijheidsboek/achtergrond

Wat is vrijheid? Die vraag stelde het Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei aan veertien inspirerende Nederlanders, onder wie hiphopartiest Glenn de Randamie (Typhoon), Auschwitz-overlevende Lotty Huffener-Veffer, publicist Thierry Baudet, schrijfster Marion Bloem, historicus Chris van der Heijden, oud-minister Jan Pronk en politica Samira Bouchibti.

De geïnterviewden hebben een sterk ontwikkelde visie op vrijheid, gevormd vanuit heel verschillende achtergronden en ervaringen. Hun ideeën bieden stof tot nadenken en voer voor gesprek. Met een voorwoord van Gerdi Verbeet, voorzitter van het Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei.

Het vrijheidsboek is als publieksuitgave onderdeel van het onderzoeksprogramma Vrijheid en onvrijheid door de generaties heen. Klik hier voor de resultaten van het wetenschappelijk onderzoek dat is uitgevoerd door de Universiteit Utrecht.

Over de auteurs

Esther Captain is historicus en hoofd onderzoek bij het Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei. Van haar hand verschenen de boeken Familie, generaties en oorlog (2015) en Oorlogserfgoed overzee (2010). Maarten Dallinga is socioloog en freelance journalist. Hij schrijft voor tijdschriften en werkte eerder onder meer voor BNNEO en NOS. Fotografie: Suzanne Liem.

EN 

VRIJHEIDSBOEK INTERVIEWSTHIERRY BAUDET 

https://www.4en5mei.nl/vrijheidsboek/interviews/thierry-baudet

Conservatief democraat Thierry Baudet is niet meer weg te denken uit het publieke debat in Nederland. Hij is fel tegen de Europese Unie en de “ongebreidelde” toestroom van migranten. De auteur vreest “dat vele westerse verworvenheden zullen verdwijnen als we op deze toer voortgaan.”

Baudet was mede-initiator van GeenPeil, de campagne voor een raadgevend referendum over het associatieverdrag tussen Oekraïne en de Europese Unie. Er werden ruim 472.000 handtekeningen opgehaald; veel meer dan de minimaal vereiste 300.000. Het referendum werd gehouden en het nee-kamp won.

“Ik maak mij grote zorgen”, zegt Baudet. “Het gaat niet goed. De wereld zal de komende twintig of dertig jaar heel erg onveilig en dreigend blijven. Of je nu kinderen moet willen, met al die onzekerheid… Ik ben bang dat dit thuis, ons Nederland, geleidelijk uit onze vingers glipt. Aanslagen, doorgedraaide politieke managers in Den Haag en Brussel die ieder contact met de realiteit zijn verloren… De strijd daartegen, en dus vóór onze beschaving, dat is waar mijn leven voor een groot deel om draait.”

“Er wordt van alles van ons afgepakt”

ZIE TEKST FILMPJE 
”Nou ik zelf denk, dat een van de redenen, dat ik zo gedreven ben inhet bestrijden van de EU te maken heeft met mijn overtuiging, dat wat webevochten hebben in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, was onze onafhankelijkheid,zelfbeschikkingsrecht en onze democratie enzo, en dat wordt nu gewoonweer van ons afgepakt, zo’n gevoel heb ik dat ik denk, he wacht eenseven, verdorie nog aan toe, wat gebeurt er nou, zijn het weer die Duitsers defacto, die ons besturen.”
GEWONE TEKST [VERDER]

Onder vuur

De aanslagen van 11 september 2001 en de moord op LPF-voorman Pim Fortuyn in 2002: die periode was voor Baudet een omslagpunt. “Ik wilde schrijver worden; ik was pianist, schreef poëzie, wilde mooie dingen maken, kunst. En toen realiseerde ik me dat al het mooie om ons heen onder vuur ligt”, zei Baudet in februari 2013 in HP/De Tijd (dat hem “conservatief wonderkind” noemde). Hij had het gevoel iets te moeten doen.

Daarover zegt hij nu: “Ik werd me ervan bewust dat ik voor een groot deel in een glazen Madurodam-wereldje was opgegroeid. In Haarlem, in een mooie buurt, eliteschooltje, waar je gewoon heel weinig meekrijgt van wat er allemaal aan de hand is. Dat de immigratieproblemen heel reëel zijn, dat we eigenlijk helemaal niet meer vanuit Den Haag bestuurd worden, dat er sprake is van culturele ontheemding.”

Losbandig

Lachend: “Mijn ouders weten dat ik ze een beetje slappe, linkse hippies vind. En ik weet dat zij mij wat overspannen nationalistisch vinden. Overdrachtelijk dan natuurlijk, hè.” Werd bij Baudet thuis, in Haarlem, over vrijheid gesproken? Hij moet direct denken aan een voorval toen hij een jaar of acht was. “Mijn vader was helemaal overstuur. Hij was langs Bevrijdingspop gefietst en kwam woedend thuis. Hij zei: ‘Al die losbandige jonge mensen… Ze moeten eens een dagje Oost-Europa spelen. Dan begrijpen ze pas wat vrijheid is!’”

“Ik denk dat hij bedoelde: als dit is wat je met je vrijheid doet, namelijk blowen, drinken en troep maken, wat is het dan waard om voor te vechten? Als niets er meer toe doet, dan is er ook niets om voor te strijden. Bij 5 mei heb ik vaak het gevoel dat het alleen maar een beetje hangen is. Die situatie met mijn vader is denk ik wel typerend voor hoe in ons gezin met vrijheid werd en wordt omgegaan: het moet niet omslaan in losbandigheid en lamlendigheid.”

FILMPJE

TEKST

”Ik denk dat het iets is dat in mijn familie, dat wij wel ehhh, dat mijn ouders het wel heelbelangrijk vinden en vonden, dat vrijheid niet omslaat in een soort van

lamlendige losbandigheid, maar dat het iets is, dat je koestert, waar je iets mee moet doen.”

EINDE INTERVIEW THIERRY BAUDET OP WEBSITE 4 EN 5 MEI COMITE 

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Kom uit je Bubbel borrel van Jonge Socialisten Brabant met jongerenclub Forum voor Democratie/Normalisering fascisme/Brief!

Filed under Divers

Royal exit of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle mainly caused by racist smearcampaign/Letter to the Editor

ROYAL EXIT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE MAINLY CAUSED BY RACIST SMEARCAMPAIGN/LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Queen Elizabeth II and the Duchess of Sussex

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

768 × 384Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

644 × 452Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

1055 × 1222Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

480 × 240Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

600 × 390Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

1500 × 1200Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

618 × 412Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

992 × 744Images may be subject to copyright

https://www.samaa.tv/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/harry-640x400-524x360.jpeg
Image result for Prince Harry unveils his bride/Images
https://www.royal.uk/royal-wedding-2018https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/19/royal-wedding-2018-live-meghan-markle-prince-harry-marry-windsor/https://news.sky.com/story/six-moments-of-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-wedding-you-didnt-hear-11378629https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/world/royal-wedding-cnnphotos/
Image result for royal wedding prince harry and meghan/images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan pose with their newborn son during a photocall in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle on May 8, 2019 .https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/08/royal-baby-photos-meghan-markle-prince-harry-pose-newborn/1120765001/

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Related image

GREATGRANDMOTHER QUEEN ELISABETH WITH HEREIGHTH GREATGRANDSONhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48201625

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, VISITING BRIGHTON ON OCTOBER 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

Image result for Cheddar man/Images

THE ENGLISH ROYAL HOUSE BECOMING BLACK!HAHAHAHAHA!!!!, THE REVENGE OF CHEDDAR MAN!https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals

INTRODUCTION
As my loyal readers know, I’ve recently written some pieces about the step by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle no longer to use their royal titles and divide their life between Great Britain and North America. [1]As I wrote before, I am convinced that this step, apart from  royalty pressure, the couple has been bullied away by the systematic smearcampaign against Meghan Markle, with racist undertones, openly and more hidden.[2]I wrote about this and pointed out some dirty examples. [3]But the beauty of the whole thing is, that Prince Harry and Meghan were completely supported by the Queen, who gave two firm statements to empower them [4]In the last statement, where all arrangements were confirmed regarding the new life of Prince Harry and Meghan, the Queen utterly stated, how proud she wsas of Meghan:I quote from the statement of the Queen:I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. [5]The Queen also stated:”Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. [6]That’s a statement!Well done, Your Majesty, as I wrote at the occasion of her first supportive statement [7]

RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
As I told you, I wrote an article about the racist smearcampagn against Meghan Markle [8], which was launched since Meghan was still a special girlfriend of Prince Harry.In the article you can read how some racist remarks were made already in 2016 [9] and also the statement of Prince Harry in which he referred to the ”racist undertones in some comments” [10]But the harassing of Meghan Markle went on and last year, in 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan felt compelled to sue a newspaper for publicizing a private letter of Meghan and again they referred to the bullying campaign of the press, or at least parts of them [11]
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
But I was not finished writing about the Prince Harry/Meghan case, mainly because I can’t stand injustice and racism is one of the most injustice things you can imagine.
So I decided to write a Letter to the Editor, which I’ve sent to a great scala of English, Scottish, US and also Irish newpapers.
No Idea whether it is published or not, so here I share my Letter to the Editor with you and you can read it right below.Under my Letter to the Editor, the notes belonging to this Introduction piece.
And especially for you, readers, in note 12 the consequences of the new step in the life of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
ENJOY READING!
Astrid Essed

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TITLE:ROYAL EXIT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MAINLY CAUSED BY RACIST SMEARCAMPAIGN 

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

The role that parts of the British press and the tabloids have played in the decision of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to give up their role as senior royals and divide their life between England and North America, is a shame and disgrace.Because I am convinced that, except for other possible causes of their departure [like the burden of royal publicity], the couple is bullied away by a smear campaign against Meghan Markle.This smearcampaign with openly and more hidden racist undertones, is proven true by some very destructive comments in the press:The most horrible one was done by the now fired BBC radio broadcaster jour Danny Baker, calling Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s newborn son Archie a chimpanzee.However, this racism started from the moment it was known, that Meghan Markle was Prince Harry’s special girlfriend.In november 2016, in a statement Prince Harry accused the press of  racist undertones in some comment against Meghan Markle and expressed his worries about her safety.A  tabloid columnist wrote in 2016  about Meghan Markle’s ”exotic DNA” , referring to her Afro Americam descent from her mother’s side.Also in 2016,  a newspaper described Meghan Markle’s roots as almost ”straight outta Compton”, referring to ghetto and gang violence.Recently [january 2020] a radio producer called Meghan  ”uppity”, a word, wich, in connection with Afro Americans, meant, that they ”didn’t know their place”Then there is the exaggerated way every act of  Meghan Markle is watched, in the most childish way:She was criticized because she ate avocado’s [in 2019], another time because she kept holding her hands on her bump [in 2019], while pregnant [while Kate Middleton was praised for that same act by the same newspaper, in 2018], for wearing dark nail polish [in 2019], and so on.Why not blame her for the global warming and the forest fires in Australia?Again, in october 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan felt the need to complain about this harassment, sueing a newspaper for publicising a private letter of Meghan.One of the individuals who is nearly obsessed by Meghan Markle is TV personality Piers Morgan, who has made his life goal of harassing Meghan Markle nearly from the moment she set foot on British soil.But the haters didn’t win, because like the Queen stated, Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of her family.I wish the couple all the peace and happiness in the world and the journalists, under you, who harassed Meghan Markle:Shame on you!
Astrid EssedAmsterdamThe Netherlands

NOTES AT ”INTRODUCTION”

[1]

BBCPRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

TEXT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.

In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.

Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.

Last October, Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.

In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision “after many months of reflection and internal discussions”.“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”

They said they plan to balance their time between the UK and North America while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.”

‘Major rift’

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the fact palace officials said they were “disappointed” is “pretty strong”.

“I think it indicates a real strength of feeling in the palace tonight – maybe not so much about what has been done but about how it has been done – and the lack of consultation I think will sting.“This is clearly a major rift between Harry and Meghan on one part, and the rest of the Royal Family on the other.”

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said discussions with the duke and duchess on their decision to step back were “at an early stage”, adding: “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”

Over Christmas, the couple took a six-week break from royal duties to spend some time in Canada with their son, Archie, who was born in May.After returning to the UK on Tuesday, Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, visited Canada’s High Commission in London to thank the country for hosting them and said the warmth and hospitality they received was “unbelievable”.

During the visit, Meghan said it was an “incredible time” to enjoy the “beauty of Canada”.

“To see Archie go ‘ah’ when you walk by, and just see how stunning it is – so it meant a lot to us.”Former actress Meghan lived and worked in Toronto during her time starring in the popular US drama Suits, and she has several Canadian friends.

Close up, it was painfully clear that there were great chunks of the job they simply could not stand.

Both of them appeared to come alive with the crowds. But Harry hated the cameras and was visibly bored by the ceremonial.

And though Meghan was often the consummate professional, at times her impatience with the everyday slog of the role sometimes broke through.

She said she didn’t want to become a voiceless figurehead; but when she raised her voice, she found criticism waiting for her.

They both made their feelings known in the 2019 interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby.

But beyond the detail, what was so shocking was how unhappy they both seemed. The sun-drenched wedding of the year before seemed like a dream; here were two people visibly struggling with their lives and positions.

There are far more questions than answers; what will their new role be? Where will they live, and who will pay for it? What relationship will they have with the rest of the Royal Family?

And there’s the institutional question. What does this mean for the Royal Family?

It comes just a few months after Prince Andrew stepped back from his duties. Some might see this as the slimmed-down monarchy that the 21st century needs.

But Harry and Meghan reached people that other royals didn’t.They were part of the reinvention and refreshing of the institution. This was not the way anyone would have planned its future.

Former Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter suggested the decision showed Prince Harry’s “heart ruling his head”.

He told the BBC the “massive press onslaught” when their son Archie was born may have played a part in the decision.

And he compared the move to Edward VIII’s abdication in 1936 in order to marry twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson.“That is the only other precedent, but there’s been nothing like this in modern times,” Mr Arbiter said.

Asked how being a “part-time” member of the Royal Family might work, Mr Arbiter said he did not know.

“If they’re going to be based in the UK, it means they are going to be doing a lot of flying [with] a big carbon footprint,” he said, adding that this may “raise eyebrows”.

He also questioned how the couple would become financially independent.

“I mean, Harry is not a poor man, but to settle yourself in two different continents, to raise a family, to continue to do your work – how’s the work going to be funded?

“How is their security going to be funded?

“Because they’re still going to have to have security – who’s going to have to pay for this? Where’s the security coming from? Is the Metropolitan Police going to be providing it and if so whether there’s going to be any contribution in covering the security cost?”Mr Arbiter also suggested questions would be raised over why £2.4m of taxpayer’s money was spent on renovating the couple’s home, Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, if they will now be living elsewhere for some of the year.

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the couple have “considerable savings”, including Harry’s inheritance from Princess Diana’s estate and the money Meghan earned as an actress.

But, asked about whether they might get jobs, he added: “There is a problem for members of the Royal Family – relatively senior ones, even if they say they’re no longer senior – getting jobs, because they are seen to monetise their brand and you run into a whole host of questions about conflict of interest”.

He added that we are now in “wait and see mode” as to whether this new model of being a royal can work – “or if this is really a staging post for them to leave the Royal Family”.

The Prince of Wales pays for the public duties of Harry, Meghan, William and Kate and some of their private costs, out of his Duchy of Cornwall income, which was £21.6m last year.

Accounts from Clarence House show this funding – in the year Meghan officially joined the Royal Family – stood at just over £5m, up 1.8% on 2017-18.

Royal author Penny Junor said she “can’t quite see how it’s going to work”, adding: “I don’t think it’s been properly thought through.”“I think it’s extraordinary but also I think it’s rather sad,” she said. “They may not feel they are particularly loved but actually they are very much loved.”

In an ITV documentary last year, Meghan admitted motherhood was a “struggle” due to intense interest from newspapers.

Prince Harry also responded to reports of a rift between him and his brother William, the Duke of Cambridge, by saying they were on “different paths”.

In October, the duchess began legal action against the Mail on Sunday over a claim that it unlawfully published one of her private letters.And the duke also began legal action against the owners of the Sun, the defunct News of the World, and the Daily Mirror, in relation to alleged phone-hacking.

Prince Harry also released a statement, saying: “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

The duke and duchess moved out of Kensington Palace, where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge live, in 2018 to set up their family home in Windsor.

Then last summer, they split from the charity they shared with Prince William and Kate to set up their own charitable projects.The couple’s announcement on Wednesday comes two months after the Duke of York withdrew from public life after a BBC interview about his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in August.

[2]
DEWERELDMORGEN.BEQUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!ASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

[3]
DEWERELDMORGEN.BESMEARCAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/

[4]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS
https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”
[5] 
”I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family”

STATEMENT FROM HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

The British Monarchy

Published 18 January 2020

Statement from HM The Queen.

Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my

grandson and his family.

Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.

I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.

I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life.

ENDS

Statement from Buckingham Palace

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.

As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties.  With The Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private

patronages and associations. While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home.Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security.

This new model will take effect in the Spring of 2020.ENDS

[6]
”Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family 

STATEMENT FROM HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

[7]

DEWERELDMORGEN.BEQUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!ASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

[8]

DEWERELDMORGEN.BESMEARCAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/

[9]

SEE FOR THE RACIST UNDERTONES OF PARTS OF THE BRITISH PRESS AND TABLOIDS

DEWERELDMORGEN.BESMEARCAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/

[10]
A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
8 NOVEMBER 2016 
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

The British Monarchy

Published 8 November 2016

Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads.He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never 

been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.

Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm. He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.
[11]

THE GUARDIANMEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY AS PRINCE HARRY LAUNCHES ATTACK ON TABLOID PRESS
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/01/meghan-sues-mail-on-sunday-for-publishing-letter-to-her-father

Prince compares wife’s treatment to Diana’s as proceedings over private letter are announced

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.

The decision came as Prince Harry launched an extraordinary and highly personal attack on the British tabloid press and its treatment of his wife, saying he could no longer be a “silent witness to her private suffering”.Emphasising his respect for the importance of “objective, truthful reporting”, he accused parts of the media of “waging campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences” and compared the treatment of Meghan to coverage of his mother, Princess Diana.

The duke said his “deepest fear is history repeating itself”. He wrote: “There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.

“Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one … I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person.“I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

The statement, issued on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s official website on Tuesday, was published as Meghan moved to start proceedings in the high court over the misuse of private information, infringement of copyright and breach of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).The Guardian reported this year that the Mail on Sunday was being threatened with legal action because the authors of letters retain ownership of the copyright even after the physical correspondence is in the possession of another individual. Pursuing legal action on this narrow basis also gives the royals a greater chance of success against DMG Media, formerly Associated Newspapers, which also owns the Daily Mail and MailOnline – both of which have run a substantial number of stories about Meghan.

The Mail on Sunday has run multiple embarrassing stories involving the duchess’s father, Thomas Markle, including staged paparazzi photographs of him visiting an internet cafe to read about his daughter’s engagement to the prince.

Other critical coverage of the couple has ranged from their use of private jets to their refusal to allow media coverage of the christening of their baby son Archie or name his godparents. They have also been criticised for the £2.4m cost to the public purse for renovations at their Windsor home, Frogmore Cottage.However, the royals have limited ability to stop the publication of such stories, prompting the decision to focus on the publication of Meghan’s letter to her father.

The photographs of the letter remain available on MailOnline. A spokesman for the newspaper stood by its reporting, setting up a potential court showdown: “The Mail on Sunday stands by the story it published and will be defending this case vigorously. Specifically, we categorically deny that the Duchess’s letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning.”

Meghan and Harry, who are on a 10-day tour of southern Africa, have employed the libel lawyers Schillings, using private funds to bring the case.

In his statement, Harry emphasised that he and Meghan believed in “media freedom and objective, truthful reporting” as a “cornerstone of democracy”.“There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been.

“Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.

“I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.”

The statement is unprecedented in the scale of its attack on the media, although it is far from the first time Harry has taken on the press.

When news of his relationship with Meghan Markle became public, he criticised “racial overtones” in reporting.Last week, it emerged he had complained to the BBC for broadcasting and publishing online an image from a neo-Nazi social media site that called him a “race traitor” and depicted the royal with a gun pointed at his head. Although the BBC internally and the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom rejected the complaint, ruling that the use of the image in a report about the activities of the group was in the public interest, the BBC did apologise for not warning the duke in advance.

His latest statement accused the British tabloid press of waging a “ruthless” campaign against Meghan that had “escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son”.

Harry, said the recent positive coverage of their African tour exposed “the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave”.

“She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.“For these select media, this is a game and one we have been unwilling to play from the start.”

A legal spokesperson for Schillings said: “We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband.

“Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda.”

END OF THE ARTICLE

THE GUARDIANPUT SIMPLY, IT’S BULLYING: PRINCE HARRY’S FULL STATEMENT ON THE MEDIA
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/put-simply-its-bullying-prince-harrys-full-statement-on-the-media

Prince says he has been ‘a silent witness’ to Meghan’s private suffering for too long’

Prince Harry’s full statement on his family’s relationship with the media, issued on Tuesday night after his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, launched legal action against the Mail on Sunday over its decision to publish a private letter she had sent to her father.

As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.

There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.

Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations – something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack
that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.

For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.

This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.

There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.

Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it.

[12]

IS HARRY STILL A PRINCE & OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT HARRY & MEGHAN MARKLE’S NEW ROLES ANSWERED
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/01/9234123/is-harry-still-a-prince

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle continue to step further away from the traditional royal path by abandoning their titles, an unexpected announcement just 10 days after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said they would split their time between North America and the U.K. Buckingham Palace said in a statement that Prince Harry and Meghan have agreed to no longer use the titles His/Her Royal Highness (HRH) as they step away from public duties as senior members of the royal family. The two will continue to work towards financial independence and have made their intention to pay back the public for renovations of their home, Frogmore Cottage. The latest announcement comes to the surprise of those who suspected the couple would retain their titles while stepping back from the royal family.
What does it mean to give up royal titles? Will Prince Harry get a last name? Is he still in line for the throne? Here are the answers to these burning questions and everything else you need to know about what will happen now that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are stepping back from their roles as senior members of the royal family.

Is Harry still a prince?

Yes, Prince Harry’s title sticks because he was born into it as the child of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales. The titles in question that Prince Harry and Meghan are giving up are the HRH, or His/Her Royal Highness titles. These titles were limited to only the children (of either gender) and grandchildren of a sovereign in the male line by Queen Victoria in the 1830s, according to the BBC’s History Extra. It has since been expanded to include female heirs who may ascend to the throne. Additionally, Dr. Jonathan Spangler, a senior lecturer in history at Manchester Metropolitan University specializing in the history of the monarchy, explains that “George V in 1917, when modifying the house rules…clarified this, and added the eldest son of the eldest grandson.” Prince Harry will still be Prince Harry by birthright, but he will no longer be His Royal Highness Prince Harry, a title now granted at the pleasure of the Queen to senior working members of the royal family who are direct heirs.

Will Prince Harry and Meghan keep their titles?

Yes, Prince Harry and Markle are still the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The only title they are giving back are the HRH designation as they step back from royal duties. Otherwise, Prince Harry retains that official title, as well as those of Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. Meanwhile, Meghan’s official titles are Duchess of Sussex, which takes precedence because she holds it on her own right, and Princess Henry of Wales, which she holds through marriage.

What will Prince Harry and Meghan be called?

It is currently unknown whether the couple will take a last name after giving up their HRH titles. There is a case to be made for taking the name Wales, as Prince Harry was called Captain Harry Wales in the British Army. They may be known as the Sussexes, given that the Queen referred to them in her statement as “Harry and Meghan” and Buckingham Palace’s official statement referred to them as the Sussexes. The Sussex name is also prominent on baby Archie’s birth certificate, where Prince Harry’s full name is listed as His Royal Highness Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex. The couple could also take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, as Windsor was officially adopted as the surname for the family in 1917 and Mountbatten-Windsor given as the specific distinction for direct descendants of the Queen and Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh. They could also come up with something completely different, like when Princess Eugenie took on the title Mrs. Jack Brooksbank after her wedding. Prince Harry, Mr. Meghan Markle, anyone? If in doubt, however, you can still call them Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

What does this mean for Prince Harry’s role British line of succession?

Nothing has changed in this regard. Prince Harry still remains sixth in line for the throne. It is still unlikely he will face any need to worry about the line of succession. Additionally, Prince Harry has not turned his back on his royal position completely — just the HRH title — in contrast with Edward VIII, who abdicated to marry American divorcée Wallis Simpson in 1936, thus losing HRH and becoming the Duke of Windsor after his marriage. This led to King George VI, who left the throne upon his untimely death to his daughter, Queen Elizabeth II. Harry needing to ascend to the throne is a possibility only an is an extremely unlikely sequence of events. 

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Royal exit of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle mainly caused by racist smearcampaign/Letter to the Editor

Filed under Divers

Smear campaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones/Some dirty examples

SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLES

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

768 × 384Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

644 × 452Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

1055 × 1222Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

480 × 240Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

600 × 390Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

1500 × 1200Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

618 × 412Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

992 × 744Images may be subject to copyright

https://www.samaa.tv/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/harry-640x400-524x360.jpeg
Image result for Prince Harry unveils his bride/Images
https://www.royal.uk/royal-wedding-2018https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/19/royal-wedding-2018-live-meghan-markle-prince-harry-marry-windsor/https://news.sky.com/story/six-moments-of-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-wedding-you-didnt-hear-11378629https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/world/royal-wedding-cnnphotos/
Image result for royal wedding prince harry and meghan/images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan pose with their newborn son during a photocall in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle on May 8, 2019 .https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/08/royal-baby-photos-meghan-markle-prince-harry-pose-newborn/1120765001/

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Related image

GREATGRANDMOTHER QUEEN ELISABETH WITH HEREIGHTH GREATGRANDSONhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48201625

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, VISITING BRIGHTON ON OCTOBER 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

”Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you”
Those are the words of Afua Hirsch, writer, broadcaster and former barrister [1], in connection with all the tabloid fuss against Meghan Markle, wife of Prince Harry and Duchess of Sussex. [2]Words she wrote in the New York Times. [3]
Now I think the truth is somewhat in the middle:Even though racism plays a destructive part in British society, as in so many other countries, European or not, I think that, although racism follows you, it is not the only factor and one’s behaviour can make a change.
At the other side:
I must admit, that in the case of Meghan Markle, racism played a big part in the way the tabloids commented on her.
I was and am very annoyed by that and as you know or don’t know, I wrote two articles and a letter to the Council of Brighton to defend her. [4]Who knows me realizes that I can’t stand injustice and feel myself obliged to fight it.
And racism is one of the ugliest forms of injustice!

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN STEPPED BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS
Now you all know, that recently, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle stepped back as senior royals [5] and that the Queen, Prince Harry’s grandmother, supported them in this [6], but declared:”Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.’ [7]
Of course she preferred them to stay.As a grandmother and greatgrandmother, wishing to spend time with her eighthgreatgrandchild, as a royal matriarch and as a Queen, keeping the roles of the Family intact!

RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Recently I wrote a defense article, prasing the supportive statement of the Queen and analysing what, according to my views, among else [there may be other reasons I don’t know about] have led to Megxit, the fact that Harry and Meghan wanted to step out,their roles as fulltime royals in England.
And I stated, and the more I read the more I am convinced, that an important reason was the smearcampaign against Meghan Markle, shich had dirty, racist undertones and sometimes more than just undertones.
LORD ARCHIE A ”CHIMPANZEE”
Like the hateful Tweet of Donald Baker, no fired BBC reporter, who compared Prince Harry’s and Meghan Markle newborn son with a chimpanzee! [8]
DO YOU IMAGINE!
Not only highly racist [people, who deny that this person is a racist or at least racist led in his comments, are close to suffer the same racist ”decease”’ [9]also mean and ugly, when you realize that new parents, who just were blessed with their first son, were confronted with this despicable stuff!

RACIST UNDERTONES
From the beginning of the relation between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, a couple of tabloids and some other parts of the press launched a hateful smearcampaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones, as confirmed in a statement of Prince Harry, in november 2016, nearly two years before their marriage
I quote from the statement:
”But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments” [10]
And although the racist thing is denied, for example by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle villifier, the broadcaster, journalist and TV personality, Piers Morgan [11], who stated, that their racism accusations are ”completely and grotesquely wrong” [12] I will show you in underlying, that there ARE racist undertones in the Meghan Markle smearcampaign broadcasting, as well openly, as more hidden.
But not only the press and tabloids!Newspaper The Sun wrote in march 2019, that Meghan Markle was bombed with 5200 hateful racist and sexist tweets in two months, and 70 percent abuse came from twenty trolls! [13]And also her sister in law, Kate Middleton, the wife of the Duke of Cambridge [Prince William, Harry’s elder brother and heir to the throne after his father, Prince Charles], was subjected to hateful, sexist tweets! [14]
READ ON ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE PRESS/TABLOIDS AND BE INDIGNANT WITH ME!
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE/PART IOPENLY RACIST

A
 ”EXOTIC DNA” 
A tabloid columnist wrote about Meghan Markle’s ”exotic DNA”, which refers to her Afro American descent [from her mother’s side, her father is a white American, Thomas Markle, a former TV lighting director and director of photography] [15] and therefore racist undertoned.
B
STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON
Another dubious  remark was made in a Daily Mail headline article, describing Meghan’s Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood. [16]As you probably know, ”Straight outta Compton” as a picture about the rise and fall of the gangster rap group, N.W.A. from rapper and businessman Dr Dre and others[17]Those connection between being of Afro American descent and gangster life or ”gang-scarred neighborhood” is despicable and suggests THAT there is an automatic relation between being black and born in a hood [ghetto]and also being criminal.Newspapers should know better!

C
THE CHIMPANZEE AFFAIR
What was the limit, was the comparing of Prince Harry’s and Meghan Markle’s newborn son Archie, with a chimpzanzee by a now fired [because of this affair] BBC reporter, Danny Baker. [18]If that’s not a racist remark, then I don’t know what is!Yet idiots like Piers Morgan declare, that Danny Baker ”is not remotely racist as anyone who knows him” [19]I think that tells more about Piers Morgan than about Danny Baker…….
And now, a few minutes ago, I learnt, that Meghan has been bombarded with hundreds of racist and sexist tweets because of her and Harry’s stepping back as royals! [20]And not for the first time:As is written above, the newspaper the Sun wrote in march 2019 about thousands of racist and sexist tweets against Meghan, 70 percent coming from twenty trolls[see the notes 13 and 14]
How many idiots are there in this world?
D

UPPITY
There is more.Recently, after Megxit was announced [Harry and Meghan’s step out as senior royals], a Hannity radio producer called Meghan  ”uppity’ [21]I quote:”MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know? [22]
Now according to Cambridge dictionnary ”uppity” is a sort of ”neutral” term [I mean, nothing to do with race or descent]I quote Cambridge dictionnary:”An uppity person behaves in an unpleasant way because they think that they are more important than they really are” [23]
However, that’s only part of the story.For historically,  the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations [24]Namely it was used in the US in the 19th century as an insult to black people, ”who didn’t know their place” [25]Places the word in a whole different other light…..
Of course:Most people don’t know the racist meaning of ”uppity”, but from journalists and TV personalities one may expect, that they know their historical stuff and otherwise do a proper investigation. After all, I found the sources also by proper searching! [26]
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE/PART II/RACIST, IN A HIDDEN FORM
CHILDISH TABLOID STUFF
Not all negative comments on Meghan Markle are openly racist or have a racist undertone:But striking is the abnormal attention Meghan Markle gets, in the most silly circumstances.That says a lot and although not provable, seen in the whole light of the anti Meghan smear campaign, those not openly racist related comments must have a racist undertone, since Meghan Markle is practically singled out in the tsunami of negativity and other royals are more or less off the hook.
AND since the facts the socalled critique is that childish, that even children of primary school would find it below their dignity.



PIERS MORGAN/NOTORIOUS MEGHAN MARKLE STALKER
There isfor example  journalist and TV personality Piers Morgan, who seems obssessed by Meghan Markle, and also, in a lesser extent, by Prince Harry.  [27]So it was no surprise that he ranted and raved at the news that Harry and Meghan wanted to step out as senior royals and the supportive reaction of the Queen. [28]
LOL!AND THEN THE SUPER CHILDISH STUFF
Now some examples of being on Meghan’s ”tail” [29], which make no sense.There are a lot more, I presume, yet underlying things give an idea of the nonsense written about Meghan:
LOL 1
LOL!MEGHAN MARKLE EATS AVOCADO’S!/HOW DARES SHE!/
Surprise, surprise, the Daily Mail again…..In a nonsense article, Meghan Markle was critized for…..eating avocado’s [I quote] ”the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.” [30]
YEAH….A GREAT ONEFirstly, the one, who wrote that nonsense article, admitted, that avocado’s are well loved by all millennials [31], so why single Meghan Markle out!Secondly, I can understand, that people protest when avocado’s are produced in occupation countries as Israel, openly violating elementary human rights [32], but then there is a choice not to eat them, when descending from those countries, like I do.But not to eat all avocado’s is just nonsense.The problems the writer of this article mentioned ”water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation” [33], refers to more Third World products and has everything to do with unfair relations in the world, caused for a great part [apart from natural and climatical causes] by Western economic dominance of the Third World, supported by their local elites.
Does the writer of this article protests against those injustices?
No, he only uses it to attack Meghan Markle, simply eating an avocado!What about all the other royals, eating avocado’s?What about all milennials, eating avodaco’s?
No, this is only a childish attack on Meghan Markle!And I have news for him
I, Astrid Essed, eat avocado’s too [although not from certain countries like Israel, that very openly and shamelessly violate human rights]So I am a Third World destroyer too?
NONSENSE

LOL 2
VAIN AND PRIDEN  MEGHAN, YOU KEEP YOUR HAND ON YOUR BUMP!/OF COURSE IT IS ”TENDER” WHEN YOUR SISTER IN LAW KATE MIDDLETON DOES THE SAME THING!THERE MUST BE A DIFFERENCE/QUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI! [33]
The following all too childish thing, Meghan Markle was critized for, of course [among else], again by stalking newspaper Daily Mail, was the fact, that Meghan, mother to be, had had the audacity to ”keep her hands on her bump”, a normal and affectionate thing any pregnant mother does.This nonsense article was titled ”Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: Is it pride, vanity, acting – or a new age bonding technique?” [34]
No you, readers, will probably say”What nonsenseWhat is it to the Daily Mail, whether Meghan Markle keeps her hands on her OWN bump or not?What’s the newsvalue in it, even for tabloids?It is a private gesture of a happy mother to be, done by milliards of mothers before and after us!
It’s about stalking and harassing Meghan Markle again!
But now the cat is out of the bag! [35]
The Daily Mail anti Meghan article about ”keep her hands on her bump” was written on 26 january 2019 [36]But when Meghan’s sister in law, Kate Middleton, acted on a similar way, that same Daily Mail wrote on 21 march 2018 ”NOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW” [37]

Clearly, according to The Daily Mail, when Meghan’s sister in law, Kate Middleton, keeps her hand on her bump” it is ”tenderly cradling her baby bump” [38], but when Meghan Markle acts the similar way, a year later it is suddenly ”vain” or acting” [39] 

Striking, isn’t it. Is this mere ”coincidence” or has it perhaps something to do with the fact that Kate Middleton is white and Meghan Markle is black.I don’t like to draw the black and white card, but the reader must admit, that this difference in approach from, here the Daily Mail, is at least, odd.
YEAH”QUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI’ !” [40]

LOL 3O, NAUGHTY NAUGHTY MEGHAN, WEARING DARK NAIL POLISH
I think this newsmessage has written to give me a good laughHereby:HAHAHAHAHA!
It is really written:Meghan Markle wearing dark nail polish at some charity event and some Fashion award….. [41] and some royal watchers ”questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol” [42] Yes, some newsvalue.Of course I am not going to analyse such nonsense.I only mentioned it to show, what happens when they look at you through a magnifying glass.
EPILOGUE
I have enough of it!And if I do, how tiring and exhausting must it be for Meghan and also her husband Prince Harry.For it seems, that Meghan can’t do good, whatever she does. [43]
Types like obsessed Meghan stalker Piers Morgan [44]should be delighted, that the couple stepped out as senior royals, but yet they have something to bully and stalking them again! [45]
I can only cheer them on, taking the step to choose a new life [46] and the Queen for supporting them. [47]

EPILOGUE
Is Meghan the only British royal, ever to be bullied by the tabloid press?Of course not!In the early 2000s, tabloid reporters hacked the voicemails of Prince William and royal staff members in pursuit of scoops. [48]Prince William’s wife was relentlessly scrutinized for years: dismissed as dull, accused of being lazy for not having a full-time job, and dubbed “waity Katy” before William proposed. [49] 
But however unpleasant that is, that is nothing to compare with the ”damned if you do, damed if you don’t” campaign against Meghan Markle, with the apparent racist undertones:
Not convinced?Then againAbout Meghan is written among else [there was more, but Google for yourself]
Her “exotic” DNAHer Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood” She is described as ”uppity”Meghan’s and Prince Harry’s newborn son had been compared with a ”chimpanzee” [SEE MY NOTES]
That are all, without excemption, racist expressions!
FURTHER THE SILLY STUFF
That she keeps her hand on her OWN bump, that she is eating avocado’s, that she is wearing dark nail polish
By the way”:Did you know, dear readers, that the Global Warmimg, the outburst of Ebola and the forest fires in Australia is also Meghan’s fault?

EVERYTHING SAID AND DONE
Meghan and Prince Harry are driven out of England, mainly out of racism and parts of the British press and the tabloids are guilty of that.
Be proud of yourself, Meghan haters
It is in fact, what Guardian journalist Zoe Williams recently wrote
”If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.

We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice.” [50]

Happily, she has a supportive husband and I admire him for that, like I said before ‘[51]

The Queen also supports them [52]

And again, from this place, I defend them and especially -and that is the main reason I wrote this article – I fiercely condemn the racism that lead to it.

But haters, you will not win,

The fight for Freedom and Equality will continue, whether you like it or not!

Astrid Essed

NOTES[1]

WIKIPEDIAAFUA HIRSCH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afua_Hirsch

[2]
“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times.

QUESTIONS OF RACISM LINGER AS HARRY, MEGHAN, STEP BACK
https://apnews.com/1420bd1ff04ac8f330bdd9cf9d061e52

TEXT

LONDON (AP) — When accomplished, glamorous American actress Meghan Markle married Prince Harry in 2018, she was hailed as a breath of fresh air for Britain’s fusty royal family. That honeymoon didn’t last.

Now the couple wants independence, saying the pressure of life as full-time royals is unbearable. And a debate is raging: Did racism drive Meghan away?When Prince Harry, who is sixth in line to the throne, began dating the “Suits” actress — daughter of a white father and African American mother — the media called it a sign that Britain had entered a “post-racial” era in which skin color and background no longer mattered, even to the royal family.

U.K. Labour Party lawmaker Clive Lewis, who like Meghan has biracial heritage, says the royal rift shows that Britain still has a problem with “structural racism.”

“We can see it with Meghan Markle and the way that she’s been treated in the media, we know that this is a reality of the 21st century, still,” Lewis told Sky News. “After 400 years of racism you can’t just overturn it overnight.”

Frederick W. Gooding, an assistant professor of African American studies at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas, said it would be “disingenuous” to claim race had not been a factor in Meghan’s treatment.

“She was always going to be an outsider,” he said. “There was always going to be this barrier because of her race.”

From the start, some in the media wrote about Meghan using racially loaded terms. One tabloid columnist referred to her “exotic” DNA. A Daily Mail headline described her Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood. A TV host described Meghan as “uppity.”

Meghan was criticized for everything from eating avocados — which the Daily Mail claimed fuel “human rights abuses, drought and murder” — to wearing dark nail polish, apparently an etiquette faux pas.

Morgan Jerkins, a senior editor at Zora, a Medium.com site for women of color, said that because Meghan was “an outsider, culturally, racially, and socioeconomically, she has been the royal family’s scapegoat.”

Others point out that Meghan is hardly the first royal to get a rough ride in the media. The press and the royal family have an intense and often toxic relationship going back decades. Harry’s mother, Princess Diana, was snapped by paparazzi wherever she went. When she and Prince Charles admitted that their marriage was in trouble, her private life became public property.

Diana was killed in a Paris car crash in 1997 while being pursued by photographers. Prince Harry, who was just 12 when his mother died, said in October he feared “history repeating itself. … I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

After Diana’s death, a chastened British press mended its ways — a bit. The media left young William and Harry alone in exchange for carefully staged interviews and photo opportunities as they grew up. That practice has continued with the three young children of William and his wife, Kate.

But in many ways little really changed. Royal stories still sell newspapers and generate clicks. That has meant intense — and even illegal — scrutiny. In the early 2000s, tabloid reporters hacked the voicemails of Prince William and royal staff members in pursuit of scoops.

Younger female royals are routinely judged on appearance, demeanor and habits. Prince William’s wife was relentlessly scrutinized for years: dismissed as dull, accused of being lazy for not having a full-time job, and dubbed “waity Katy” before William proposed.

Still, Meghan’s treatment has sometimes seemed harsher. Last year the Daily Mail ran photos of a pregnant Meghan cradling her bump under the headline: “Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump?” Months earlier the same paper had described a pregnant Kate as “tenderly” cradling her bump.

British Home Secretary Priti Patel denied Meghan has suffered from racist media coverage,

“I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all,” Patel, who is of Indian heritage and whose parents emigrated to Britain from Uganda, told the BBC. “I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.”

But others say the media double standard Meghan faced is evidence that talk of “post-racial” Britain is wildly premature.

“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times.

That feeling was echoed by Hayley Oliver, a recent Virginia Tech graduate who wrote a college essay about how Meghan and other mixed-race women are treated in popular culture. She said Meghan had years of charitable work, including advocacy for women’s healthcare and gender equality worldwide that preceded her marriage into the royal family.

“What about her in those roles?” said Oliver, who is also biracial and says she’s inspired by Meghan for the stances she takes. “When you see someone who looks like you. … it makes it easier to imagine yourself in that situation or the possibility of where you could go.”

While Britain is by most measures less racist than it used to be, non-white Britons are still over-represented among the poor and imprisoned, and under-represented at the top of well-paid professions, including politics, journalism and the law. Britain’s 2016 decision to leave the European Union — a move fueled in part by concerns about immigration — was followed by an increase in cases of racist abuse reported to police.

Meghan acknowledged in an October interview that she had been unprepared for the intense media scrutiny she would get as a member of the royal family. She told ITV journalist Tom Bradby that before she married Harry, “my British friends said to me, ‘I’m sure he’s great, but you shouldn’t do it, because the British tabloids will destroy your life.’”

“And I very naively … I didn’t get it,” she said.

Unlike other members of the royal clan, Meghan and Harry have pushed back. As long ago as 2017, Harry criticized “the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.”

Now the couple has had enough. They plan to move part-time to Canada, withdraw from royal media-coverage arrangements and seek financial independence. The queen has reluctantly agreed to let them become semi-detached royals in order to avoid a damaging family split.

The racism debate will rage on. Writing in The Guardian, British columnist Nesrine Malik said she doubted it would have much positive effect.

She argued that the racism debate had become a “pantomime, in which everyone — people of color, tabloid journalists, TV hosts — is playing well-rehearsed parts.”

“Britain’s conversation about race endlessly repeats itself, first as tragedy, and for ever thereafter as farce,” she wrote.

[3]

“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times. 
QUESTIONS OF RACISM LINGER AS HARRY, MEGHAN, STEP BACK

https://apnews.com/1420bd1ff04ac8f330bdd9cf9d061e52

[4]

QUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!

ASTRID ESSED

14 JANUARY 2020

COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL 

ASTRID ESSED

20 DECEMBER 2019

NO STRIPPING OF SUSSEX TITLES OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE/THE HATERS DID NOT WIN!

ASTRID ESSED

21 DECEMBER 2019

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DO

ASTRID ESSED

2 OCTOBER 2019

[5]

BBC

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

TEXT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.

In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.

Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.

Last October, Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.

In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision “after many months of reflection and internal discussions”.

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.” 

END OF NEWS MESSAGE

STATEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE ON INSTAGRAM ABOUT STEP OUT

INSTAGRAM SUSSEXROYAL

https://www.instagram.com/sussexroyal/?utm_source=ig_embed

After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.

“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.

“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.

“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.

“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.

END OF THE INSTAGRAM MESSAGE OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE

SEE ALSO FOR THE MESSAGE

BBC

IN FULL: THE SUSSEXES STATEMENT AND THE BUCKINGHAM PALACE RESPONSE

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51041947

[6]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” 

END OF THE ANNOUCEMENT OF THE QUEENBBCQUEEN  AGREES ”TRANSITION” TO NEW ROLE FOR HARRY AND MEGHAN14 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51099102

TEXT

The Queen has agreed a “period of transition” in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spend time in Canada and the UK.

She said she was “entirely supportive” of their desire for a new role but “would have preferred” them to remain full-time working royals.

She expected final decisions to be made in the coming days, she said.

Senior royals have been in talks about Prince Harry and Meghan’s role after they said they wanted to “step back”.

In a statement, the Queen said the talks at Sandringham, which also involved the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, had been “very constructive”.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family,” she said.

“Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”

She said it had been agreed there would be “a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK” after Harry and Meghan “made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives”.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days,” she said.

The urgent talks were convened after the Sussexes surprised the rest of the Royal Family on Wednesday with a statement expressing their desire to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family”.

They also said they wanted a “progressive new role” within the institution, where they would be financially independent and divide their time between the UK and North America.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Global News there had been “no discussions” about the details of the couple’s move, including on the issues of security and any potential impact on Canada’s taxpayers.

Although no other family member was consulted about the timing of the announcement, the duke and duchess said it came after “many months of reflection and internal discussions”.

Both Prince Harry and Meghan spoke of the difficulties of royal life and media attention in recent months, with the duke saying he feared his wife would fall victim to “the same powerful forces” that led to his mother’s death.

The talks about their future took place as Prince Harry and Prince William issued a joint statement denying “false claims” that their relationship had been damaged by “bullying” on the part of the older brother.

They said that the “inflammatory language” in the claims was “offensive” and “potentially harmful”, given their support for mental health causes.

This is a remarkably candid and informal, almost personal, statement from the Queen.

Her regret over Harry and Meghan’s move is obvious – she would have preferred them to stay in their current roles.

But she also makes clear that they are still royals and that they will be valued in the family as they become a more independent couple.

There are buckets of questions outstanding – on their future royal role, their relationship with the rest of the Palace, on who will pay what (not, the Queen says, the taxpayer), and on how Harry and Meghan will support themselves.

There’s still a lot to thrash out and to agree on. Not all of it may become public.

And it looks like the Queen sees this as a process, not an event. She writes of a transition period when Harry and Meghan divide their time between Canada and the UK.

The Queen has asked for decisions to be made over the next few days. But those decisions may well be up for review in the coming months and years.

line

Historian Robert Lacey told the BBC Radio 4’s PM programme the Queen’s statement following the meeting was unusually personal, with several references to “my family” and “my grandson”.

“It is remarkably hands-on. I mean it may have been processed through officials but this is the Queen, speaking to her people and speaking about her family, and I think coming right through it is the concern she feels,” he said.

Instead of using the formal titles of the couple – the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – the Queen simply called them “Harry and Meghan”.

Penny Junor, an author of books about the royals, said that the statement “read to me like a grandmother talking about the family”, adding that it would “take the pressure off” the duke and duchess.

“I think they’re in a very vulnerable state at the moment. I think they’re unhappy, they feel isolated and unloved, unappreciated and they needed careful handling,” she said.

“My reading from that statement is that the family has been sensitive to their vulnerability.”

How did we get here?

In their statement on Wednesday, posted on the couple’s official Instagram account, the duke and duchess said they intend to “step back” as senior royals, spending time in North America, while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.

It came after an interview last October, when Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.

The duke also issued an impassioned statement attacking what he described as “relentless propaganda” in parts of the media, as lawyers for his wife began legal action against the Mail on Sunday.

The couple were already preparing to launch their own Sussex Royal charity, which they set up after splitting from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s foundation in June last year.

It was revealed in December that the couple had made an application to trademark their Sussex Royal brand for items including books, calendars, clothing, charitable fundraising, education and social care services.

[7]

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family. 


THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885 [8]

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET

9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

TEXT

The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.

Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.

The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.

The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.

It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”

His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.

After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.

“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”

Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

‘Enormous mistake’

“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”

In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.

“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”

Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’

“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”

Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.

“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?

“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”

Prompt action

Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.

Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.

His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”

Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.

His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.

Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.

He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.

A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.

Controversial comments

It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee’s life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.

In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series. 

[9]

”Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

TEXT

Piers Morgan clashed with a Good Morning Britain guest in an explosive debate about whether the British press has been racist towards Meghan Markle. Writer, broadcaster, and former barrister Afua Hirsch joined the programme alongside columnist Sarah Vine, PR expert Nick Ede and former royal butler Paul Burrell and locked horns with the host as they discussed coverage of the Duchess of Sussex. ‘There have been allegations that she has been associated with very racialised forms of crime, there have been discussions about her “exotic” DNA, her newborn baby was compared to a baby chimp,’ Afua began. But Piers quickly snapped back: ‘Is her DNA not exotic by royal standards? She’s the first mixed-race person to enter the royal family. Why do you take exception to the word exotic?’ ‘Because it others her and associates her with a history that has posited people of African heritage as other,’ Afua responded.

Susanna Reid then chipped in to urge Piers to let Afua speak as he attempted to speak over her. ‘You can’t just say these things are racist when they’re not,’ Piers quipped. ‘I’m telling you that as someone who’s lived the experience of being a person of African heritage in this country that there are narratives that are regularly…’ Afua continued. But before she had time to continue her point, Piers asked if she was accusing him of being racist. ‘I’m saying that the narratives that you’re perpetuating are racist,’ Afua added.

And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’ Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

[10]

A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
8 NOVEMBER 2016
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

TEXT

The British Monarchy

Published 8 November 2016

Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads.

He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.

But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm. He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.

[11]

WIKIPEDIAPIERS MORGAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

[12] 
”And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/13/piers-morgan-clashes-good-morning-britain-guest-explosive-meghan-markle-racist-media-coverage-debate-12048124/ 
[13]

THE SUN MEGA TROLLS: MEGHAN MARKLE BOMBARDED WITH 5200 HATEFUL TWEETS IN TWO MONTHS-AND 70 PERCENT OF ABUSE CAME FROM TWENTY TROLLS8 MARCH 2019
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8588968/meghan-markle-social-media-abuse-trolls-duchess-of-sussex/

TEXT
The Duchess of Sussex is being targeted by a group of trolls whose accounts appear to have been created specifically to spew bile about the former Suits star.

MEGHAN Markle was bombarded with 5,200 hateful and racist tweets in two months with the majority of abuse coming from 20 vile trolls, an investigation has found.The Duchess of Sussex is being targeted by the group of trolls whose accounts appear to have been created specifically to spew bile about the former Suits star.

New analysis has revealed that these 20 accounts sent more than 3,600 hateful tweets directed at, or about, the Duchess of Sussex in just two months, CNN reported.

The Twitter bios associated with the trolls typically contained Meghan-related hashtags like #Megxit and #Charlatanduchess.

Advocacy group Hope Not Hate analysed a sample of more than 5,000 tweets, posted between January and the middle of February, that contained the most commonly used anti-Meghan hashtags.

VILE TROLL GANG

Analysis of the tweets found that 20 accounts were responsible for about 70 per cent of the tweets, sharing anti-Meghan hashtags, pictures and memes.

The small group of accounts that troll the Duchess often re-tweet news articles that portray Meghan negatively and use racist language.

The findings come after the Royal Family declared war on social media trolls warning that the worst offenders will be reported to police.

Buckingham Palace published rules for those wanting to post on all social media channels run by them, Clarence House and Kensington Palace.

Courtiers have said they will block abusers and even encourage police to take legal action if tweets or posts are particularly bad.

ABUSE TARGETED AT MEGHAN AND KATE

It follows growing alarm at the abuse targeted at all royals – but particularly Kate and Meghan.

The two women have had vile sexist and abusive messages on Instagram and Twitter – with Meghan also receiving racist abuse.

The Palace statement said: “We ask that anyone engaging with our social media channels shows courtesy, kindness and respect for all other members of our social media communities.”

The rules, listed on the Royal Family’s website, call for comments not to “contain spam, be defamatory of any person, deceive others, be obscene, offensive, threatening, abusive, hateful, inflammatory or promote sexually explicit material or violence” or “promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age.”

ROYALS DECLARE WAR ON SOCIAL MEDIA TROLLS

Palace aides are understood to have been particularly concerned about users abusing one another, often in the guise of supporting “Team Meghan” or “Team Kate”.

Meghan has been accused of faking her pregnancy, had horrendous racist abuse and even been subject to threats of violence.

When Meghan made a surprise appearance at the British Fashion Awards, the British Fashion Council removed an Instagram picture of her as there were more than 500 abusive comments.

In one appalling post about Meghan, a user wrote: “I publicly state I believe this woman is a textbook sociopath narcissist. 99.99999% she’s a vile wreckingball.”

On Kate, another wrote: “Can we talk about Kate’s manic face and weird body movement. Is she copying Meghan?”

Kensington Palace has already said that aides spend several hours a week trying to moderate and delete abusive comments – often on pictures of the Cambridges or the Sussexes.The statement said: “We reserve the right to determine, at our discretion, whether contributions to our social media channels breach our guidelines.

[14]
”It follows growing alarm at the abuse targeted at all royals – but particularly Kate and Meghan.

The two women have had vile sexist and abusive messages on Instagram and Twitter – with Meghan also receiving racist abuse.”

….

”On Kate, another wrote: “Can we talk about Kate’s manic face and weird body movement. Is she copying Meghan?”  
THE SUN MEGA TROLLS: MEGHAN MARKLE BOMBARDED WITH 5200 HATEFUL TWEETS IN TWO MONTHS-AND 70 PERCENT OF ABUSE CAME FROM TWENTY TROLLS8 MARCH 2019
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8588968/meghan-markle-social-media-abuse-trolls-duchess-of-sussex/

[15]EXOTIC DNA

”If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA”

THE DAILY MAILRACHEL JOHNSON: SORRY HARRY, BUT YOUR BEAUTIFUL BOLTER HAS FAILED MY MUM TEST6 NOVEMBER 2016
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3909362/RACHEL-JOHNSON-Sorry-Harry-beautiful-bolter-failed-Mum-Test.html

When I look at Meghan Markle – the American small-screen actress currently starring as “Harry’s Hottie” – I can’t help it. I assess her as a future daughter-in-law.

Prince Harry, 32, lost his mother when he was a boy, and ever since that dark day I’ve had feelings for him. Maternal feelings. And every time he has a girlfriend, I subject her to the “Mum Test”. I try to decide whether Princess Diana (and the Queen) would give Chelsy, or Cressida, or Jenna, or whomever, the thumbs-up or down as a potential Royal consort and addition to The Firm.

So I have done my due diligence on Miss Markle, and this is where I stand. Genetically, she is blessed. If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA. Miss Markle’s mother is a dreadlocked African-American lady from the wrong side of the tracks who lives in LA, and even the sourest spinster has to admit that the 35-year-old actress is extremely easy on the eye. Miss Markle has an active social conscience, and anti-landmine campaigner Princess Diana would be delighted that she is the Ambassador for World Vision and has toured Afghanistan and Rwanda as part of her humanitarian effort.

She is also an accomplished actress and, indeed, her role as sultry paralegal Rachel Zane in TV series Suits is so popular that some clips from it have been viewed many, many thousands of times online (on a site I’m afraid readers will be unacquainted with called YouPorn).

Like Princess Diana, she wears her heart on her sleeve, and is emotionally open. “My cup runneth over,” she told the Toronto Sun, in her only comment on her new squeeze. “And I’m the luckiest girl in the world.”

As part of my research I had a look at her Instagram feed, along with the rest of the world, trying to read clues of her relationship status into pictures of bananas spooning and one of a jigsaw puzzle and a tea cup. (That one’s easy. “Jigsaw and cup of tea?” is, obvs, the couple’s secret, social media code for ‘Netflix and chill?’)

Apart from these teasing images (which add to the impression this showgirl has expertly ‘played’ the playboy Prince) you will find motivational quotes such as “Throw Kindness Around Like Confetti” and cute pictures of her two rescue dogs. This is all good so far, but there are, I admit, a couple of things that don’t pass the Mum Test.

She’s divorced and, as soon as she met Prince Harry, she is said to have dropped her gorgeous chef boyfriend like a hot brick, as she reeled in the biggest fish in the dating universe by not replying to Harry’s texts for several days (that old trick!).

And that’s a red line for a future mother-in-law. You see, if a girl does it to one man, to two men – there’s every chance she’ll do it to your son, too. As far as the Royal Family is concerned, a bolter is far worse than a black sheep.

Harry needs a sticker, a tremendous, limpet-like sticker, like Sophie Wessex. Or Kate Middleton. Nobody cares that Miss Markle is mixed race or a tease, but racy is a different story. Racy is not official Wife Material. Flirty Harry has met his match – and that means one thing.

I’ve turned up my hearing aid, but I’m still not hearing wedding bells, not this side of the Atlantic, anyway. Miss Markle may be truly scrumptious, but she still fails my Mum Test. 

WIKIPEDIA

THOMAS MARKLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Markle

[16]THE DAILY MAILEXCLUSIVE: HARRY’S GIRL IS (ALMOST) STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON, GANG SCARRED HOME OF HER MOTHER REVEALED-SO WILL HE BE DROPPING BY FOR TEA?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896180/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html

Plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs, the troubled Los Angeles neighborhood that Doria Ragland, 60, calls home couldn’t be more different to London’s leafy Kensington.

But social worker Ragland might now find herself welcoming a royal guest to downtrodden Crenshaw after Prince Harry was revealed to be dating her daughter – Suits actress Meghan Markle.Markle, 35, is now based in Toronto, Canada, but her mother remains in LA and moved to her modest green-painted home five years ago after the death of her own father, Alvin, in 2011.

Markle was brought up in a large yellow-colored detached home in central Los Angeles, while her rumored royal boyfriend spent much of his childhood between Kensington Palace and Prince Charles’ Gloucestershire mansion, Highgrove.

But Harry’s literally palatial homes couldn’t be more different from the tatty one-storey homes that dominate much of Crenshaw.

And while there have been a total of 21 crimes in the immediate area around Highgrove over the past 12 months, 47 have taken place in Crenshaw in the last week alone – including murder and robbery.Other crimes noted over the past seven days include multiple drug-related misdemeanors, vehicle thefts, vandalism and disturbing the peace.

Local gangs include Crenshaw Mafia Gangster, which has been plaguing the area since 1981, and Bloods affiliates Center Park Blood.

Operating close by are the Westside Rollin’ 60’s Neighborhood Crips, one of the largest street crime collectives in Los Angeles, and branches of the Compton-based Piru gang.

Nevertheless – and in spite of the gangs – parts of Crenshaw are considered to be improving, among them the aptly named Windsor Hills.

Neighbor Michael McWilliams, 49, said he had not seen Doria since news of her daughter’s alleged dalliance with Prince Harry broke but described her as ‘a nice woman’.

‘I’ve never seen the little girl [Meghan] though,’ added McWilliams. ‘She [Doria] has been living here since her daddy [Alvin] died.’

Markle remains close to her mother, who divorced her father Thomas, 72, when she was six, and is often seen with her on the red carpet.

Thomas, a lighting director, is currently thought to be in Mexico and recently filed for bankruptcy after racking up debts of $30,000 (£24,000).Doria, who also filed for bankruptcy herself in 2002 over a $52,750 credit-card bill, appears to be the one of the defining influences in her daughter’s life.

Writing in an article about her background, Markle addressed being mixed race, saying: ‘While I could say Pennsylvania and Ohio, and continue this proverbial two-step, I instead give them what they’re after: “My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African-American.”‘

She also wrote about being a ‘light-skinned’ baby so when people saw her black mother pushing her in the pram ‘they assumed she was the nanny.’And she has spoken of how her mother’s great-great grandfather was born into slavery and freed at the end of the Civil War.

Crenshaw is one of a cluster of Los Angeles boroughs famous for gangs – along with Compton, Long Beach, South Central and Inglewood.

The latter, which borders Crenshaw to the south, is also home to another member of Meghan’s family – her maternal aunt, Ava Burrow, 63.Burrow, who was not at home when DailyMail.com visited, lives on an Inglewood street with the dubious distinction of having its own branch of the Bloods crime gang in situ.

Known as the Queen Street Bloods, famous former members include rapper Mack-10 and Jacksonville Jaguars wide receiver Marqise Lee.

Indeed, so famous is the area for gang crime, it was name-checked in Dr Dre’s 1999 rap hit The Next Episode along with Compton and Long Beach.

The crime-plagued neighborhoods of Markle’s mother and aunt are a far cry from the leafy part of Long Island where her former husband, Trevor Engleson, 40, grew up.

The Hollywood producer now lives in Los Angeles but was brought up in an affluent suburb of Long Island close to the New York City limits.

His parents declined to comment at their detached home.

One family friend, who declined to be named, said that the family had not spoken to Markle since the divorce.

Her ex-husband told relatives that he had learned of the actress’s new romance at the weekend but was reticent to discuss it further.

Their divorce was in Los Angeles, where Markle legally resides although she spends much of her time in Toronto.

It was a ‘quickie’ divorce which used a legal procedure which limits the information the couple have to disclose – including their marital assets.

The papers associated with it show that both parties agreed to the split and that any financial settlement was entirely confidential.

Markle also gave up using her ex-husband’s surname, the papers said.He continues to run his production company from an office in Los Angeles and was not available for comment.

[17]

WIKIPEDIASTRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON (FILM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Outta_Compton_(film)

WIKIPEDIADR. DRE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Dre

[18] 

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET

9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

TEXT

The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.

Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.

The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.

The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.

It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”

His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.

After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.

“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”

Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

‘Enormous mistake’

“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”

In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.

“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”

Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’

“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”

Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.

“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?

“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”

Prompt action

Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.

Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.

His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”

Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.

His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.

Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.

He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.

A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.

Controversial comments

It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee’s life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.

In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series. 

[19]

”And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’ Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

[20]ALPHANEWSEXCLUSIVE: MEGHAN MARKLE TARGETED BY HUNDREDS OF RACIST AND SEXIST TWEETS AMID PLAN TO STEP BACK15 JANUARY 2020
https://alphanews.co/exclusive-meghan-markle-targeted-by-hundreds-of-racist-and-sexist-tweets-amid-plan-to-step-back/

TEXT

Hundreds of tweets containing sexist and racist abuse aimed at Meghan Markle were posted following the announcement that she and Prince Harry were quitting royal duties

A study for HuffPost UK carried out by digital journalism analysts at the University of Sunderland captured the offensive posts mentioning the Duchess of Sussex.

Some 400 tweets were captured in the the most severe category of abuse, containing sexist and racist insults.

Phrases included “self-loathing race traitor”, “trailer trash”, “meghan the queen, of monkey island”, “the woke Meghan bint” and “poisonous cow”. Markle was also described as a “bitch”, “c*nt”, “whore”, “slut” and “witch”, among other terms.

Responding to the analysis, Dr John Price, senior lecturer in journalism at Sunderland, said: “These results give a sense of the levels of abuse that have been published about Meghan Markle in the days after the announcement.

“There will be many more tweets not captured in the study, as racism and misogyny are often expressed in more subtle terms that do not use overtly abusive language.

“The vast amount of abuse captured in these findings is startling. It shows that aspects of social media, such as Twitter, have become a haven for people wishing to express hatred against women.”

Researchers set up a program using negative sentiment analysis to capture all tweets mentioning variations of the duchess’ name and an array of commonly used misogynistic and racist terms of abuse. 

The sample of social media posts was collected between the time of the royal couple’s announcement on January 8 and midnight the following day.

The same researchers previously investigated trolling of female MPs during the 2017 general election.

It comes amid national discussion about the duchess’s treatment by parts of the UK media – and whether it factored into her and Harry’s big announcement.

The couple have faced significant media scrutiny and Markle has endured frequent racist abuse from the public, especially online.

In July, presenter Eamonn Holmes came under fire for calling Markle “uppity” on This Morning during a discussion about the Duchess’s requests for privacy with reporter Lainey Lui who was in Canada.

Historically the word was used in the US in the 19th Century as an insult to Black people who “didn’t know their place”.

She also claimed anchor Piers Morgan was “spouting […] nasty and vile comments” loaded with “bigotry, misogyny, sexism and racism” aimed at the duchess.

Jeremy Corbyn shared Prince Harry’s concerns over the “racial undertones” of media coverage of his wife Meghan, the Labour Party revealed on Wednesday.

The Labour leader’s spokesperson said: “Jeremy has commented in the past in relation to Prince Harry and Meghan, about press intrusion and its impact on people and their families and, to use Prince Harry’s words as well, the ‘racial undertones’ in relation to how the media has approached Meghan.”

Corbyn’s message came as another Labour MP, Holly Lynch, told HuffPost UK that Meghan had been “hounded” by the press.Lynch, who was personally phoned by the duchess last year to thank her for an open letter signed by 72 female MPs attacking “colonial undertones” of her treatment, said it was time to “call out” the media “frenzy” around the Sussexes’ decision to step away from the royal family. 
[21]

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICAHANNITY RADIO PRODUCER CALLS MEGHAN MARKLE ”VERY UPPITY”14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/hannity-radio-producer-calls-meghan-markle-very-uppity

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): There’s something off here. Don’t you think there’s something off? Apparently William, his brother, said, “You know, you may be moving a little too fast, maybe slow it down,” apparently that didn’t go over well.  

LYNDA MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, I think his family thinks he’s an idiot, because he is. And I think that —

HANNITY: Why do you think he’s an idiot?

MCLAUGHLIN: Oh, Harry’s always been the red-headed child. He’s always been the one, he can’t get it together, he’s at the parties, the clubs, he’s a hot mess.

HANNITY: What I didn’t like in this whole thing — I’ll say one thing I didn’t like.  I didn’t like that Meghan didn’t even get on the phone as she was in Canada, and she was invited to be a part of that meeting. That I didn’t like. That, to me is –MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know?

[22]
  MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know?  

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICAHANNITY RADIO PRODUCER CALLS MEGHAN MARKLE ”VERY UPPITY”14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/hannity-radio-producer-calls-meghan-markle-very-uppity
[23]

An uppity person behaves in an unpleasant way because they think that they are more important than they really are”
CAMBRIDGE DICTIONNARY
”UPPITY”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/uppity

[24]

;”
A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations”
THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

TEXT

A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations, but it’s getting harder and harder to understand how public figures, in particular, are able to maintain their ignorance of the term’s history.ELSPETH REEVENOVEMBER 22, 2011

A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations, but it’s getting harder and harder to understand how public figures, in particular, are able to maintain their ignorance of the term’s history. President Obama has been a well-known public figure for several years and his conservative critics, in particular, keep making the “uppity” mistake. This week it’s Rush Limbaugh, who said Michelle Obama was booed at a weekend Nascar race because she showed “uppity-ism,” as well as the conservative site Newsbusters, which is just shocked that anyone might call that comment racially problematic. Glenn Beck, too, is defending Limbaugh’s analysis, saying it’s just a synonym for snobby. It’s hard to explain how they’ve managed to avoid finding out about “uppity” secret past.
Limbaugh said Monday “Nascar people… are mature, tolerant people who fully understand when they’re being insulted and condescended to,” Limbaugh said, then listed Obama’s transgressions such as taking expensive vacations and saying exercise is good. He continued, “They understand it is a little bit of uppity-ism.”  Glenn Beck defended the comment, saying on Imus’ radio show, “Uppity? You don’t think she’s a little snotty? Really? Really? Miss Arugula? Come on!”  (Arugula is a type of lettuce that is offensive to some conservatives.) “I’m not going to apologize for saying the woman who says ‘I’d like a good steak and arugula once in a while’… Please. We’re living in a country where you can’t say that’s a little uppity?” 

Beck seemed unaware “uppity” was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn’t know their place. In fairness, a lot of people don’t know for sure whether “uppity” is racist. Various forms of the question “Is uppity racist?” is a very popular on Yahoo Answers. But a little more digging could help these guys out. The most liked and most disliked definition at Urban Dictionary notes that “uppity” is often followed by the n-word. Maybe these media guys don’t know how to Google. Even so, they’ve had a lot of practice with uppity in recent years. In 2008, Rep. Lynn Westmorland claimed he didn’t know “uppity” had racial connotations when he used the term to describe then-Sen. Barack Obama. This is especially curious because Westmorland is from Georgia. In 2010, Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said Sarah Palin’s habit of deriding Obama as a “professor” was code for “uppity.” Limbaugh responded by saying the term was racist when applied to Clarence Thomas, but true when applied to Obama: “Obama is uppity, but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he’s smarter and better than everybody else. That’s what he was taught. He’s a Harvard man.” (Thomas received his law degree, by contrast, from plebian institution Yale.)But maybe that practice is starting to sink in. While Newsbusters’ Brent Baker was appalled that ABC News had “elevated” the “left-wing hit,” he didn’t quite go so far as to explicitly say the comment wasn’t racist. That’s progress.

[25]
”Beck seemed unaware “uppity” was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn’t know their place.”

THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

[26]THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

[27]WIKIPEDIA
PIERS MORGAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

[28]

THE DAILY MAILHARRY AND MEGHAN HAVE BULLIED THE QUEEN INTO GETTING THEIR WAY: PIERS MORGAN WADES INTO ROW AFTER PALACE STATEMENT13 JANUARY 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7882959/Harry-Meghan-BULLIED-Queen-getting-way-Piers-Morgan-wades-in.html

TEXT

  • Piers Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it’
  • He was referring to Her Majesty’s message following crisis talks at Sandringham
  • It confirmed the couple would step down but referred to ‘period of transition’
  • Mr Morgan said Harry and Meghan were holding the Queen to ransom 
  • Said the pair wanted to have their cake and ‘eat it will all of the royal trimmings’ 

Piers Morgan has claimed that Harry and Meghan have ‘bullied’ the Queen into getting their way after crisis talks today at Sandringham over the Sussexes’ future.

Wading into the row following the Queen’s historic confirmation that the pair would step down, Mr Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.’ 

He also claimed that the couple were ‘having their cake and eating it with all the royal trimmings’. 

The Queen said Meghan and Harry would step back as senior royals and split their time between Canada and the UK, but clouded how they would achieve their notion of financial independence.

The statement came after a summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry.

Mr Morgan’s suggestion that the couple ‘bullied’ the Queen follows claims published on Monday that it was in fact the elder brother William who had bullied Harry and Meghan. 

Mr Morgan, who has made plain his views on the Duchess of Sussex in recent days, did not mince his words this evening, accusing Meghan and Harry of bullying the monarch

The Times claimed that Meghan told Harry she must step away from the Royal Family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming William’s ‘bullying attitude’ and told her husband over Christmas: ‘It’s not working for me’. 

But hitting back before the Sandringham talks Harry and William slammed the ‘false story’, adding: ‘For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful’. 

Mr Morgan made plain his views on the Sussexes this morning on ITV, saying: ‘The Queen’s just had to fire her middle son, her 98-year-old husband is very sick and these two little spoiled brats are holding her to ransom at the worst moment.

‘If they want to leave after 18 months then that’s fine,’ he said before speaking directly to Meghan: ‘I always thought you’d do this anyway. You quit your friends, you quit your dad, and you quit your jobs.’

He added: ‘She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead. She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother.’ 

Speaking on Australian TV, he added that Meghan was ‘pretty ruthless’, as he highlighted her ‘ghosting him’.

‘It really cemented in me a feeling that Meghan Markle is not quite what she seems,’ he told the show on Tuesday morning.

[29]
FREE DICTIONNARYBE (SITTING] ON (ONE’S) TAIL
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+on+her+tail

”be (sitting) on (one’s) tailTo follow close behind someone or something.Why is this guy sitting on my tail when I’m already going over the speed limit?The cops are definitely on our tail now—we have to turn ourselves in!

[30]

”The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados.

For all their health benefits and tastiness, the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.”
THE DAILY MAILHOW MEGHAN’S FAVOURITE AVOCADO SNACK -BELOVED OF ALL MILLENNIALS – IS FUELLING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, DROUGHT AND MURDER”22 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621047/How-Meghans-favourite-avocado-snack-fuelling-human-rights-abuses-drought-murder.html

The Duchess of Sussex has rightly been praised for making the fusty old Royal Family more socially and ethically aware.

But that was until an old friend from her Hollywood days was invited round for a bite to eat and posted online a picture of what was widely assumed to be high tea.

Pride of place went to avocado on toast —on silver platters, no less. ‘Still being the avocado toast whisperer, YUM!’, trilled her guest, Daniel Martin. The celebrity make-up artist said it took him back to the days when he and Meghan Markle collaborated on her lifestyle blog, The Tig.

‘The consummate hostess,’ he enthused.Well, perhaps not so much.

The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados.

For all their health benefits and tastiness, the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.

It has proved so lucrative in Mexico that it has been dubbed ‘green gold’ and is even filling the coffers of brutal drug cartels.

In her defence, the duchess is hardly the only celebrity who’s extolled the wonders of avocados, which are full of vitamins, proteins and healthy fats.

The lifeblood of the millennial generation — who can’t stop posting pictures of avocado on toast on Instagram — this so-called ‘super food’ has been championed by everyone from nutritionists to Hollywood stars.

The duchess revealed in her Grenfell cookbook that a green chilli and avocado dip was a favourite. Pop star Miley Cyrus went further with an avocado tattoo on her arm.

Grown in Mexico for 9,000 years, the avocado has come a long way since the 16th century, when Spanish conquistadors disparagingly called it aguacate, after ahuacatl, Aztec for testicle. Between 2000 and 2015, avocado consumption in the U.S. tripled. In the UK, the avocado market is estimated to be worth around £200 million a year.

But it has become a victim of its own popularity, prompting restaurants and cafes to remove it from menus over concerns about its environmental and social impact.

The Wild Strawberry Cafe in Bucks substituted avocados, its most popular item, with garlic-sauteed mushrooms on toast. Its owner cited the ‘demand on avocado farmers, pushing up prices to the point where there are even reports of Mexican drug cartels controlling lucrative exports’.

Tincan Coffee in Bristol has replaced ‘avo’ with pea guacamole after they were judged not to ‘fit’ with it’s ‘core beliefs’. The Wildflower Restaurant in South London followed suit, citing the violence in Mexico.

Its chef, Joseph Ryan, suggested the world may be entering a ‘post-avocado era’.

Haute cuisine has also jumped on board. In Ireland, the Michelin-starred chef JP McMahon has called them the ‘blood diamonds of Mexico’ and compared avocados to battery chickens. Where trendy restaurants and chefs go, the image-conscious supermarkets may not be far behind.

The problems that come from the West’s trendy fascination with avocados have a lot to do with geography. Some 40 per cent come from Mexico and almost all of that is grown in the rural western state of Michoacan.

The region’s fertile volcanic soil and temperate climate allow avocados to be harvested all year round (in other countries they can only be harvested in summer). The rich soil means the notoriously thirsty avocado trees need only a third as much water as they do elsewhere.

Mexico now makes more money exporting avocados than oil. Unfortunately, Michoacan is also home to some of Mexico’s most violent cartels. They include La Familia Michoacana, whose leaders once tossed five rivals’ heads on to the dance floor of a nightclub; their equally vicious rivals in the Knights Templar, a quasi-religious death cult; and Los Viagras, named for their leader’s heavily moussed, erect hair.

In Michoacan, the cartels now make more money from avocados than cannabis. Some drug criminals are becoming growers themselves, others simply terrorise the industry. Avocado farmers, who in Michoacan can easily earn more than £115,000 a year, a vast sum in Mexico, live in continual fear of kidnapping and extortion.

The Knights Templar started charging a fee for every box of avocados gathered by farmers. They also extorted money from the fertiliser and pesticide retailers. Many farmers have been forced to hand over the title deeds to their farms.

If they don’t pay protection money, growers and packers risk being raped or killed, their bodies tied to avocado trees with warning notices attached. Some kidnapped farmers have been killed even after their families paid their ransom.

A businessman whose family refused to pay up was chained to one of his trees and shot dead. Officials estimated the Knights Templar alone earn as much as £115 million a year from avocados.

The cartel’s 2014 kidnap, rape and murder of an avocado farmer’s young daughter prompted the town of Tancitaro to drive out the Knights after a bloody battle. However, the cartels remain a menacing presence.

Mexico’s avocado industry is also accused of damaging the health of locals with the chemicals sprayed on the orchards. Experts are concerned that the fumigation of the trees is behind growing breathing and stomach problems, and may be polluting water supplies.

Unscrupulous farmers are clearing land for avocado orchards, often illegally by cutting down oak and pine forests. The latter provide a crucial winter nesting ground for the imperilled Monarch butterfly.

Indeed, a Mexican government study concluded that soaring avocado production has caused a loss of biodiversity, environmental pollution and soil erosion. It has also damaged the natural water cycle and threatened the survival of animal species only found in the area. Farmers exacerbate deforestation by using trees for avocado crates.

We can’t be certain where Meghan’s avocados came from, but fashionable eaters who think they can safely switch to sourcing them from the Dominican Republic, Chile or Peru should think again.

Wherever they come from, the thousands of miles any avocado has to travel to get to Britain means they leave a heavy carbon footprint.

This is because they are perishable but cannot be frozen because it alters their texture.

They must therefore be transported either by air or in air-conditioned container ships so they ripen at just the right moment.

Their relatively heavy weight and bulky packaging to prevent bruising further ratchets up their carbon footprint. Two avocados have a footprint of 846g of CO2, compared to 160g for two bananas.

The enormous amounts of water required to grow avocados is even more of an eco-issue in countries without Mexico’s volcanic soil. It can take as much as 1,000 litres (220 gallons) to grow a single kilo (about three avocados).

The Chilean province of Petorca is suffering an acute water shortage thanks to ‘green gold’. Water has been privatised in Chile (which specialises in the Hass variety so popular in the UK), meaning that those who pay — such as deep-pocketed big avocado growers — can use as much as they want.

When activists complained after a 2012 aerial survey revealed 64 pipelines were diverting river water underground to irrigate the orchards, they received death threats. Local rivers have now dried up and supplies have to be trucked in for local people while the avocado farms rely on artificial reservoirs.

Although the avocado is essentially a jungle plant, greedy growers are determined to cultivate it in dry, perennially sunny areas such as California, where orchards sap water from a state already prone to wildfires and drought.

In Israel, avocado trees are irrigated with treated waste-water, prompting fears that harmful nano-particles are not only permanently damaging the soil but penetrating the fruit.

The Chinese are being gripped by avocado mania, too, so demand is expected to keep soaring.

But given the damaging cost of ‘avocado fever’, might it not be better to eat them more sparingly — and not, for example, serve them up on silver platters?

Since Meghan’s guest was invited to high tea, surely it should have been a case of let him eat cake.

[31]THE DAILY MAILHOW MEGHAN’S FAVOURITE AVOCADO SNACK -BELOVED OF ALL MILLENNIALS – IS FUELLING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, DROUGHT AND MURDER”22 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621047/How-Meghans-favourite-avocado-snack-fuelling-human-rights-abuses-drought-murder.html
[32]

ISRAEL/HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
BTSELEM.ORG
TORTURE AND ABUSE IN INTERROGATION
https://www.btselem.org/topic/torture

BTSELEM.ORGFATALITIES DURING OPERATION CAST LEAD
https://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/during-cast-lead/by-date-of-event

ISRAELI OCCUPATION AND PALESTINIAN RIGHTS/LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DUTCH PARLIAMENTASTRID ESSED4 FEBRUARI 2019
https://www.astridessed.nl/israeli-occupation-and-palestinian-rights-letter-to-the-members-of-the-dutch-parliament/

EU CANCELS MEETING WITH ISRAEL AFTER SETTLEMENT’S VOTE/EU, TAKE MEASURES AGAINST ISRAEL NOW!ASTRID ESSED1 MARCH 2017
https://www.astridessed.nl/eu-cancels-meeting-with-israel-after-settlements-voteeu-take-measures-against-israel-now/

[33]
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is a Latin phrase, literally “What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a bull”
WIKIPEDIAQUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi

[34]

THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

  • Meghan cradling her baby bump is a subject that has got the nation talking
  • From a double hand clasp to handbag shield we identify different types of holds 
  • Experts were asked to explain why they think she does it so often in public

It’s the subject that has got the nation talking: why does Meghan constantly cradle her bump? Here we identify the different types of embrace… and ask experts to explain why they think she does it.

Make like Meghan in a burgundy dress by Club Monaco

The Duchess of Sussex turned to one of her favourite labels, Club Monaco for an engagement in London last week.

Meghan wore the brand’s ‘Sallyet’ dress in a chic burgundy colour that simply exuded winter-chic vibes. We love the contrasting velvet collar! The stylish royal then finished off with a co-ordinating coat also by Club Monaco and a pair of cut-out ankle boots by Givenchy.

We’ve spotted her wearing the label on a lot of different occasions, most recently throughout the Royal tour, plus back in August when she attended a wedding on her birthday.

Deep berry and plum shades are perfect for this time of year, so click (right) to snap up this exact dress before the Meghan effect takes hold. You can also get your hands on her exact coat and ankle boots below to recreate the look in full.

Alternatively, we’ve hand-picked even more must-have maroon dresses that have a cute collar neckline just like Meghan’s. La Redoute and Warehouse have the best lookalikes.[35]
”the cat is out of the bagSome secret or surprise has been revealed or exposed.Well, we were going to keep this project a secret until we were a little further along in development, but I guess the cat is out of the bag now.We’ve had hidden cameras and microphones installed in his apartment to gather incriminating evidence, but I think the cat’s out of the bag.

FREE DICTIONARYTHE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/the+cat+is+out+of+the+bag

[36]
THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?26 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

[37]

THE DAILY MAILNOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW”21 MARCH 2018

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5526339/Pregnant-Kate-looks-blooming-green.html

  • Pregnant Duchess is attending symposium at Royal Society of Medicine in London
  • Event will discuss early intervention to support child mental health 
  • Kate, 36, is due to give birth to her third child next month 
  • Is set to complete celebratory Commonwealth engagements with William tomorrow

She’s weeks away from having her third child, but there’s no rest for the Duchess of Cambridge as she continues her busy schedule of royal engagements ahead of the birth.

Pregnant Kate, 36, is this morning attending a symposium at the Royal Society of Medicine in London of leading academics and charities championing early intervention into the lives of children.

The mother-to-be looked radiant in a bespoke green coat dress with a bow detail at the collar by Jenny Packham, worn over a mint dress, teamed with her favourite blush suede heels.  

And she looked as if she’d taken inspiration from the Queen who wore a remarkably similar ensemble to watch polo at Windsor in 1973.

Today’s meeting is thought to be Kate’s penultimate engagement before she commences her maternity leave and comes after Prince William’s confirmation that she’s due to give birth ‘any minute now’. 

According to Hello! magazine, the Duke of Cambridge made the revelation that the new royal baby will be here sooner rather than later, while knighting Ringo Starr yesterday. 

Despite the impending birth, Kate has had her busiest start to the year yet and if William’s admission is anything to go by, it seems that she’s determined to keep working as close to her due date as possible. 

The royal used today’s engagement to call for teenagers to be taught parenting and relationship skills to avoid the danger of their future children developing mental health problems in later life.

In a speech on the benefits of early intervention in supporting children’s mental wellbeing she said it was important to get the next generation of parents ‘child-ready’ even before they have children.

Go green like the Duchess of Cambridge in Jenny Packham

The Duchess of Cambridge is getting closer and closer to her due date, but that’s not holding her back from her duties. It’s certainly not holding her back in the style stakes, either.

Arriving for a conference held by The Royal Foundation today, Kate worked a new maternity look. Despite re-wearing most of her outfits lately, she had splashed out here opting for a bespoke dress and coat by one of her go-to British designers, Jenny Packham.

The look was a bright one that ensured she stood out on arrival and we love the pretty bow detail at the collar.

You cannot buy this outerwear as it’s bespoke, but click right to head to NET-A-PORTER where you can shop ready-to-wear pieces by the brand. Or you can go green and look royally stylish in one of our alternative coats below by Theory, Harris Wharf London, Boden and more. 

Kate was speaking at a symposium of academics, professionals and charities organised by the Royal Foundation, the charitable arm of William, Kate and Harry’s public work.

The royal also announced she was setting up a steering group to explore how to help experts provide children with the best start in life.

It will look at how to create a partnership between experts and organisations examining issues around as perinatal, maternal and infant mental health. The steering group will also look at how to improve the support for children, parents and teachers.

Kate’s busiest year yet 

At the beginning of March, the Duchess had completed 38 official engagements – including.

That’s compared with just 11 for the same period in 2017 and seven in 2016.

In January and February in 2015, when Kate was pregnant with Charlotte, she completed 13 engagements.

In 2014 and 2013, she completed three official engagements in the first two months of the year.

In 2012, she completed 10 engagements during the same period. 

Aides say it will report back to the duchess later this year and it is hoped the Royal Foundation will announce a strategy in late autumn or early next year.

In her speech at the Royal Society of Medicine, the duchess said she believes society ‘cannot intervene early enough’ to break ‘the inter-generational cycle of disadvantage’.

She said: ‘We need mental health support in primary schools before the biological changes and academic pressures of adolescence kick in.

‘We also need a focus on parenting and family support, so that parents feel able to get their children ‘school ready’, and are confident that they themselves can cope with the mental and emotional needs of their own children.

‘We need to highlight how important it is to support mothers too, potentially even before they give birth. They need to be aware how vulnerable they might be and, critically, know where they can find help for themselves, as well as for their babies and toddlers.

‘And potentially we could start to look even earlier, by teaching parenting and relationship skills to teenagers, to get the next generation of parents child-ready, well before they have to put these skills into practice.’

She added: ‘Providing children in their earliest years with social and emotional security builds strong foundations which last a lifetime. I really do feel passionately about the importance of early intervention, and that by working on new approaches together, we can make a real difference for generations to come.’

Professor Peter Fonagy, chief executive of the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, described the duchess as the person ‘who has done more to turn the tide of stigma around mental health more than any other single individual that I could name.’

He had seen her visiting providers, ‘energising, enthusing, deepening the commitment of front-line workers in an invaluable way’, he said.

He added: ‘She has also changed all our way of thinking by her intelligent questioning and crystal-clear focus.

‘It is vitally important to work together, to form a community that cares about early childhood.’

The Duchess of Cambridge’s speech on early intervention

As I look around the room, I see friends from many different sectors: friends who have shared with me their knowledge, and who have answered my questions patiently whilst I’ve interrogated them in my endeavour to learn about this complex range of issues. 

  • Academic colleagues who have shown me their ground-breaking research into the causes of perinatal and post-natal depression, and how they are addressing these in the clinic; 
  • Those who I have visited over the years who provide crucial links within the community, and whose services help families with essential parenting support and guidance;
  • and other wonderful organisations which have done so much to improve support for the emotional wellbeing of children in schools. I could name so many of you, but I’m utterly grateful to you all for giving your time and wisdom so freely. 

We all know how important childhood is; and how the early years shape us for life. We also know how negative the downstream impact can be, if problems emerging at the youngest age are overlooked, or ignored. It is therefore vital that we nurture children through this critical, early period.

But as we’ve heard, at what stage in a child’s development could we, or should we, intervene, to break the inter-generational cycle of disadvantage?

The more I have heard, the more I am convinced that the answer has to be: ‘early’ and ‘ ‘the earlier, the better’.

In fact, it would seem that we cannot intervene early enough.

We do need mental health support in primary schools before the biological changes and academic pressures of adolescence kick in.

We also need a focus on parenting and family support, so that parents feel able to get their children ‘school ready’, and are confident that they themselves can cope with the mental and emotional needs of their own children. 

We need to highlight how important it is to support mothers too, potentially before they even give birth. They need to be aware how vulnerable they might be and, critically, know where they can find help for themselves, as well as for their babies and toddlers.

But potentially we could start to look even earlier, by teaching parenting and relationship skills to teenagers, to get the next generation of parents child-ready, well before they have to put these skills into practice.

After listening to those working in this complex area, my own view is that children’s experiences in their early years are fundamental. They lay the foundations not only for healthy outcomes during the teenage years, but also for adulthood.

Addressing the issues only when they take root, later in life, results in huge detriment; detriment to the healthcare, education and social support systems in our country; but, perhaps more importantly, detriment to future generations over the long term.

In 2011, Graham Allen, who is with is here today, wrote a report for Government on the need for early intervention. 

I hope, Graham, you don’t mind me quoting from your report, in which you referred to the cycle of deprivation and dysfunction, from generation to generation.

There, you said that, ‘If we intervene early enough, we can give children a vital social and emotional foundation, which will help to keep them happy, healthy and achieving throughout their lives and, above all, equip them to raise children of their own.’

I could not agree more.

Because these are ‘lifetime’ issues, they require a very long term perspective. But the issues are also complex and multi-sided, so they need integrated, collective approaches to create real impact. This is what I am so keen to explore.

We are here today because we all believe that every child deserves the best possible start in life.

I have therefore entrusted The Royal Foundation, under the leadership of Aida Cable, to gather a group of experts to develop the thinking in this critical area: experts and partners to build upon existing work, and to look at developing sustainable solutions which will help deliver our shared ambitions.

Providing children in their earliest years with social and emotional security builds strong foundations which last a lifetime. I really do feel so passionately about the importance of early intervention, and that by working on new approaches together, we can make a real difference for generations to come.

Thank you. 

Prof Fonagy said the Royal Foundation could play a massive role in bringing voluntary organisations and statutory services to work together.

Professor Sir Simon Wessely, president of the Royal Society for Medicine and Regius Professor of Psychiatry at King’s College London, thanked the duchess for the work she and Prince William and Prince Harry had done on mental health.

It had, he said, been ‘fantastic in all sorts of ways, and in particular in engaging with ordinary people, with friends, families, relatives and indeed non-professionals for the work they can do, which is probably more important than the work any of us do… in improving the mental health and resilience of our nation.’

He said: ‘About 50 per cent of the work that adult psychiatry does arises from childhood adversity, mistreatment and so on.’

Tomorrow, Kate and Prince William will complete two engagements celebrating the Commonwealth before Kate signs off for her maternity leave. 

The Duke and Duchess will begin the day at a SportsAid event to learn how the charity is helping the next generation of aspiring Olympic, Paralympic, Commonwealth and world champions, before taking part in preparations for a Commonwealth Big Lunch at a London community centre.  

[38]
THE DAILY MAIL
NOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW”21 MARCH 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5526339/Pregnant-Kate-looks-blooming-green.html

[39]

THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

[40]
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is a Latin phrase, literally “What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a bull”
WIKIPEDIAQUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi

[41]

”Meghan Markle wore dark nails again last night while attending a charity gala performance of Cirque du Soleil’s Totem.”……..”The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible”

BAZAARMEGHAN MARKLE SNUCK IN DARK NAIL POLISH WITH ANOTHER ROYAL LOOK

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a25924837/meghan-markle-dark-nail-polish-cirque-du-soleil/

Meghan Markle wore dark nails again last night while attending a charity gala performance of Cirque du Soleil’s Totem. However, the Duchess of Sussex didn’t wear the bold polish on her hands. Instead, she wore a deep shade on her toes while rocking a light pink color on her finger tips.Meghan’s pedicure was noticeable as she wore open-toe shoes (Stuart Weitzman heeled sandals, to be exact) for the event. It also helped that her glittery Roland Mouret gown had a leg slit, revealing her footwear as she walked.
The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible. The cosmetic choice raised some eyebrows at the time, as some royal watchers questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol.” After all, Meghan had been wearing neutral manicures for past royal appearances, and other women in the family like Duchess Kate, Duchess Camilla, and even the Queen have frequented natural-looking nails.

However, “there’s no actual protocol about dark nail polish,” royal correspondent Omid Scobie told BAZAAR.com at the time. “It’s simply about being appropriate—we’d never see this at a royal engagement. But tonight’s event is a celebration of fashion and there’s a lot more flexibility on what one can wear.”And ultimately, it looked good with her outfit. The same goes for last night’s pedi.

The Cirque du Soleil performance at Royal Albert Hall, which raised money for Prince Harry’s charity, Sentebale, was previously announced by Kensington Palace. However, perhaps there was more leeway for daring nail shades considering it was an evening gala rather than, say, a formal daytime engagement with Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace.
Kate Middleton has actually rocked a dark pedicures at similar events with glamorous looks of her own. One of them was also at Royal Albert Hall years ago, while attending a concert celebrating the 2012 Olympics in London.

[42]
”The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible. The cosmetic choice raised some eyebrows at the time, as some royal watchers questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol.”
BAZAARMEGHAN MARKLE SNUCK IN DARK NAIL POLISH WITH ANOTHER ROYAL LOOK

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a25924837/meghan-markle-dark-nail-polish-cirque-du-soleil/

[43]
THE GUARDIANWHATEVER MEGHAN DOES, SHE IS DAMNED.LET US NOT REPEAT HISTORYZOE WILLIAMS
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/meghan-duchess-sussex-damned-hate-figure

TEXT
The level of scrutiny the Duchess of Sussex receives is devoid of human feeling. This vilification must end  

Last month I nominated Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as a hate figure for the nation in 2019: the person we all need to get us through a difficult time, like your cousin’s girlfriend who waxes her eyebrows and yammers on about yoga at the start of a fraught Christmas. As I then explained about a million times on Twitter, I was joking: I do not hate Meghan, or even consider her vaguely hateful. I could no more despise the woman than I could flick through the pages of a magazine and take against a salt-and-pepper male model with a watch on. She wasn’t the point; the point was that society quests ceaselessly for an enemy, and if you’re going to have one, at least let it be one who probably won’t care.

This was right in an ambient, premonitory way, but I was wrong to think it was funny. The poor woman is being vilified round the clock – this week for having the audacity to have a baby shower with her friends in New York. It has gone beyond the point of mattering what her personality is like, were anyone in any position to know: she would have to be so thoroughly bad to warrant this level of scrutiny, so devoid of human feeling, so malicious in every intention, that the media’s daily censure wouldn’t be enough. We’d have to paint her yellow and black like a bee.

She can’t leave the house, pregnant, without being accused of “flaunting” her bump. She can’t walk into a room without wild speculation about whether or not she breached a protocol, by people who have no idea what royal protocols are. If a friend comes to her defence and asks people to stop hounding her, then who does she think she is, having a friend like that? OK, so maybe it is George Clooney. Someone’s got to be his friend. He might be perfectly nice.

If she smiles for the cameras, then she’s luxuriating in the attention. “She’s being victimised, you say, George; you with your fancy hair and your coffee habits … then why is she smiling? Riddle me that.”

 Tormenting Meghan Markle has become a national sport that shames us

Catherine Bennett

Catherine Bennett

 Read more

If she goes to New York, she’s pointedly “without Prince Harry”. But if she had taken Prince Harry, then you can guarantee that she would have been dragging her husband away from his duties, to partake of her frivolity, and what kind of princelet might she raise with priorities like that? If she has a baby shower, some journalist, who was most likely trained to dig into the affairs of the mighty and powerful, sets those investigative skills to pricing her gifts then translating dollars into pounds. We’re asking the big questions, here: who spends $379 (£290) on a crib? For their friend’s baby? And besides: ew, baby shower, that’s so American. But isn’t she, though? No, she’s English now, until she gives any sign that she considers herself English, whereupon she will be American again. Randomised disapproval has rendered her stateless.Advertisement

If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice. 

[44]
THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

SEE ALSO NOTE 28 ABOUT PIER MORGAN’S OBSESSION WITH MEGHAN MARKLE

[45]

THE DAILY MAILHARRY AND MEGHAN HAVE BULLIED THE QUEEN INTO GETTING THEIR WAY: PIERS MORGAN WADES INTO ROW AFTER PALACE STATEMENT13 JANUARY 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7882959/Harry-Meghan-BULLIED-Queen-getting-way-Piers-Morgan-wades-in.html

TEXT

  • Piers Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it’
  • He was referring to Her Majesty’s message following crisis talks at Sandringham
  • It confirmed the couple would step down but referred to ‘period of transition’
  • Mr Morgan said Harry and Meghan were holding the Queen to ransom 
  • Said the pair wanted to have their cake and ‘eat it will all of the royal trimmings’ 

Piers Morgan has claimed that Harry and Meghan have ‘bullied’ the Queen into getting their way after crisis talks today at Sandringham over the Sussexes’ future.

Wading into the row following the Queen’s historic confirmation that the pair would step down, Mr Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.’ 

He also claimed that the couple were ‘having their cake and eating it with all the royal trimmings’. 

The Queen said Meghan and Harry would step back as senior royals and split their time between Canada and the UK, but clouded how they would achieve their notion of financial independence.

The statement came after a summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry.

Mr Morgan’s suggestion that the couple ‘bullied’ the Queen follows claims published on Monday that it was in fact the elder brother William who had bullied Harry and Meghan. 

Mr Morgan, who has made plain his views on the Duchess of Sussex in recent days, did not mince his words this evening, accusing Meghan and Harry of bullying the monarch

The Times claimed that Meghan told Harry she must step away from the Royal Family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming William’s ‘bullying attitude’ and told her husband over Christmas: ‘It’s not working for me’. 

But hitting back before the Sandringham talks Harry and William slammed the ‘false story’, adding: ‘For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful’. 

Mr Morgan made plain his views on the Sussexes this morning on ITV, saying: ‘The Queen’s just had to fire her middle son, her 98-year-old husband is very sick and these two little spoiled brats are holding her to ransom at the worst moment.

‘If they want to leave after 18 months then that’s fine,’ he said before speaking directly to Meghan: ‘I always thought you’d do this anyway. You quit your friends, you quit your dad, and you quit your jobs.’

He added: ‘She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead. She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother.’ 

Speaking on Australian TV, he added that Meghan was ‘pretty ruthless’, as he highlighted her ‘ghosting him’.

‘It really cemented in me a feeling that Meghan Markle is not quite what she seems,’ he told the show on Tuesday morning.

[46]

BBC

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

[47]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” 

[47]QUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY, MEGHAN/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTYASTRID ESSED14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.astridessed.nl/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

[48]

THE NEW YORK TIMESRABLOID HACK ATTACK ROYALS AND BEYOND
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html

IN NOVEMBER 2005, three senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s  biggest tabloids, News of the World.

The stories were banal enough (Prince William pulled a tendon in his knee, one revealed). But the royal aides were puzzled as to how News of the World had gotten the information, which was known among only a small, discreet circle. They began to suspect that someone was eavesdropping on their private conversations.

By early January 2006, Scotland Yard had confirmed their suspicions. An unambiguous trail led to Clive Goodman, the News of the World reporter who covered the royal family, and to a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, who also worked for the paper. The two men had somehow obtained the PIN codes needed to access

Scotland Yard told the aides to continue operating as usual while it pursued the investigation, which included surveillance of the suspects’ phones. A few months later, the inquiry took a remarkable turn as the reporter and the private investigator chased a story about Prince William’s younger brother, Harry, visiting a strip club. Another tabloid, The Sun, had trumpeted its scoop on the episode with the immortal: “Harry Buried Face in Margo’s Mega-Boobs. Stripper Jiggled . . . Prince Giggled.” 

As Scotland Yard tracked Goodman and Mulcaire, the two men hacked into Prince Harry’s mobile-phone messages. On April 9, 2006, Goodman produced a follow-up article in News of the World about the apparent distress of Prince Harry’s girlfriend over the matter. Headlined “Chelsy Tears Strip Off Harry!” the piece quoted, verbatim, a voice mail Prince Harry had received from his brother teasing him about his predicament.

The palace was in an uproar, especially when it suspected that the two men were also listening to the voice mail of Prince William, the second in line to the throne. The eavesdropping could not have gone higher inside the royal family, since Prince Charles and the queen were hardly regular mobile-phone users. But it seemingly went everywhere else in British society. Scotland Yard collected evidence indicating that reporters at News of the World might have hacked the phone messages of hundreds of celebrities, government officials, soccer stars — anyone whose personal secrets could be tabloid fodder. Only now, more than four years later, are most of them beginning to find out.

  • You have 3 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

AS OF THIS SUMMER, five people have filed lawsuits accusing News Group Newspapers, a division of Rupert Murdoch’s publishing empire that includes News of the World, of breaking into their voice mail. Additional cases are being prepared, including one seeking a judicial review of Scotland Yard’s handling of the investigation. The litigation is beginning to expose just how far the hacking went, something that Scotland Yard did not do. In fact, an examination based on police records, court documents and interviews with investigators and reporters shows that Britain’s revered police agency failed to pursue leads suggesting that one of the country’s most powerful newspapers was routinely listening in on its citizens.

The police had seized files from Mulcaire’s home in 2006 that contained several thousand mobile phone numbers of potential hacking victims and 91 mobile phone PIN codes. Scotland Yard even had a recording of Mulcaire walking one journalist — who may have worked at yet another tabloid — step by step through the hacking of a soccer official’s voice mail, according to a copy of the tape. But Scotland Yard focused almost exclusively on the royals case, which culminated with the imprisonment of Mulcaire and Goodman. When police officials presented evidence to prosecutors, they didn’t discuss crucial clues that the two men may not have been alone in hacking the voice mail messages of story targets.

“There was simply no enthusiasm among Scotland Yard to go beyond the cases involving Mulcaire and Goodman,” said John Whittingdale, the chairman of a parliamentary committee that has twice investigated the phone hacking. “To start exposing widespread tawdry practices in that newsroom was a heavy stone that they didn’t want to try to lift.” Several investigators said in interviews that Scotland Yard was reluctant to conduct a wider inquiry in part because of its close relationship with News of the World. Police officials have defended their investigation, noting that their duties did not extend to monitoring the media. In a statement, the police said they followed the lines of inquiry “likely to produce the best evidence” and that the charges that were brought “appropriately represented the criminality uncovered.” The statement added, “This was a complex inquiry and led to one of the first prosecutions of its kind.” Officials also have noted that the department had more pressing priorities at the time, including several terrorism cases.[49]
”According to more than one source, not much. “Dull as paint” is an expression that’s been used to describe Her Royal Highness by one of her acquaintances that’s been friendly with her since college. ”
ROYALFOIBLES.COMKATE’S DILEMMA
https://www.royalfoibles.com/kates-dilemma/

TEXT


By now the world has long since heard the news that Britain’s most famously grumpy infant won’t be hogging the spotlight much longer as his parents will soon be welcoming a new edition to their family. The author is of course referring to the announcement made earlier this week that the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant with her second child. The irony of this announcement is that it was made under the same circumstances as news of Her Royal Highness’ first pregnancy was divulged to the general public: i.e. because the Duchess was overcome by such a severe case of Hyperemesis Gravidarum, more commonly known as morning sickness, that she was forced to cancel several public engagements while being treated by doctors at Kensington Palace. Kate’s ill health also forced the Palace to announce her pregnancy sooner than the expectant mother, her husband, in-laws and their retainers would’ve liked. Far be it from the author to cast a shadow on this otherwise happy event, but he can’t help but wonder if the Duchess’ latest bout of severe, briefly debilitating morning sickness is but the latest sign of the long held rumor that HRH, like her late mother-in-law, suffers from at least one on going, and increasingly severe, eating disorder. After all, many a medical expert interviewed on American television at the time of Kate’s first pregnancy announcement stated categorically that one of the leading causes of Hyperemesis Gravidarum is dehydration resulting from the expectant mother being under weight. Reoccurring bouts of Bulimia, and certainly Anorexia Nervosa, can lead to an expectant mother being dangerously thin. Before the author continues, he would like to make it clear to his online community, as he always does concerning posts of this nature, that he’s engaging in nothing more than idle speculation. After all, libel is an all too real legal concept that has a funny way of seeking out and striking even the most deliberately anonymous of Internet bloggers. With that caveat stated, the author can’t help but notice certain cracks that are continually forming in the Duchess of Cambridge’s painstakingly well crafted public facade.

No one can under estimate the kind of pressure that Her Royal Highness has been subjected to from the moment she officially became a member of the Royal Family. Even during her engagement it was noticed by the more discerning of royal commentators that her weight perceptibly dropped in the weeks leading up to her wedding. By the time her father walked her down the aisle at Westminster Abbey she’d morphed into a literal stick figure and, despite the handful of pounds she gained during her first pregnancy, she’s remained one ever since. Photos of the Duchess of Cambridge in her current manifestation are particularly striking when compared to those taken of her at the time her relationship with Prince William began while they were undergraduates at Scotland’s University of St. Andrew’s. While certainly a young woman whose frame could be described as naturally thin, Kate Middleton’s appearance possessed a genuine healthiness back then that all but disappeared as her royal courtship progressed.

There’s no shortage of rumors concerning why Kate’s physical transformation came to pass. One aspect of these stories that many of them have in common is that Kate’s weight decreased in direct proportion to her increasing desperation to marry Britain’s heir presumptive. While no one doubts that Prince William fell madly in love with Kate while they were both in college, by the the time he was studying to become a pilot at Sandhurst his feelings are alleged to have noticeably cooled, while his roving eye led him to the first of several dalliances with other women that occurred during his prolonged courtship. In fact, there are many who believe that one of the reasons why his relationship with Ms. Middleton was so prolonged was because he relished his bachelor status, and the freedom to date other women that came with it, too much to settle into marriage. While never the serial philanderer that both his father and grandfather have undoubtedly been, it’s long been whispered that His Royal Highness was no stranger to other women throughout the greater part of his courtship with Ms. Middleton. These same whisperers have also made it clear, however, that William always returned to Kate’s patiently waiting arms after every brief affair, and the two of them would continue on as if nothing had happened. The author has been given two explanations for this.

The first is that His Royal Highness, as an enabled, pampered young man who prefers security and routine over risk and adventure, preferred to have a long term, official girlfriend whom he could parade before the tabloid press, would love and trust above all other women, and eventually marry; but none the less would sow his wild oats behind her back while she stoically awaited his inevitable marriage proposal. While there were other contenders for the role of William’s conjugal nanny/long suffering girlfriend/eventual wife and consort, none had the endurance or palace backing of Kate Middleton.

This leads one to the second alleged reason why William always reunited with the girlfriend the tabloid press eventually dubbed “Waity Katy.” It’s never been a secret among royal insiders that from the moment the late Diana, Princess of Wales perished in a car crash, her ex-husband’s courtiers were desperate for William’s future bride to be his mother’s more level headed, more Royal Court compliant and more humbly born replacement. After all, who better to succeed the so called “People’s Princess” than a glamorous, well educated, and naturally graceful young woman who was a genuine commoner born of the people, or at least more of the people than the former Lady Diana Spencer had ever been? It’s said the Prince of Wales’ advisors at Clarence House specifically became sold on the idea of Kate Middleton one day becoming Prince William’s bride, or at the very least Prince William’s future bride being a young lady as similar to Kate Middleton as possible, when they became aware that she almost single handedly talked him out of dropping out of college, and could more than likely be relied upon to convince the British throne’s heir presumptive to abandon his long term plan to eventually abdicate his succession rights.

Many a royal watcher, journalist, and courtier is aware that His Royal Highness, unlike his father, has never relished his destiny as Britain’s future king. While it’s rumored that he’s resigned himself to his fate more and more as the years have passed, he’s still said to find his royal duties more a burden than anything else, and the main reason why he’s been allowed to return to his career as a search and rescue/ambulance pilot is because of the abject misery he’s expressed behind palace walls at the prospect of whiling away his youth at public engagements that bore him to tears. Although the Queen’s court at Buckingham Palace initially rejected the idea of Kate Middleton becoming William’s spouse because of her lack of aristocratic birth, they were always in agreement with Prince Charles’ Clarence House staff that a loving and supportive spouse, who was on their side, was the key to Prince William accepting his destiny. They eventually realized that if Kate Middleton was the only woman who seemed able to fulfill that task, then so be it.

In the meantime, as the combined pressures of maintaining a relationship with her privately mercurial boyfriend increased with the prospect of her becoming Diana 2.0, Kate appears to have developed a case of body dysmorphia that haunts her to this day. One of the many ironies of the Duchess of Cambridge being the designated torch bearer of Diana’s legacy is that she appears to have taken on at least one of her late mother-in-law’s coping mechanisms to deal with the predicament of being married to Britain’s future king.

One may wonder, as many have, what lies beneath Kate’s seemingly plastered on smile and her outwardly friendly public demeanor. According to more than one source, not much. “Dull as paint” is an expression that’s been used to describe Her Royal Highness by one of her acquaintances that’s been friendly with her since college. Several among their social friends have also stated that the Duke and Duchess compliment each other precisely because their tastes are somewhat juvenile and neither of them are intellectuals. All in all, Kate gives the impression of being a modestly intelligent, genuinely selfless and utterly devoted young woman whose more than willing to sacrifice her needs for the happiness of those she loves most, chief among them obviously being her husband. While someone with a stronger disposition might be able to take this predicament in their stride, Her Royal Highness’ latest bout of ill health at the outset of her latest pregnancy indicates otherwise.

While many have presumed since the ordeal of Charles and Diana’s divorce and Diana’s tragic, early death that the Palace has modernized some of its more ossified practices vis a vis how the courtiers and Royal Family deal with their newly arrived in-laws, the seemingly blasé manner in which the Palace has handled the Duchess’ latest health crisis, coupled with the seemingly unconcerned manner in which her husband and his family have cheerfully gone about their public engagements since the announcement that Kate’s expecting leads one to deduce that little has changed regarding the Palace’s internal practices. The author more than concedes that royal engagements are what they are, and the traveling Windsor show must go on regardless of what’s going on within its members’ private lives, but one doubts anyone would’ve begrudged Prince William’s absence from the opening ceremonies of the Invictus Games, least of all Prince Harry, who organized them, so that he could spend as much time as possible next to his especially delicate wife. Through his smilingly unbothered demeanor in public, Prince William is giving the message that his wife vomiting herself into near delirium every time she gets knocked up is nothing to get concerned about. He’s not worried, so no one else should be. As far as the Buckingham Palace press office is concerned, that’s probably the point.

There are, however, several silver linings to this latest chapter in Kate’s life, chief among them being that, with William being allowed to resume his military career, he and his wife have been given the all clear to make their country estate, Anmer Hall, their primary residence. As the author predicted in his first post concerning the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate definitely didn’t take to the stultifying and Victorian atmosphere of Princess Margaret’s former apartment at Kensington Palace, where she was observed and scrutinized almost as much behind palace walls as she was in public. According to a recent article about her in the Daily Telegraph, which reported on her “baby making plans” shortly before it was publicly divulged that she’s pregnant and seems lately to be surpassing the Daily Mail as the Palace’s preferred organ for press leaks, it’s Kate’s genuine wish to have a third child before she’s 35. Her move to a new primary residence, according to the article, is central to her plans. Perhaps while ensconced in the country, Kate will be able too seek treatment away from prying eyes for what is becoming an increasingly obvious health problem. Otherwise, there may never be a third Cambridge child.

EXPRESS

KATE MIDDLETON BODY LANGUAGE: HOW ”WAITY KATY” TRANSFORMED INTO ”DRIVEN” DUCHESS

5 NOVEMBER 2019

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1199874/kate-middleton-body-language-transformation-prince-william-royal-family-news

TEXT

KATE, DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE is an established member of the British Royal Family but she hasn’t always been the confident figure she is today. Here’s how the popular royal went from “waity-Katie” to the driven Duchess she is now.

Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, 37 married Prince William, 37, in 2011 and has become a much-loved member of the British Royal Family. Kate and William met at university and were officially an item by the time they graduated in 2005. Once a shy student Kate has transformed into a driven and charismatic future Queen consort. 

One royal source claimed it has taken Kate several years to become comfortable in her royal role but now there is no stopping the diligent Duchess.Before Prince William and Kate tied the knot she was branded work shy by critics who claimed after graduating she seemed to be waiting around for William to propose instead of pursuing her own career.

However, since then Kate has proven her critics wrong and is among the most industrious members of the younger royals.

A royal source has claimed Kate has grown into herself and matured into her role.

They told Fabulous Magazine: “Like the finest of wines, she has taken years to mature to perfection, but the woman you see today has no peers on the global stage.”“What people are seeing now is a confident, driven woman with a purpose.

For the first time in her life, Kate knows where she is going and has the self-belief to get there under her own steam.”

Nearly two decades since he and William first met, Kate’s body language has dramatically changed.

The source said: “Back then she was full of self-doubt, despite all her assets.“These days she’s a force to be reckoned with.”

Kate has always been admired for her incredible figure and famously caught William’s eye on the catwalk at a university fashion show.

But it has taken the mum-of-three years to feel at home in her body.

Following the Cambridges recent tour of Pakistan, the Duchess has been praised for the ease with which she handles royal engagements.Vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham and political author, Sir Anthony Seldon told the Sun: “Kate has that rare ability, possessed by very few people, of being able to talk and relate to those of different ages, backgrounds and ethnicities.”

He added: “It’s a magical talent that is infinitely precious and you either have it in life or you don’t.

“Most people don’t, but Kate does.”

According to Palace insiders, Kate is as popular within The Firm as she is with the general public and her no-fuss approach to royal duty is a hit with her grandmother-in-law, the Queen.

Kate’s ability to juggle motherhood with a packed schedule of royal engagements puts her in good stead as future Queen Consort.

The insider added: “The Queen is not one for platitudes, so when she gives a compliment you know she means it.

“She has been extremely impressed by the Duchess of Cambridge’s ability to keep several balls in the air at once.

“Never before has a royal of the Duchess’ standing taken such a hands-on role in raising a future king – and don’t forget that is George’s destiny. It has traditionally been left to nannies and governesses.“Catherine seems to thrive on the workload.”

[50]

”If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.

We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice.”THE GUARDIANWHATEVER MEGHAN DOES, SHE IS DAMNED.LET US NOT REPEAT HISTORYZOE WILLIAMS
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/meghan-duchess-sussex-damned-hate-figure

[51]

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DOASTRID ESSED2 OCTOBER 2019
https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-sue-tabloid-prince-harry-defending-his-wife-the-only-honourable-thing-to-do/

[52]
THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 
https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

“Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Smear campaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones/Some dirty examples

Filed under Divers

Notes [1 t/m 52] at article ”Smear campaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones/Some dirty examples”

NOTES AT ARTCLE ”SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLES

[1]

WIKIPEDIAAFUA HIRSCH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afua_Hirsch

[2]
“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times.

QUESTIONS OF RACISM LINGER AS HARRY, MEGHAN, STEP BACK
https://apnews.com/1420bd1ff04ac8f330bdd9cf9d061e52

TEXT

LONDON (AP) — When accomplished, glamorous American actress Meghan Markle married Prince Harry in 2018, she was hailed as a breath of fresh air for Britain’s fusty royal family. That honeymoon didn’t last.

Now the couple wants independence, saying the pressure of life as full-time royals is unbearable. And a debate is raging: Did racism drive Meghan away?When Prince Harry, who is sixth in line to the throne, began dating the “Suits” actress — daughter of a white father and African American mother — the media called it a sign that Britain had entered a “post-racial” era in which skin color and background no longer mattered, even to the royal family.

U.K. Labour Party lawmaker Clive Lewis, who like Meghan has biracial heritage, says the royal rift shows that Britain still has a problem with “structural racism.”

“We can see it with Meghan Markle and the way that she’s been treated in the media, we know that this is a reality of the 21st century, still,” Lewis told Sky News. “After 400 years of racism you can’t just overturn it overnight.”

Frederick W. Gooding, an assistant professor of African American studies at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas, said it would be “disingenuous” to claim race had not been a factor in Meghan’s treatment.

“She was always going to be an outsider,” he said. “There was always going to be this barrier because of her race.”

From the start, some in the media wrote about Meghan using racially loaded terms. One tabloid columnist referred to her “exotic” DNA. A Daily Mail headline described her Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood. A TV host described Meghan as “uppity.”

Meghan was criticized for everything from eating avocados — which the Daily Mail claimed fuel “human rights abuses, drought and murder” — to wearing dark nail polish, apparently an etiquette faux pas.

Morgan Jerkins, a senior editor at Zora, a Medium.com site for women of color, said that because Meghan was “an outsider, culturally, racially, and socioeconomically, she has been the royal family’s scapegoat.”

Others point out that Meghan is hardly the first royal to get a rough ride in the media. The press and the royal family have an intense and often toxic relationship going back decades. Harry’s mother, Princess Diana, was snapped by paparazzi wherever she went. When she and Prince Charles admitted that their marriage was in trouble, her private life became public property.

Diana was killed in a Paris car crash in 1997 while being pursued by photographers. Prince Harry, who was just 12 when his mother died, said in October he feared “history repeating itself. … I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

After Diana’s death, a chastened British press mended its ways — a bit. The media left young William and Harry alone in exchange for carefully staged interviews and photo opportunities as they grew up. That practice has continued with the three young children of William and his wife, Kate.

But in many ways little really changed. Royal stories still sell newspapers and generate clicks. That has meant intense — and even illegal — scrutiny. In the early 2000s, tabloid reporters hacked the voicemails of Prince William and royal staff members in pursuit of scoops.

Younger female royals are routinely judged on appearance, demeanor and habits. Prince William’s wife was relentlessly scrutinized for years: dismissed as dull, accused of being lazy for not having a full-time job, and dubbed “waity Katy” before William proposed.

Still, Meghan’s treatment has sometimes seemed harsher. Last year the Daily Mail ran photos of a pregnant Meghan cradling her bump under the headline: “Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump?” Months earlier the same paper had described a pregnant Kate as “tenderly” cradling her bump.

British Home Secretary Priti Patel denied Meghan has suffered from racist media coverage,

“I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all,” Patel, who is of Indian heritage and whose parents emigrated to Britain from Uganda, told the BBC. “I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.”

But others say the media double standard Meghan faced is evidence that talk of “post-racial” Britain is wildly premature.

“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times.

That feeling was echoed by Hayley Oliver, a recent Virginia Tech graduate who wrote a college essay about how Meghan and other mixed-race women are treated in popular culture. She said Meghan had years of charitable work, including advocacy for women’s healthcare and gender equality worldwide that preceded her marriage into the royal family.

“What about her in those roles?” said Oliver, who is also biracial and says she’s inspired by Meghan for the stances she takes. “When you see someone who looks like you. … it makes it easier to imagine yourself in that situation or the possibility of where you could go.”

While Britain is by most measures less racist than it used to be, non-white Britons are still over-represented among the poor and imprisoned, and under-represented at the top of well-paid professions, including politics, journalism and the law. Britain’s 2016 decision to leave the European Union — a move fueled in part by concerns about immigration — was followed by an increase in cases of racist abuse reported to police.

Meghan acknowledged in an October interview that she had been unprepared for the intense media scrutiny she would get as a member of the royal family. She told ITV journalist Tom Bradby that before she married Harry, “my British friends said to me, ‘I’m sure he’s great, but you shouldn’t do it, because the British tabloids will destroy your life.’”

“And I very naively … I didn’t get it,” she said.

Unlike other members of the royal clan, Meghan and Harry have pushed back. As long ago as 2017, Harry criticized “the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.”

Now the couple has had enough. They plan to move part-time to Canada, withdraw from royal media-coverage arrangements and seek financial independence. The queen has reluctantly agreed to let them become semi-detached royals in order to avoid a damaging family split.

The racism debate will rage on. Writing in The Guardian, British columnist Nesrine Malik said she doubted it would have much positive effect.

She argued that the racism debate had become a “pantomime, in which everyone — people of color, tabloid journalists, TV hosts — is playing well-rehearsed parts.”

“Britain’s conversation about race endlessly repeats itself, first as tragedy, and for ever thereafter as farce,” she wrote.

[3]

“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times. 
QUESTIONS OF RACISM LINGER AS HARRY, MEGHAN, STEP BACK

https://apnews.com/1420bd1ff04ac8f330bdd9cf9d061e52

[4]

QUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!

ASTRID ESSED

14 JANUARY 2020

COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL 

ASTRID ESSED

20 DECEMBER 2019

NO STRIPPING OF SUSSEX TITLES OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE/THE HATERS DID NOT WIN!

ASTRID ESSED

21 DECEMBER 2019

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DO

ASTRID ESSED

2 OCTOBER 2019

[5]

BBC

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

TEXT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.

In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.

Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.

Last October, Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.

In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision “after many months of reflection and internal discussions”.

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.” 

END OF NEWS MESSAGE

STATEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE ON INSTAGRAM ABOUT STEP OUT

INSTAGRAM SUSSEXROYAL

https://www.instagram.com/sussexroyal/?utm_source=ig_embed

After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.

“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.

“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.

“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.

“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.

END OF THE INSTAGRAM MESSAGE OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE

SEE ALSO FOR THE MESSAGE

BBC

IN FULL: THE SUSSEXES STATEMENT AND THE BUCKINGHAM PALACE RESPONSE

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51041947

[6]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” 

END OF THE ANNOUCEMENT OF THE QUEENBBCQUEEN  AGREES ”TRANSITION” TO NEW ROLE FOR HARRY AND MEGHAN14 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51099102

TEXT

The Queen has agreed a “period of transition” in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spend time in Canada and the UK.

She said she was “entirely supportive” of their desire for a new role but “would have preferred” them to remain full-time working royals.

She expected final decisions to be made in the coming days, she said.

Senior royals have been in talks about Prince Harry and Meghan’s role after they said they wanted to “step back”.

In a statement, the Queen said the talks at Sandringham, which also involved the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, had been “very constructive”.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family,” she said.

“Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”

She said it had been agreed there would be “a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK” after Harry and Meghan “made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives”.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days,” she said.

The urgent talks were convened after the Sussexes surprised the rest of the Royal Family on Wednesday with a statement expressing their desire to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family”.

They also said they wanted a “progressive new role” within the institution, where they would be financially independent and divide their time between the UK and North America.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Global News there had been “no discussions” about the details of the couple’s move, including on the issues of security and any potential impact on Canada’s taxpayers.

Although no other family member was consulted about the timing of the announcement, the duke and duchess said it came after “many months of reflection and internal discussions”.

Both Prince Harry and Meghan spoke of the difficulties of royal life and media attention in recent months, with the duke saying he feared his wife would fall victim to “the same powerful forces” that led to his mother’s death.

The talks about their future took place as Prince Harry and Prince William issued a joint statement denying “false claims” that their relationship had been damaged by “bullying” on the part of the older brother.

They said that the “inflammatory language” in the claims was “offensive” and “potentially harmful”, given their support for mental health causes.

This is a remarkably candid and informal, almost personal, statement from the Queen.

Her regret over Harry and Meghan’s move is obvious – she would have preferred them to stay in their current roles.

But she also makes clear that they are still royals and that they will be valued in the family as they become a more independent couple.

There are buckets of questions outstanding – on their future royal role, their relationship with the rest of the Palace, on who will pay what (not, the Queen says, the taxpayer), and on how Harry and Meghan will support themselves.

There’s still a lot to thrash out and to agree on. Not all of it may become public.

And it looks like the Queen sees this as a process, not an event. She writes of a transition period when Harry and Meghan divide their time between Canada and the UK.

The Queen has asked for decisions to be made over the next few days. But those decisions may well be up for review in the coming months and years.

line

Historian Robert Lacey told the BBC Radio 4’s PM programme the Queen’s statement following the meeting was unusually personal, with several references to “my family” and “my grandson”.

“It is remarkably hands-on. I mean it may have been processed through officials but this is the Queen, speaking to her people and speaking about her family, and I think coming right through it is the concern she feels,” he said.

Instead of using the formal titles of the couple – the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – the Queen simply called them “Harry and Meghan”.

Penny Junor, an author of books about the royals, said that the statement “read to me like a grandmother talking about the family”, adding that it would “take the pressure off” the duke and duchess.

“I think they’re in a very vulnerable state at the moment. I think they’re unhappy, they feel isolated and unloved, unappreciated and they needed careful handling,” she said.

“My reading from that statement is that the family has been sensitive to their vulnerability.”

How did we get here?

In their statement on Wednesday, posted on the couple’s official Instagram account, the duke and duchess said they intend to “step back” as senior royals, spending time in North America, while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.

It came after an interview last October, when Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.

The duke also issued an impassioned statement attacking what he described as “relentless propaganda” in parts of the media, as lawyers for his wife began legal action against the Mail on Sunday.

The couple were already preparing to launch their own Sussex Royal charity, which they set up after splitting from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s foundation in June last year.

It was revealed in December that the couple had made an application to trademark their Sussex Royal brand for items including books, calendars, clothing, charitable fundraising, education and social care services.

[7]

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family. 


THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885 [8]

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET

9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

TEXT

The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.

Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.

The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.

The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.

It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”

His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.

After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.

“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”

Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

‘Enormous mistake’

“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”

In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.

“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”

Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’

“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”

Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.

“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?

“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”

Prompt action

Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.

Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.

His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”

Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.

His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.

Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.

He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.

A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.

Controversial comments

It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee’s life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.

In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series. 

[9]

”Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

TEXT

Piers Morgan clashed with a Good Morning Britain guest in an explosive debate about whether the British press has been racist towards Meghan Markle. Writer, broadcaster, and former barrister Afua Hirsch joined the programme alongside columnist Sarah Vine, PR expert Nick Ede and former royal butler Paul Burrell and locked horns with the host as they discussed coverage of the Duchess of Sussex. ‘There have been allegations that she has been associated with very racialised forms of crime, there have been discussions about her “exotic” DNA, her newborn baby was compared to a baby chimp,’ Afua began. But Piers quickly snapped back: ‘Is her DNA not exotic by royal standards? She’s the first mixed-race person to enter the royal family. Why do you take exception to the word exotic?’ ‘Because it others her and associates her with a history that has posited people of African heritage as other,’ Afua responded.

Susanna Reid then chipped in to urge Piers to let Afua speak as he attempted to speak over her. ‘You can’t just say these things are racist when they’re not,’ Piers quipped. ‘I’m telling you that as someone who’s lived the experience of being a person of African heritage in this country that there are narratives that are regularly…’ Afua continued. But before she had time to continue her point, Piers asked if she was accusing him of being racist. ‘I’m saying that the narratives that you’re perpetuating are racist,’ Afua added.

And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’ Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

[10]

A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
8 NOVEMBER 2016
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

TEXT

The British Monarchy

Published 8 November 2016

Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads.

He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.

But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm. He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.

[11]

WIKIPEDIAPIERS MORGAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

[12] 
”And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/13/piers-morgan-clashes-good-morning-britain-guest-explosive-meghan-markle-racist-media-coverage-debate-12048124/ 
[13]

THE SUN MEGA TROLLS: MEGHAN MARKLE BOMBARDED WITH 5200 HATEFUL TWEETS IN TWO MONTHS-AND 70 PERCENT OF ABUSE CAME FROM TWENTY TROLLS8 MARCH 2019
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8588968/meghan-markle-social-media-abuse-trolls-duchess-of-sussex/

TEXT
The Duchess of Sussex is being targeted by a group of trolls whose accounts appear to have been created specifically to spew bile about the former Suits star.

MEGHAN Markle was bombarded with 5,200 hateful and racist tweets in two months with the majority of abuse coming from 20 vile trolls, an investigation has found.The Duchess of Sussex is being targeted by the group of trolls whose accounts appear to have been created specifically to spew bile about the former Suits star.

New analysis has revealed that these 20 accounts sent more than 3,600 hateful tweets directed at, or about, the Duchess of Sussex in just two months, CNN reported.

The Twitter bios associated with the trolls typically contained Meghan-related hashtags like #Megxit and #Charlatanduchess.

Advocacy group Hope Not Hate analysed a sample of more than 5,000 tweets, posted between January and the middle of February, that contained the most commonly used anti-Meghan hashtags.

VILE TROLL GANG

Analysis of the tweets found that 20 accounts were responsible for about 70 per cent of the tweets, sharing anti-Meghan hashtags, pictures and memes.

The small group of accounts that troll the Duchess often re-tweet news articles that portray Meghan negatively and use racist language.

The findings come after the Royal Family declared war on social media trolls warning that the worst offenders will be reported to police.

Buckingham Palace published rules for those wanting to post on all social media channels run by them, Clarence House and Kensington Palace.

Courtiers have said they will block abusers and even encourage police to take legal action if tweets or posts are particularly bad.

ABUSE TARGETED AT MEGHAN AND KATE

It follows growing alarm at the abuse targeted at all royals – but particularly Kate and Meghan.

The two women have had vile sexist and abusive messages on Instagram and Twitter – with Meghan also receiving racist abuse.

The Palace statement said: “We ask that anyone engaging with our social media channels shows courtesy, kindness and respect for all other members of our social media communities.”

The rules, listed on the Royal Family’s website, call for comments not to “contain spam, be defamatory of any person, deceive others, be obscene, offensive, threatening, abusive, hateful, inflammatory or promote sexually explicit material or violence” or “promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age.”

ROYALS DECLARE WAR ON SOCIAL MEDIA TROLLS

Palace aides are understood to have been particularly concerned about users abusing one another, often in the guise of supporting “Team Meghan” or “Team Kate”.

Meghan has been accused of faking her pregnancy, had horrendous racist abuse and even been subject to threats of violence.

When Meghan made a surprise appearance at the British Fashion Awards, the British Fashion Council removed an Instagram picture of her as there were more than 500 abusive comments.

In one appalling post about Meghan, a user wrote: “I publicly state I believe this woman is a textbook sociopath narcissist. 99.99999% she’s a vile wreckingball.”

On Kate, another wrote: “Can we talk about Kate’s manic face and weird body movement. Is she copying Meghan?”

Kensington Palace has already said that aides spend several hours a week trying to moderate and delete abusive comments – often on pictures of the Cambridges or the Sussexes.The statement said: “We reserve the right to determine, at our discretion, whether contributions to our social media channels breach our guidelines.

[14]
”It follows growing alarm at the abuse targeted at all royals – but particularly Kate and Meghan.

The two women have had vile sexist and abusive messages on Instagram and Twitter – with Meghan also receiving racist abuse.”

….

”On Kate, another wrote: “Can we talk about Kate’s manic face and weird body movement. Is she copying Meghan?”  
THE SUN MEGA TROLLS: MEGHAN MARKLE BOMBARDED WITH 5200 HATEFUL TWEETS IN TWO MONTHS-AND 70 PERCENT OF ABUSE CAME FROM TWENTY TROLLS8 MARCH 2019
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8588968/meghan-markle-social-media-abuse-trolls-duchess-of-sussex/

[15]EXOTIC DNA

”If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA”

THE DAILY MAILRACHEL JOHNSON: SORRY HARRY, BUT YOUR BEAUTIFUL BOLTER HAS FAILED MY MUM TEST6 NOVEMBER 2016
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3909362/RACHEL-JOHNSON-Sorry-Harry-beautiful-bolter-failed-Mum-Test.html

When I look at Meghan Markle – the American small-screen actress currently starring as “Harry’s Hottie” – I can’t help it. I assess her as a future daughter-in-law.

Prince Harry, 32, lost his mother when he was a boy, and ever since that dark day I’ve had feelings for him. Maternal feelings. And every time he has a girlfriend, I subject her to the “Mum Test”. I try to decide whether Princess Diana (and the Queen) would give Chelsy, or Cressida, or Jenna, or whomever, the thumbs-up or down as a potential Royal consort and addition to The Firm.

So I have done my due diligence on Miss Markle, and this is where I stand. Genetically, she is blessed. If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA. Miss Markle’s mother is a dreadlocked African-American lady from the wrong side of the tracks who lives in LA, and even the sourest spinster has to admit that the 35-year-old actress is extremely easy on the eye. Miss Markle has an active social conscience, and anti-landmine campaigner Princess Diana would be delighted that she is the Ambassador for World Vision and has toured Afghanistan and Rwanda as part of her humanitarian effort.

She is also an accomplished actress and, indeed, her role as sultry paralegal Rachel Zane in TV series Suits is so popular that some clips from it have been viewed many, many thousands of times online (on a site I’m afraid readers will be unacquainted with called YouPorn).

Like Princess Diana, she wears her heart on her sleeve, and is emotionally open. “My cup runneth over,” she told the Toronto Sun, in her only comment on her new squeeze. “And I’m the luckiest girl in the world.”

As part of my research I had a look at her Instagram feed, along with the rest of the world, trying to read clues of her relationship status into pictures of bananas spooning and one of a jigsaw puzzle and a tea cup. (That one’s easy. “Jigsaw and cup of tea?” is, obvs, the couple’s secret, social media code for ‘Netflix and chill?’)

Apart from these teasing images (which add to the impression this showgirl has expertly ‘played’ the playboy Prince) you will find motivational quotes such as “Throw Kindness Around Like Confetti” and cute pictures of her two rescue dogs. This is all good so far, but there are, I admit, a couple of things that don’t pass the Mum Test.

She’s divorced and, as soon as she met Prince Harry, she is said to have dropped her gorgeous chef boyfriend like a hot brick, as she reeled in the biggest fish in the dating universe by not replying to Harry’s texts for several days (that old trick!).

And that’s a red line for a future mother-in-law. You see, if a girl does it to one man, to two men – there’s every chance she’ll do it to your son, too. As far as the Royal Family is concerned, a bolter is far worse than a black sheep.

Harry needs a sticker, a tremendous, limpet-like sticker, like Sophie Wessex. Or Kate Middleton. Nobody cares that Miss Markle is mixed race or a tease, but racy is a different story. Racy is not official Wife Material. Flirty Harry has met his match – and that means one thing.

I’ve turned up my hearing aid, but I’m still not hearing wedding bells, not this side of the Atlantic, anyway. Miss Markle may be truly scrumptious, but she still fails my Mum Test. 

WIKIPEDIA

THOMAS MARKLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Markle

[16]THE DAILY MAILEXCLUSIVE: HARRY’S GIRL IS (ALMOST) STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON, GANG SCARRED HOME OF HER MOTHER REVEALED-SO WILL HE BE DROPPING BY FOR TEA?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896180/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html

Plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs, the troubled Los Angeles neighborhood that Doria Ragland, 60, calls home couldn’t be more different to London’s leafy Kensington.

But social worker Ragland might now find herself welcoming a royal guest to downtrodden Crenshaw after Prince Harry was revealed to be dating her daughter – Suits actress Meghan Markle.Markle, 35, is now based in Toronto, Canada, but her mother remains in LA and moved to her modest green-painted home five years ago after the death of her own father, Alvin, in 2011.

Markle was brought up in a large yellow-colored detached home in central Los Angeles, while her rumored royal boyfriend spent much of his childhood between Kensington Palace and Prince Charles’ Gloucestershire mansion, Highgrove.

But Harry’s literally palatial homes couldn’t be more different from the tatty one-storey homes that dominate much of Crenshaw.

And while there have been a total of 21 crimes in the immediate area around Highgrove over the past 12 months, 47 have taken place in Crenshaw in the last week alone – including murder and robbery.Other crimes noted over the past seven days include multiple drug-related misdemeanors, vehicle thefts, vandalism and disturbing the peace.

Local gangs include Crenshaw Mafia Gangster, which has been plaguing the area since 1981, and Bloods affiliates Center Park Blood.

Operating close by are the Westside Rollin’ 60’s Neighborhood Crips, one of the largest street crime collectives in Los Angeles, and branches of the Compton-based Piru gang.

Nevertheless – and in spite of the gangs – parts of Crenshaw are considered to be improving, among them the aptly named Windsor Hills.

Neighbor Michael McWilliams, 49, said he had not seen Doria since news of her daughter’s alleged dalliance with Prince Harry broke but described her as ‘a nice woman’.

‘I’ve never seen the little girl [Meghan] though,’ added McWilliams. ‘She [Doria] has been living here since her daddy [Alvin] died.’

Markle remains close to her mother, who divorced her father Thomas, 72, when she was six, and is often seen with her on the red carpet.

Thomas, a lighting director, is currently thought to be in Mexico and recently filed for bankruptcy after racking up debts of $30,000 (£24,000).Doria, who also filed for bankruptcy herself in 2002 over a $52,750 credit-card bill, appears to be the one of the defining influences in her daughter’s life.

Writing in an article about her background, Markle addressed being mixed race, saying: ‘While I could say Pennsylvania and Ohio, and continue this proverbial two-step, I instead give them what they’re after: “My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African-American.”‘

She also wrote about being a ‘light-skinned’ baby so when people saw her black mother pushing her in the pram ‘they assumed she was the nanny.’And she has spoken of how her mother’s great-great grandfather was born into slavery and freed at the end of the Civil War.

Crenshaw is one of a cluster of Los Angeles boroughs famous for gangs – along with Compton, Long Beach, South Central and Inglewood.

The latter, which borders Crenshaw to the south, is also home to another member of Meghan’s family – her maternal aunt, Ava Burrow, 63.Burrow, who was not at home when DailyMail.com visited, lives on an Inglewood street with the dubious distinction of having its own branch of the Bloods crime gang in situ.

Known as the Queen Street Bloods, famous former members include rapper Mack-10 and Jacksonville Jaguars wide receiver Marqise Lee.

Indeed, so famous is the area for gang crime, it was name-checked in Dr Dre’s 1999 rap hit The Next Episode along with Compton and Long Beach.

The crime-plagued neighborhoods of Markle’s mother and aunt are a far cry from the leafy part of Long Island where her former husband, Trevor Engleson, 40, grew up.

The Hollywood producer now lives in Los Angeles but was brought up in an affluent suburb of Long Island close to the New York City limits.

His parents declined to comment at their detached home.

One family friend, who declined to be named, said that the family had not spoken to Markle since the divorce.

Her ex-husband told relatives that he had learned of the actress’s new romance at the weekend but was reticent to discuss it further.

Their divorce was in Los Angeles, where Markle legally resides although she spends much of her time in Toronto.

It was a ‘quickie’ divorce which used a legal procedure which limits the information the couple have to disclose – including their marital assets.

The papers associated with it show that both parties agreed to the split and that any financial settlement was entirely confidential.

Markle also gave up using her ex-husband’s surname, the papers said.He continues to run his production company from an office in Los Angeles and was not available for comment.

[17]

WIKIPEDIASTRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON (FILM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Outta_Compton_(film)

WIKIPEDIADR. DRE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Dre

[18] 

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET

9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

TEXT

The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.

Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.

The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.

The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.

It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”

His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.

After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.

“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”

Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

‘Enormous mistake’

“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”

In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.

“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”

Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’

“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”

Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.

“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?

“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”

Prompt action

Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.

Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.

His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”

Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.

His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.

Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.

He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.

A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.

Controversial comments

It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee’s life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.

In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series. 

[19]

”And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’ Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

[20]ALPHANEWSEXCLUSIVE: MEGHAN MARKLE TARGETED BY HUNDREDS OF RACIST AND SEXIST TWEETS AMID PLAN TO STEP BACK15 JANUARY 2020
https://alphanews.co/exclusive-meghan-markle-targeted-by-hundreds-of-racist-and-sexist-tweets-amid-plan-to-step-back/

TEXT

Hundreds of tweets containing sexist and racist abuse aimed at Meghan Markle were posted following the announcement that she and Prince Harry were quitting royal duties

A study for HuffPost UK carried out by digital journalism analysts at the University of Sunderland captured the offensive posts mentioning the Duchess of Sussex.

Some 400 tweets were captured in the the most severe category of abuse, containing sexist and racist insults.

Phrases included “self-loathing race traitor”, “trailer trash”, “meghan the queen, of monkey island”, “the woke Meghan bint” and “poisonous cow”. Markle was also described as a “bitch”, “c*nt”, “whore”, “slut” and “witch”, among other terms.

Responding to the analysis, Dr John Price, senior lecturer in journalism at Sunderland, said: “These results give a sense of the levels of abuse that have been published about Meghan Markle in the days after the announcement.

“There will be many more tweets not captured in the study, as racism and misogyny are often expressed in more subtle terms that do not use overtly abusive language.

“The vast amount of abuse captured in these findings is startling. It shows that aspects of social media, such as Twitter, have become a haven for people wishing to express hatred against women.”

Researchers set up a program using negative sentiment analysis to capture all tweets mentioning variations of the duchess’ name and an array of commonly used misogynistic and racist terms of abuse. 

The sample of social media posts was collected between the time of the royal couple’s announcement on January 8 and midnight the following day.

The same researchers previously investigated trolling of female MPs during the 2017 general election.

It comes amid national discussion about the duchess’s treatment by parts of the UK media – and whether it factored into her and Harry’s big announcement.

The couple have faced significant media scrutiny and Markle has endured frequent racist abuse from the public, especially online.

In July, presenter Eamonn Holmes came under fire for calling Markle “uppity” on This Morning during a discussion about the Duchess’s requests for privacy with reporter Lainey Lui who was in Canada.

Historically the word was used in the US in the 19th Century as an insult to Black people who “didn’t know their place”.

She also claimed anchor Piers Morgan was “spouting […] nasty and vile comments” loaded with “bigotry, misogyny, sexism and racism” aimed at the duchess.

Jeremy Corbyn shared Prince Harry’s concerns over the “racial undertones” of media coverage of his wife Meghan, the Labour Party revealed on Wednesday.

The Labour leader’s spokesperson said: “Jeremy has commented in the past in relation to Prince Harry and Meghan, about press intrusion and its impact on people and their families and, to use Prince Harry’s words as well, the ‘racial undertones’ in relation to how the media has approached Meghan.”

Corbyn’s message came as another Labour MP, Holly Lynch, told HuffPost UK that Meghan had been “hounded” by the press.Lynch, who was personally phoned by the duchess last year to thank her for an open letter signed by 72 female MPs attacking “colonial undertones” of her treatment, said it was time to “call out” the media “frenzy” around the Sussexes’ decision to step away from the royal family. 
[21]

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICAHANNITY RADIO PRODUCER CALLS MEGHAN MARKLE ”VERY UPPITY”14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/hannity-radio-producer-calls-meghan-markle-very-uppity

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): There’s something off here. Don’t you think there’s something off? Apparently William, his brother, said, “You know, you may be moving a little too fast, maybe slow it down,” apparently that didn’t go over well.  

LYNDA MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, I think his family thinks he’s an idiot, because he is. And I think that —

HANNITY: Why do you think he’s an idiot?

MCLAUGHLIN: Oh, Harry’s always been the red-headed child. He’s always been the one, he can’t get it together, he’s at the parties, the clubs, he’s a hot mess.

HANNITY: What I didn’t like in this whole thing — I’ll say one thing I didn’t like.  I didn’t like that Meghan didn’t even get on the phone as she was in Canada, and she was invited to be a part of that meeting. That I didn’t like. That, to me is –MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know?

[22]
  MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know?  

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICAHANNITY RADIO PRODUCER CALLS MEGHAN MARKLE ”VERY UPPITY”14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/hannity-radio-producer-calls-meghan-markle-very-uppity
[23]

An uppity person behaves in an unpleasant way because they think that they are more important than they really are”
CAMBRIDGE DICTIONNARY
”UPPITY”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/uppity

[24]

;”
A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations”
THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

TEXT

A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations, but it’s getting harder and harder to understand how public figures, in particular, are able to maintain their ignorance of the term’s history.ELSPETH REEVENOVEMBER 22, 2011

A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations, but it’s getting harder and harder to understand how public figures, in particular, are able to maintain their ignorance of the term’s history. President Obama has been a well-known public figure for several years and his conservative critics, in particular, keep making the “uppity” mistake. This week it’s Rush Limbaugh, who said Michelle Obama was booed at a weekend Nascar race because she showed “uppity-ism,” as well as the conservative site Newsbusters, which is just shocked that anyone might call that comment racially problematic. Glenn Beck, too, is defending Limbaugh’s analysis, saying it’s just a synonym for snobby. It’s hard to explain how they’ve managed to avoid finding out about “uppity” secret past.
Limbaugh said Monday “Nascar people… are mature, tolerant people who fully understand when they’re being insulted and condescended to,” Limbaugh said, then listed Obama’s transgressions such as taking expensive vacations and saying exercise is good. He continued, “They understand it is a little bit of uppity-ism.”  Glenn Beck defended the comment, saying on Imus’ radio show, “Uppity? You don’t think she’s a little snotty? Really? Really? Miss Arugula? Come on!”  (Arugula is a type of lettuce that is offensive to some conservatives.) “I’m not going to apologize for saying the woman who says ‘I’d like a good steak and arugula once in a while’… Please. We’re living in a country where you can’t say that’s a little uppity?” 

Beck seemed unaware “uppity” was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn’t know their place. In fairness, a lot of people don’t know for sure whether “uppity” is racist. Various forms of the question “Is uppity racist?” is a very popular on Yahoo Answers. But a little more digging could help these guys out. The most liked and most disliked definition at Urban Dictionary notes that “uppity” is often followed by the n-word. Maybe these media guys don’t know how to Google. Even so, they’ve had a lot of practice with uppity in recent years. In 2008, Rep. Lynn Westmorland claimed he didn’t know “uppity” had racial connotations when he used the term to describe then-Sen. Barack Obama. This is especially curious because Westmorland is from Georgia. In 2010, Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said Sarah Palin’s habit of deriding Obama as a “professor” was code for “uppity.” Limbaugh responded by saying the term was racist when applied to Clarence Thomas, but true when applied to Obama: “Obama is uppity, but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he’s smarter and better than everybody else. That’s what he was taught. He’s a Harvard man.” (Thomas received his law degree, by contrast, from plebian institution Yale.)But maybe that practice is starting to sink in. While Newsbusters’ Brent Baker was appalled that ABC News had “elevated” the “left-wing hit,” he didn’t quite go so far as to explicitly say the comment wasn’t racist. That’s progress.

[25]
”Beck seemed unaware “uppity” was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn’t know their place.”

THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

[26]THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

[27]WIKIPEDIA
PIERS MORGAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

[28]

THE DAILY MAILHARRY AND MEGHAN HAVE BULLIED THE QUEEN INTO GETTING THEIR WAY: PIERS MORGAN WADES INTO ROW AFTER PALACE STATEMENT13 JANUARY 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7882959/Harry-Meghan-BULLIED-Queen-getting-way-Piers-Morgan-wades-in.html

TEXT

  • Piers Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it’
  • He was referring to Her Majesty’s message following crisis talks at Sandringham
  • It confirmed the couple would step down but referred to ‘period of transition’
  • Mr Morgan said Harry and Meghan were holding the Queen to ransom 
  • Said the pair wanted to have their cake and ‘eat it will all of the royal trimmings’ 

Piers Morgan has claimed that Harry and Meghan have ‘bullied’ the Queen into getting their way after crisis talks today at Sandringham over the Sussexes’ future.

Wading into the row following the Queen’s historic confirmation that the pair would step down, Mr Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.’ 

He also claimed that the couple were ‘having their cake and eating it with all the royal trimmings’. 

The Queen said Meghan and Harry would step back as senior royals and split their time between Canada and the UK, but clouded how they would achieve their notion of financial independence.

The statement came after a summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry.

Mr Morgan’s suggestion that the couple ‘bullied’ the Queen follows claims published on Monday that it was in fact the elder brother William who had bullied Harry and Meghan. 

Mr Morgan, who has made plain his views on the Duchess of Sussex in recent days, did not mince his words this evening, accusing Meghan and Harry of bullying the monarch

The Times claimed that Meghan told Harry she must step away from the Royal Family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming William’s ‘bullying attitude’ and told her husband over Christmas: ‘It’s not working for me’. 

But hitting back before the Sandringham talks Harry and William slammed the ‘false story’, adding: ‘For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful’. 

Mr Morgan made plain his views on the Sussexes this morning on ITV, saying: ‘The Queen’s just had to fire her middle son, her 98-year-old husband is very sick and these two little spoiled brats are holding her to ransom at the worst moment.

‘If they want to leave after 18 months then that’s fine,’ he said before speaking directly to Meghan: ‘I always thought you’d do this anyway. You quit your friends, you quit your dad, and you quit your jobs.’

He added: ‘She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead. She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother.’ 

Speaking on Australian TV, he added that Meghan was ‘pretty ruthless’, as he highlighted her ‘ghosting him’.

‘It really cemented in me a feeling that Meghan Markle is not quite what she seems,’ he told the show on Tuesday morning.

[29]
FREE DICTIONNARYBE (SITTING] ON (ONE’S) TAIL
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+on+her+tail

”be (sitting) on (one’s) tailTo follow close behind someone or something.Why is this guy sitting on my tail when I’m already going over the speed limit?The cops are definitely on our tail now—we have to turn ourselves in!

[30]

”The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados.

For all their health benefits and tastiness, the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.”
THE DAILY MAILHOW MEGHAN’S FAVOURITE AVOCADO SNACK -BELOVED OF ALL MILLENNIALS – IS FUELLING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, DROUGHT AND MURDER”22 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621047/How-Meghans-favourite-avocado-snack-fuelling-human-rights-abuses-drought-murder.html

The Duchess of Sussex has rightly been praised for making the fusty old Royal Family more socially and ethically aware.

But that was until an old friend from her Hollywood days was invited round for a bite to eat and posted online a picture of what was widely assumed to be high tea.

Pride of place went to avocado on toast —on silver platters, no less. ‘Still being the avocado toast whisperer, YUM!’, trilled her guest, Daniel Martin. The celebrity make-up artist said it took him back to the days when he and Meghan Markle collaborated on her lifestyle blog, The Tig.

‘The consummate hostess,’ he enthused.Well, perhaps not so much.

The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados.

For all their health benefits and tastiness, the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.

It has proved so lucrative in Mexico that it has been dubbed ‘green gold’ and is even filling the coffers of brutal drug cartels.

In her defence, the duchess is hardly the only celebrity who’s extolled the wonders of avocados, which are full of vitamins, proteins and healthy fats.

The lifeblood of the millennial generation — who can’t stop posting pictures of avocado on toast on Instagram — this so-called ‘super food’ has been championed by everyone from nutritionists to Hollywood stars.

The duchess revealed in her Grenfell cookbook that a green chilli and avocado dip was a favourite. Pop star Miley Cyrus went further with an avocado tattoo on her arm.

Grown in Mexico for 9,000 years, the avocado has come a long way since the 16th century, when Spanish conquistadors disparagingly called it aguacate, after ahuacatl, Aztec for testicle. Between 2000 and 2015, avocado consumption in the U.S. tripled. In the UK, the avocado market is estimated to be worth around £200 million a year.

But it has become a victim of its own popularity, prompting restaurants and cafes to remove it from menus over concerns about its environmental and social impact.

The Wild Strawberry Cafe in Bucks substituted avocados, its most popular item, with garlic-sauteed mushrooms on toast. Its owner cited the ‘demand on avocado farmers, pushing up prices to the point where there are even reports of Mexican drug cartels controlling lucrative exports’.

Tincan Coffee in Bristol has replaced ‘avo’ with pea guacamole after they were judged not to ‘fit’ with it’s ‘core beliefs’. The Wildflower Restaurant in South London followed suit, citing the violence in Mexico.

Its chef, Joseph Ryan, suggested the world may be entering a ‘post-avocado era’.

Haute cuisine has also jumped on board. In Ireland, the Michelin-starred chef JP McMahon has called them the ‘blood diamonds of Mexico’ and compared avocados to battery chickens. Where trendy restaurants and chefs go, the image-conscious supermarkets may not be far behind.

The problems that come from the West’s trendy fascination with avocados have a lot to do with geography. Some 40 per cent come from Mexico and almost all of that is grown in the rural western state of Michoacan.

The region’s fertile volcanic soil and temperate climate allow avocados to be harvested all year round (in other countries they can only be harvested in summer). The rich soil means the notoriously thirsty avocado trees need only a third as much water as they do elsewhere.

Mexico now makes more money exporting avocados than oil. Unfortunately, Michoacan is also home to some of Mexico’s most violent cartels. They include La Familia Michoacana, whose leaders once tossed five rivals’ heads on to the dance floor of a nightclub; their equally vicious rivals in the Knights Templar, a quasi-religious death cult; and Los Viagras, named for their leader’s heavily moussed, erect hair.

In Michoacan, the cartels now make more money from avocados than cannabis. Some drug criminals are becoming growers themselves, others simply terrorise the industry. Avocado farmers, who in Michoacan can easily earn more than £115,000 a year, a vast sum in Mexico, live in continual fear of kidnapping and extortion.

The Knights Templar started charging a fee for every box of avocados gathered by farmers. They also extorted money from the fertiliser and pesticide retailers. Many farmers have been forced to hand over the title deeds to their farms.

If they don’t pay protection money, growers and packers risk being raped or killed, their bodies tied to avocado trees with warning notices attached. Some kidnapped farmers have been killed even after their families paid their ransom.

A businessman whose family refused to pay up was chained to one of his trees and shot dead. Officials estimated the Knights Templar alone earn as much as £115 million a year from avocados.

The cartel’s 2014 kidnap, rape and murder of an avocado farmer’s young daughter prompted the town of Tancitaro to drive out the Knights after a bloody battle. However, the cartels remain a menacing presence.

Mexico’s avocado industry is also accused of damaging the health of locals with the chemicals sprayed on the orchards. Experts are concerned that the fumigation of the trees is behind growing breathing and stomach problems, and may be polluting water supplies.

Unscrupulous farmers are clearing land for avocado orchards, often illegally by cutting down oak and pine forests. The latter provide a crucial winter nesting ground for the imperilled Monarch butterfly.

Indeed, a Mexican government study concluded that soaring avocado production has caused a loss of biodiversity, environmental pollution and soil erosion. It has also damaged the natural water cycle and threatened the survival of animal species only found in the area. Farmers exacerbate deforestation by using trees for avocado crates.

We can’t be certain where Meghan’s avocados came from, but fashionable eaters who think they can safely switch to sourcing them from the Dominican Republic, Chile or Peru should think again.

Wherever they come from, the thousands of miles any avocado has to travel to get to Britain means they leave a heavy carbon footprint.

This is because they are perishable but cannot be frozen because it alters their texture.

They must therefore be transported either by air or in air-conditioned container ships so they ripen at just the right moment.

Their relatively heavy weight and bulky packaging to prevent bruising further ratchets up their carbon footprint. Two avocados have a footprint of 846g of CO2, compared to 160g for two bananas.

The enormous amounts of water required to grow avocados is even more of an eco-issue in countries without Mexico’s volcanic soil. It can take as much as 1,000 litres (220 gallons) to grow a single kilo (about three avocados).

The Chilean province of Petorca is suffering an acute water shortage thanks to ‘green gold’. Water has been privatised in Chile (which specialises in the Hass variety so popular in the UK), meaning that those who pay — such as deep-pocketed big avocado growers — can use as much as they want.

When activists complained after a 2012 aerial survey revealed 64 pipelines were diverting river water underground to irrigate the orchards, they received death threats. Local rivers have now dried up and supplies have to be trucked in for local people while the avocado farms rely on artificial reservoirs.

Although the avocado is essentially a jungle plant, greedy growers are determined to cultivate it in dry, perennially sunny areas such as California, where orchards sap water from a state already prone to wildfires and drought.

In Israel, avocado trees are irrigated with treated waste-water, prompting fears that harmful nano-particles are not only permanently damaging the soil but penetrating the fruit.

The Chinese are being gripped by avocado mania, too, so demand is expected to keep soaring.

But given the damaging cost of ‘avocado fever’, might it not be better to eat them more sparingly — and not, for example, serve them up on silver platters?

Since Meghan’s guest was invited to high tea, surely it should have been a case of let him eat cake.

[31]THE DAILY MAILHOW MEGHAN’S FAVOURITE AVOCADO SNACK -BELOVED OF ALL MILLENNIALS – IS FUELLING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, DROUGHT AND MURDER”22 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621047/How-Meghans-favourite-avocado-snack-fuelling-human-rights-abuses-drought-murder.html
[32]

ISRAEL/HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
BTSELEM.ORG
TORTURE AND ABUSE IN INTERROGATION
https://www.btselem.org/topic/torture

BTSELEM.ORGFATALITIES DURING OPERATION CAST LEAD
https://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/during-cast-lead/by-date-of-event

ISRAELI OCCUPATION AND PALESTINIAN RIGHTS/LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DUTCH PARLIAMENTASTRID ESSED4 FEBRUARI 2019
https://www.astridessed.nl/israeli-occupation-and-palestinian-rights-letter-to-the-members-of-the-dutch-parliament/

EU CANCELS MEETING WITH ISRAEL AFTER SETTLEMENT’S VOTE/EU, TAKE MEASURES AGAINST ISRAEL NOW!ASTRID ESSED1 MARCH 2017
https://www.astridessed.nl/eu-cancels-meeting-with-israel-after-settlements-voteeu-take-measures-against-israel-now/

[33]
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is a Latin phrase, literally “What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a bull”
WIKIPEDIAQUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi

[34]

THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

  • Meghan cradling her baby bump is a subject that has got the nation talking
  • From a double hand clasp to handbag shield we identify different types of holds 
  • Experts were asked to explain why they think she does it so often in public

It’s the subject that has got the nation talking: why does Meghan constantly cradle her bump? Here we identify the different types of embrace… and ask experts to explain why they think she does it.

Make like Meghan in a burgundy dress by Club Monaco

The Duchess of Sussex turned to one of her favourite labels, Club Monaco for an engagement in London last week.

Meghan wore the brand’s ‘Sallyet’ dress in a chic burgundy colour that simply exuded winter-chic vibes. We love the contrasting velvet collar! The stylish royal then finished off with a co-ordinating coat also by Club Monaco and a pair of cut-out ankle boots by Givenchy.

We’ve spotted her wearing the label on a lot of different occasions, most recently throughout the Royal tour, plus back in August when she attended a wedding on her birthday.

Deep berry and plum shades are perfect for this time of year, so click (right) to snap up this exact dress before the Meghan effect takes hold. You can also get your hands on her exact coat and ankle boots below to recreate the look in full.

Alternatively, we’ve hand-picked even more must-have maroon dresses that have a cute collar neckline just like Meghan’s. La Redoute and Warehouse have the best lookalikes.[35]
”the cat is out of the bagSome secret or surprise has been revealed or exposed.Well, we were going to keep this project a secret until we were a little further along in development, but I guess the cat is out of the bag now.We’ve had hidden cameras and microphones installed in his apartment to gather incriminating evidence, but I think the cat’s out of the bag.

FREE DICTIONARYTHE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/the+cat+is+out+of+the+bag

[36]
THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?26 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

[37]

THE DAILY MAILNOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW”21 MARCH 2018

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5526339/Pregnant-Kate-looks-blooming-green.html

  • Pregnant Duchess is attending symposium at Royal Society of Medicine in London
  • Event will discuss early intervention to support child mental health 
  • Kate, 36, is due to give birth to her third child next month 
  • Is set to complete celebratory Commonwealth engagements with William tomorrow

She’s weeks away from having her third child, but there’s no rest for the Duchess of Cambridge as she continues her busy schedule of royal engagements ahead of the birth.

Pregnant Kate, 36, is this morning attending a symposium at the Royal Society of Medicine in London of leading academics and charities championing early intervention into the lives of children.

The mother-to-be looked radiant in a bespoke green coat dress with a bow detail at the collar by Jenny Packham, worn over a mint dress, teamed with her favourite blush suede heels.  

And she looked as if she’d taken inspiration from the Queen who wore a remarkably similar ensemble to watch polo at Windsor in 1973.

Today’s meeting is thought to be Kate’s penultimate engagement before she commences her maternity leave and comes after Prince William’s confirmation that she’s due to give birth ‘any minute now’. 

According to Hello! magazine, the Duke of Cambridge made the revelation that the new royal baby will be here sooner rather than later, while knighting Ringo Starr yesterday. 

Despite the impending birth, Kate has had her busiest start to the year yet and if William’s admission is anything to go by, it seems that she’s determined to keep working as close to her due date as possible. 

The royal used today’s engagement to call for teenagers to be taught parenting and relationship skills to avoid the danger of their future children developing mental health problems in later life.

In a speech on the benefits of early intervention in supporting children’s mental wellbeing she said it was important to get the next generation of parents ‘child-ready’ even before they have children.

Go green like the Duchess of Cambridge in Jenny Packham

The Duchess of Cambridge is getting closer and closer to her due date, but that’s not holding her back from her duties. It’s certainly not holding her back in the style stakes, either.

Arriving for a conference held by The Royal Foundation today, Kate worked a new maternity look. Despite re-wearing most of her outfits lately, she had splashed out here opting for a bespoke dress and coat by one of her go-to British designers, Jenny Packham.

The look was a bright one that ensured she stood out on arrival and we love the pretty bow detail at the collar.

You cannot buy this outerwear as it’s bespoke, but click right to head to NET-A-PORTER where you can shop ready-to-wear pieces by the brand. Or you can go green and look royally stylish in one of our alternative coats below by Theory, Harris Wharf London, Boden and more. 

Kate was speaking at a symposium of academics, professionals and charities organised by the Royal Foundation, the charitable arm of William, Kate and Harry’s public work.

The royal also announced she was setting up a steering group to explore how to help experts provide children with the best start in life.

It will look at how to create a partnership between experts and organisations examining issues around as perinatal, maternal and infant mental health. The steering group will also look at how to improve the support for children, parents and teachers.

Kate’s busiest year yet 

At the beginning of March, the Duchess had completed 38 official engagements – including.

That’s compared with just 11 for the same period in 2017 and seven in 2016.

In January and February in 2015, when Kate was pregnant with Charlotte, she completed 13 engagements.

In 2014 and 2013, she completed three official engagements in the first two months of the year.

In 2012, she completed 10 engagements during the same period. 

Aides say it will report back to the duchess later this year and it is hoped the Royal Foundation will announce a strategy in late autumn or early next year.

In her speech at the Royal Society of Medicine, the duchess said she believes society ‘cannot intervene early enough’ to break ‘the inter-generational cycle of disadvantage’.

She said: ‘We need mental health support in primary schools before the biological changes and academic pressures of adolescence kick in.

‘We also need a focus on parenting and family support, so that parents feel able to get their children ‘school ready’, and are confident that they themselves can cope with the mental and emotional needs of their own children.

‘We need to highlight how important it is to support mothers too, potentially even before they give birth. They need to be aware how vulnerable they might be and, critically, know where they can find help for themselves, as well as for their babies and toddlers.

‘And potentially we could start to look even earlier, by teaching parenting and relationship skills to teenagers, to get the next generation of parents child-ready, well before they have to put these skills into practice.’

She added: ‘Providing children in their earliest years with social and emotional security builds strong foundations which last a lifetime. I really do feel passionately about the importance of early intervention, and that by working on new approaches together, we can make a real difference for generations to come.’

Professor Peter Fonagy, chief executive of the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, described the duchess as the person ‘who has done more to turn the tide of stigma around mental health more than any other single individual that I could name.’

He had seen her visiting providers, ‘energising, enthusing, deepening the commitment of front-line workers in an invaluable way’, he said.

He added: ‘She has also changed all our way of thinking by her intelligent questioning and crystal-clear focus.

‘It is vitally important to work together, to form a community that cares about early childhood.’

The Duchess of Cambridge’s speech on early intervention

As I look around the room, I see friends from many different sectors: friends who have shared with me their knowledge, and who have answered my questions patiently whilst I’ve interrogated them in my endeavour to learn about this complex range of issues. 

  • Academic colleagues who have shown me their ground-breaking research into the causes of perinatal and post-natal depression, and how they are addressing these in the clinic; 
  • Those who I have visited over the years who provide crucial links within the community, and whose services help families with essential parenting support and guidance;
  • and other wonderful organisations which have done so much to improve support for the emotional wellbeing of children in schools. I could name so many of you, but I’m utterly grateful to you all for giving your time and wisdom so freely. 

We all know how important childhood is; and how the early years shape us for life. We also know how negative the downstream impact can be, if problems emerging at the youngest age are overlooked, or ignored. It is therefore vital that we nurture children through this critical, early period.

But as we’ve heard, at what stage in a child’s development could we, or should we, intervene, to break the inter-generational cycle of disadvantage?

The more I have heard, the more I am convinced that the answer has to be: ‘early’ and ‘ ‘the earlier, the better’.

In fact, it would seem that we cannot intervene early enough.

We do need mental health support in primary schools before the biological changes and academic pressures of adolescence kick in.

We also need a focus on parenting and family support, so that parents feel able to get their children ‘school ready’, and are confident that they themselves can cope with the mental and emotional needs of their own children. 

We need to highlight how important it is to support mothers too, potentially before they even give birth. They need to be aware how vulnerable they might be and, critically, know where they can find help for themselves, as well as for their babies and toddlers.

But potentially we could start to look even earlier, by teaching parenting and relationship skills to teenagers, to get the next generation of parents child-ready, well before they have to put these skills into practice.

After listening to those working in this complex area, my own view is that children’s experiences in their early years are fundamental. They lay the foundations not only for healthy outcomes during the teenage years, but also for adulthood.

Addressing the issues only when they take root, later in life, results in huge detriment; detriment to the healthcare, education and social support systems in our country; but, perhaps more importantly, detriment to future generations over the long term.

In 2011, Graham Allen, who is with is here today, wrote a report for Government on the need for early intervention. 

I hope, Graham, you don’t mind me quoting from your report, in which you referred to the cycle of deprivation and dysfunction, from generation to generation.

There, you said that, ‘If we intervene early enough, we can give children a vital social and emotional foundation, which will help to keep them happy, healthy and achieving throughout their lives and, above all, equip them to raise children of their own.’

I could not agree more.

Because these are ‘lifetime’ issues, they require a very long term perspective. But the issues are also complex and multi-sided, so they need integrated, collective approaches to create real impact. This is what I am so keen to explore.

We are here today because we all believe that every child deserves the best possible start in life.

I have therefore entrusted The Royal Foundation, under the leadership of Aida Cable, to gather a group of experts to develop the thinking in this critical area: experts and partners to build upon existing work, and to look at developing sustainable solutions which will help deliver our shared ambitions.

Providing children in their earliest years with social and emotional security builds strong foundations which last a lifetime. I really do feel so passionately about the importance of early intervention, and that by working on new approaches together, we can make a real difference for generations to come.

Thank you. 

Prof Fonagy said the Royal Foundation could play a massive role in bringing voluntary organisations and statutory services to work together.

Professor Sir Simon Wessely, president of the Royal Society for Medicine and Regius Professor of Psychiatry at King’s College London, thanked the duchess for the work she and Prince William and Prince Harry had done on mental health.

It had, he said, been ‘fantastic in all sorts of ways, and in particular in engaging with ordinary people, with friends, families, relatives and indeed non-professionals for the work they can do, which is probably more important than the work any of us do… in improving the mental health and resilience of our nation.’

He said: ‘About 50 per cent of the work that adult psychiatry does arises from childhood adversity, mistreatment and so on.’

Tomorrow, Kate and Prince William will complete two engagements celebrating the Commonwealth before Kate signs off for her maternity leave. 

The Duke and Duchess will begin the day at a SportsAid event to learn how the charity is helping the next generation of aspiring Olympic, Paralympic, Commonwealth and world champions, before taking part in preparations for a Commonwealth Big Lunch at a London community centre.  

[38]
THE DAILY MAIL
NOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW”21 MARCH 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5526339/Pregnant-Kate-looks-blooming-green.html

[39]

THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

[40]
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is a Latin phrase, literally “What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a bull”
WIKIPEDIAQUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi

[41]

”Meghan Markle wore dark nails again last night while attending a charity gala performance of Cirque du Soleil’s Totem.”……..”The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible”

BAZAARMEGHAN MARKLE SNUCK IN DARK NAIL POLISH WITH ANOTHER ROYAL LOOK

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a25924837/meghan-markle-dark-nail-polish-cirque-du-soleil/

Meghan Markle wore dark nails again last night while attending a charity gala performance of Cirque du Soleil’s Totem. However, the Duchess of Sussex didn’t wear the bold polish on her hands. Instead, she wore a deep shade on her toes while rocking a light pink color on her finger tips.Meghan’s pedicure was noticeable as she wore open-toe shoes (Stuart Weitzman heeled sandals, to be exact) for the event. It also helped that her glittery Roland Mouret gown had a leg slit, revealing her footwear as she walked.
The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible. The cosmetic choice raised some eyebrows at the time, as some royal watchers questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol.” After all, Meghan had been wearing neutral manicures for past royal appearances, and other women in the family like Duchess Kate, Duchess Camilla, and even the Queen have frequented natural-looking nails.

However, “there’s no actual protocol about dark nail polish,” royal correspondent Omid Scobie told BAZAAR.com at the time. “It’s simply about being appropriate—we’d never see this at a royal engagement. But tonight’s event is a celebration of fashion and there’s a lot more flexibility on what one can wear.”And ultimately, it looked good with her outfit. The same goes for last night’s pedi.

The Cirque du Soleil performance at Royal Albert Hall, which raised money for Prince Harry’s charity, Sentebale, was previously announced by Kensington Palace. However, perhaps there was more leeway for daring nail shades considering it was an evening gala rather than, say, a formal daytime engagement with Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace.
Kate Middleton has actually rocked a dark pedicures at similar events with glamorous looks of her own. One of them was also at Royal Albert Hall years ago, while attending a concert celebrating the 2012 Olympics in London.

[42]
”The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible. The cosmetic choice raised some eyebrows at the time, as some royal watchers questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol.”
BAZAARMEGHAN MARKLE SNUCK IN DARK NAIL POLISH WITH ANOTHER ROYAL LOOK

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a25924837/meghan-markle-dark-nail-polish-cirque-du-soleil/

[43]
THE GUARDIANWHATEVER MEGHAN DOES, SHE IS DAMNED.LET US NOT REPEAT HISTORYZOE WILLIAMS
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/meghan-duchess-sussex-damned-hate-figure

TEXT
The level of scrutiny the Duchess of Sussex receives is devoid of human feeling. This vilification must end  

Last month I nominated Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as a hate figure for the nation in 2019: the person we all need to get us through a difficult time, like your cousin’s girlfriend who waxes her eyebrows and yammers on about yoga at the start of a fraught Christmas. As I then explained about a million times on Twitter, I was joking: I do not hate Meghan, or even consider her vaguely hateful. I could no more despise the woman than I could flick through the pages of a magazine and take against a salt-and-pepper male model with a watch on. She wasn’t the point; the point was that society quests ceaselessly for an enemy, and if you’re going to have one, at least let it be one who probably won’t care.

This was right in an ambient, premonitory way, but I was wrong to think it was funny. The poor woman is being vilified round the clock – this week for having the audacity to have a baby shower with her friends in New York. It has gone beyond the point of mattering what her personality is like, were anyone in any position to know: she would have to be so thoroughly bad to warrant this level of scrutiny, so devoid of human feeling, so malicious in every intention, that the media’s daily censure wouldn’t be enough. We’d have to paint her yellow and black like a bee.

She can’t leave the house, pregnant, without being accused of “flaunting” her bump. She can’t walk into a room without wild speculation about whether or not she breached a protocol, by people who have no idea what royal protocols are. If a friend comes to her defence and asks people to stop hounding her, then who does she think she is, having a friend like that? OK, so maybe it is George Clooney. Someone’s got to be his friend. He might be perfectly nice.

If she smiles for the cameras, then she’s luxuriating in the attention. “She’s being victimised, you say, George; you with your fancy hair and your coffee habits … then why is she smiling? Riddle me that.”

 Tormenting Meghan Markle has become a national sport that shames us

Catherine Bennett

Catherine Bennett

 Read more

If she goes to New York, she’s pointedly “without Prince Harry”. But if she had taken Prince Harry, then you can guarantee that she would have been dragging her husband away from his duties, to partake of her frivolity, and what kind of princelet might she raise with priorities like that? If she has a baby shower, some journalist, who was most likely trained to dig into the affairs of the mighty and powerful, sets those investigative skills to pricing her gifts then translating dollars into pounds. We’re asking the big questions, here: who spends $379 (£290) on a crib? For their friend’s baby? And besides: ew, baby shower, that’s so American. But isn’t she, though? No, she’s English now, until she gives any sign that she considers herself English, whereupon she will be American again. Randomised disapproval has rendered her stateless.Advertisement

If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice. 

[44]
THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

SEE ALSO NOTE 28 ABOUT PIER MORGAN’S OBSESSION WITH MEGHAN MARKLE

[45]

THE DAILY MAILHARRY AND MEGHAN HAVE BULLIED THE QUEEN INTO GETTING THEIR WAY: PIERS MORGAN WADES INTO ROW AFTER PALACE STATEMENT13 JANUARY 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7882959/Harry-Meghan-BULLIED-Queen-getting-way-Piers-Morgan-wades-in.html

TEXT

  • Piers Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it’
  • He was referring to Her Majesty’s message following crisis talks at Sandringham
  • It confirmed the couple would step down but referred to ‘period of transition’
  • Mr Morgan said Harry and Meghan were holding the Queen to ransom 
  • Said the pair wanted to have their cake and ‘eat it will all of the royal trimmings’ 

Piers Morgan has claimed that Harry and Meghan have ‘bullied’ the Queen into getting their way after crisis talks today at Sandringham over the Sussexes’ future.

Wading into the row following the Queen’s historic confirmation that the pair would step down, Mr Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.’ 

He also claimed that the couple were ‘having their cake and eating it with all the royal trimmings’. 

The Queen said Meghan and Harry would step back as senior royals and split their time between Canada and the UK, but clouded how they would achieve their notion of financial independence.

The statement came after a summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry.

Mr Morgan’s suggestion that the couple ‘bullied’ the Queen follows claims published on Monday that it was in fact the elder brother William who had bullied Harry and Meghan. 

Mr Morgan, who has made plain his views on the Duchess of Sussex in recent days, did not mince his words this evening, accusing Meghan and Harry of bullying the monarch

The Times claimed that Meghan told Harry she must step away from the Royal Family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming William’s ‘bullying attitude’ and told her husband over Christmas: ‘It’s not working for me’. 

But hitting back before the Sandringham talks Harry and William slammed the ‘false story’, adding: ‘For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful’. 

Mr Morgan made plain his views on the Sussexes this morning on ITV, saying: ‘The Queen’s just had to fire her middle son, her 98-year-old husband is very sick and these two little spoiled brats are holding her to ransom at the worst moment.

‘If they want to leave after 18 months then that’s fine,’ he said before speaking directly to Meghan: ‘I always thought you’d do this anyway. You quit your friends, you quit your dad, and you quit your jobs.’

He added: ‘She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead. She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother.’ 

Speaking on Australian TV, he added that Meghan was ‘pretty ruthless’, as he highlighted her ‘ghosting him’.

‘It really cemented in me a feeling that Meghan Markle is not quite what she seems,’ he told the show on Tuesday morning.

[46]

BBC

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

[47]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” 

[47]QUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY, MEGHAN/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTYASTRID ESSED14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.astridessed.nl/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

[48]

THE NEW YORK TIMESRABLOID HACK ATTACK ROYALS AND BEYOND
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html

IN NOVEMBER 2005, three senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s  biggest tabloids, News of the World.

The stories were banal enough (Prince William pulled a tendon in his knee, one revealed). But the royal aides were puzzled as to how News of the World had gotten the information, which was known among only a small, discreet circle. They began to suspect that someone was eavesdropping on their private conversations.

By early January 2006, Scotland Yard had confirmed their suspicions. An unambiguous trail led to Clive Goodman, the News of the World reporter who covered the royal family, and to a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, who also worked for the paper. The two men had somehow obtained the PIN codes needed to access

Scotland Yard told the aides to continue operating as usual while it pursued the investigation, which included surveillance of the suspects’ phones. A few months later, the inquiry took a remarkable turn as the reporter and the private investigator chased a story about Prince William’s younger brother, Harry, visiting a strip club. Another tabloid, The Sun, had trumpeted its scoop on the episode with the immortal: “Harry Buried Face in Margo’s Mega-Boobs. Stripper Jiggled . . . Prince Giggled.” 

As Scotland Yard tracked Goodman and Mulcaire, the two men hacked into Prince Harry’s mobile-phone messages. On April 9, 2006, Goodman produced a follow-up article in News of the World about the apparent distress of Prince Harry’s girlfriend over the matter. Headlined “Chelsy Tears Strip Off Harry!” the piece quoted, verbatim, a voice mail Prince Harry had received from his brother teasing him about his predicament.

The palace was in an uproar, especially when it suspected that the two men were also listening to the voice mail of Prince William, the second in line to the throne. The eavesdropping could not have gone higher inside the royal family, since Prince Charles and the queen were hardly regular mobile-phone users. But it seemingly went everywhere else in British society. Scotland Yard collected evidence indicating that reporters at News of the World might have hacked the phone messages of hundreds of celebrities, government officials, soccer stars — anyone whose personal secrets could be tabloid fodder. Only now, more than four years later, are most of them beginning to find out.

  • You have 3 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

AS OF THIS SUMMER, five people have filed lawsuits accusing News Group Newspapers, a division of Rupert Murdoch’s publishing empire that includes News of the World, of breaking into their voice mail. Additional cases are being prepared, including one seeking a judicial review of Scotland Yard’s handling of the investigation. The litigation is beginning to expose just how far the hacking went, something that Scotland Yard did not do. In fact, an examination based on police records, court documents and interviews with investigators and reporters shows that Britain’s revered police agency failed to pursue leads suggesting that one of the country’s most powerful newspapers was routinely listening in on its citizens.

The police had seized files from Mulcaire’s home in 2006 that contained several thousand mobile phone numbers of potential hacking victims and 91 mobile phone PIN codes. Scotland Yard even had a recording of Mulcaire walking one journalist — who may have worked at yet another tabloid — step by step through the hacking of a soccer official’s voice mail, according to a copy of the tape. But Scotland Yard focused almost exclusively on the royals case, which culminated with the imprisonment of Mulcaire and Goodman. When police officials presented evidence to prosecutors, they didn’t discuss crucial clues that the two men may not have been alone in hacking the voice mail messages of story targets.

“There was simply no enthusiasm among Scotland Yard to go beyond the cases involving Mulcaire and Goodman,” said John Whittingdale, the chairman of a parliamentary committee that has twice investigated the phone hacking. “To start exposing widespread tawdry practices in that newsroom was a heavy stone that they didn’t want to try to lift.” Several investigators said in interviews that Scotland Yard was reluctant to conduct a wider inquiry in part because of its close relationship with News of the World. Police officials have defended their investigation, noting that their duties did not extend to monitoring the media. In a statement, the police said they followed the lines of inquiry “likely to produce the best evidence” and that the charges that were brought “appropriately represented the criminality uncovered.” The statement added, “This was a complex inquiry and led to one of the first prosecutions of its kind.” Officials also have noted that the department had more pressing priorities at the time, including several terrorism cases.[49]
”According to more than one source, not much. “Dull as paint” is an expression that’s been used to describe Her Royal Highness by one of her acquaintances that’s been friendly with her since college. ”
ROYALFOIBLES.COMKATE’S DILEMMA
https://www.royalfoibles.com/kates-dilemma/

TEXT


By now the world has long since heard the news that Britain’s most famously grumpy infant won’t be hogging the spotlight much longer as his parents will soon be welcoming a new edition to their family. The author is of course referring to the announcement made earlier this week that the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant with her second child. The irony of this announcement is that it was made under the same circumstances as news of Her Royal Highness’ first pregnancy was divulged to the general public: i.e. because the Duchess was overcome by such a severe case of Hyperemesis Gravidarum, more commonly known as morning sickness, that she was forced to cancel several public engagements while being treated by doctors at Kensington Palace. Kate’s ill health also forced the Palace to announce her pregnancy sooner than the expectant mother, her husband, in-laws and their retainers would’ve liked. Far be it from the author to cast a shadow on this otherwise happy event, but he can’t help but wonder if the Duchess’ latest bout of severe, briefly debilitating morning sickness is but the latest sign of the long held rumor that HRH, like her late mother-in-law, suffers from at least one on going, and increasingly severe, eating disorder. After all, many a medical expert interviewed on American television at the time of Kate’s first pregnancy announcement stated categorically that one of the leading causes of Hyperemesis Gravidarum is dehydration resulting from the expectant mother being under weight. Reoccurring bouts of Bulimia, and certainly Anorexia Nervosa, can lead to an expectant mother being dangerously thin. Before the author continues, he would like to make it clear to his online community, as he always does concerning posts of this nature, that he’s engaging in nothing more than idle speculation. After all, libel is an all too real legal concept that has a funny way of seeking out and striking even the most deliberately anonymous of Internet bloggers. With that caveat stated, the author can’t help but notice certain cracks that are continually forming in the Duchess of Cambridge’s painstakingly well crafted public facade.

No one can under estimate the kind of pressure that Her Royal Highness has been subjected to from the moment she officially became a member of the Royal Family. Even during her engagement it was noticed by the more discerning of royal commentators that her weight perceptibly dropped in the weeks leading up to her wedding. By the time her father walked her down the aisle at Westminster Abbey she’d morphed into a literal stick figure and, despite the handful of pounds she gained during her first pregnancy, she’s remained one ever since. Photos of the Duchess of Cambridge in her current manifestation are particularly striking when compared to those taken of her at the time her relationship with Prince William began while they were undergraduates at Scotland’s University of St. Andrew’s. While certainly a young woman whose frame could be described as naturally thin, Kate Middleton’s appearance possessed a genuine healthiness back then that all but disappeared as her royal courtship progressed.

There’s no shortage of rumors concerning why Kate’s physical transformation came to pass. One aspect of these stories that many of them have in common is that Kate’s weight decreased in direct proportion to her increasing desperation to marry Britain’s heir presumptive. While no one doubts that Prince William fell madly in love with Kate while they were both in college, by the the time he was studying to become a pilot at Sandhurst his feelings are alleged to have noticeably cooled, while his roving eye led him to the first of several dalliances with other women that occurred during his prolonged courtship. In fact, there are many who believe that one of the reasons why his relationship with Ms. Middleton was so prolonged was because he relished his bachelor status, and the freedom to date other women that came with it, too much to settle into marriage. While never the serial philanderer that both his father and grandfather have undoubtedly been, it’s long been whispered that His Royal Highness was no stranger to other women throughout the greater part of his courtship with Ms. Middleton. These same whisperers have also made it clear, however, that William always returned to Kate’s patiently waiting arms after every brief affair, and the two of them would continue on as if nothing had happened. The author has been given two explanations for this.

The first is that His Royal Highness, as an enabled, pampered young man who prefers security and routine over risk and adventure, preferred to have a long term, official girlfriend whom he could parade before the tabloid press, would love and trust above all other women, and eventually marry; but none the less would sow his wild oats behind her back while she stoically awaited his inevitable marriage proposal. While there were other contenders for the role of William’s conjugal nanny/long suffering girlfriend/eventual wife and consort, none had the endurance or palace backing of Kate Middleton.

This leads one to the second alleged reason why William always reunited with the girlfriend the tabloid press eventually dubbed “Waity Katy.” It’s never been a secret among royal insiders that from the moment the late Diana, Princess of Wales perished in a car crash, her ex-husband’s courtiers were desperate for William’s future bride to be his mother’s more level headed, more Royal Court compliant and more humbly born replacement. After all, who better to succeed the so called “People’s Princess” than a glamorous, well educated, and naturally graceful young woman who was a genuine commoner born of the people, or at least more of the people than the former Lady Diana Spencer had ever been? It’s said the Prince of Wales’ advisors at Clarence House specifically became sold on the idea of Kate Middleton one day becoming Prince William’s bride, or at the very least Prince William’s future bride being a young lady as similar to Kate Middleton as possible, when they became aware that she almost single handedly talked him out of dropping out of college, and could more than likely be relied upon to convince the British throne’s heir presumptive to abandon his long term plan to eventually abdicate his succession rights.

Many a royal watcher, journalist, and courtier is aware that His Royal Highness, unlike his father, has never relished his destiny as Britain’s future king. While it’s rumored that he’s resigned himself to his fate more and more as the years have passed, he’s still said to find his royal duties more a burden than anything else, and the main reason why he’s been allowed to return to his career as a search and rescue/ambulance pilot is because of the abject misery he’s expressed behind palace walls at the prospect of whiling away his youth at public engagements that bore him to tears. Although the Queen’s court at Buckingham Palace initially rejected the idea of Kate Middleton becoming William’s spouse because of her lack of aristocratic birth, they were always in agreement with Prince Charles’ Clarence House staff that a loving and supportive spouse, who was on their side, was the key to Prince William accepting his destiny. They eventually realized that if Kate Middleton was the only woman who seemed able to fulfill that task, then so be it.

In the meantime, as the combined pressures of maintaining a relationship with her privately mercurial boyfriend increased with the prospect of her becoming Diana 2.0, Kate appears to have developed a case of body dysmorphia that haunts her to this day. One of the many ironies of the Duchess of Cambridge being the designated torch bearer of Diana’s legacy is that she appears to have taken on at least one of her late mother-in-law’s coping mechanisms to deal with the predicament of being married to Britain’s future king.

One may wonder, as many have, what lies beneath Kate’s seemingly plastered on smile and her outwardly friendly public demeanor. According to more than one source, not much. “Dull as paint” is an expression that’s been used to describe Her Royal Highness by one of her acquaintances that’s been friendly with her since college. Several among their social friends have also stated that the Duke and Duchess compliment each other precisely because their tastes are somewhat juvenile and neither of them are intellectuals. All in all, Kate gives the impression of being a modestly intelligent, genuinely selfless and utterly devoted young woman whose more than willing to sacrifice her needs for the happiness of those she loves most, chief among them obviously being her husband. While someone with a stronger disposition might be able to take this predicament in their stride, Her Royal Highness’ latest bout of ill health at the outset of her latest pregnancy indicates otherwise.

While many have presumed since the ordeal of Charles and Diana’s divorce and Diana’s tragic, early death that the Palace has modernized some of its more ossified practices vis a vis how the courtiers and Royal Family deal with their newly arrived in-laws, the seemingly blasé manner in which the Palace has handled the Duchess’ latest health crisis, coupled with the seemingly unconcerned manner in which her husband and his family have cheerfully gone about their public engagements since the announcement that Kate’s expecting leads one to deduce that little has changed regarding the Palace’s internal practices. The author more than concedes that royal engagements are what they are, and the traveling Windsor show must go on regardless of what’s going on within its members’ private lives, but one doubts anyone would’ve begrudged Prince William’s absence from the opening ceremonies of the Invictus Games, least of all Prince Harry, who organized them, so that he could spend as much time as possible next to his especially delicate wife. Through his smilingly unbothered demeanor in public, Prince William is giving the message that his wife vomiting herself into near delirium every time she gets knocked up is nothing to get concerned about. He’s not worried, so no one else should be. As far as the Buckingham Palace press office is concerned, that’s probably the point.

There are, however, several silver linings to this latest chapter in Kate’s life, chief among them being that, with William being allowed to resume his military career, he and his wife have been given the all clear to make their country estate, Anmer Hall, their primary residence. As the author predicted in his first post concerning the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate definitely didn’t take to the stultifying and Victorian atmosphere of Princess Margaret’s former apartment at Kensington Palace, where she was observed and scrutinized almost as much behind palace walls as she was in public. According to a recent article about her in the Daily Telegraph, which reported on her “baby making plans” shortly before it was publicly divulged that she’s pregnant and seems lately to be surpassing the Daily Mail as the Palace’s preferred organ for press leaks, it’s Kate’s genuine wish to have a third child before she’s 35. Her move to a new primary residence, according to the article, is central to her plans. Perhaps while ensconced in the country, Kate will be able too seek treatment away from prying eyes for what is becoming an increasingly obvious health problem. Otherwise, there may never be a third Cambridge child.

EXPRESS

KATE MIDDLETON BODY LANGUAGE: HOW ”WAITY KATY” TRANSFORMED INTO ”DRIVEN” DUCHESS

5 NOVEMBER 2019

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1199874/kate-middleton-body-language-transformation-prince-william-royal-family-news

TEXT

KATE, DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE is an established member of the British Royal Family but she hasn’t always been the confident figure she is today. Here’s how the popular royal went from “waity-Katie” to the driven Duchess she is now.

Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, 37 married Prince William, 37, in 2011 and has become a much-loved member of the British Royal Family. Kate and William met at university and were officially an item by the time they graduated in 2005. Once a shy student Kate has transformed into a driven and charismatic future Queen consort. 

One royal source claimed it has taken Kate several years to become comfortable in her royal role but now there is no stopping the diligent Duchess.Before Prince William and Kate tied the knot she was branded work shy by critics who claimed after graduating she seemed to be waiting around for William to propose instead of pursuing her own career.

However, since then Kate has proven her critics wrong and is among the most industrious members of the younger royals.

A royal source has claimed Kate has grown into herself and matured into her role.

They told Fabulous Magazine: “Like the finest of wines, she has taken years to mature to perfection, but the woman you see today has no peers on the global stage.”“What people are seeing now is a confident, driven woman with a purpose.

For the first time in her life, Kate knows where she is going and has the self-belief to get there under her own steam.”

Nearly two decades since he and William first met, Kate’s body language has dramatically changed.

The source said: “Back then she was full of self-doubt, despite all her assets.“These days she’s a force to be reckoned with.”

Kate has always been admired for her incredible figure and famously caught William’s eye on the catwalk at a university fashion show.

But it has taken the mum-of-three years to feel at home in her body.

Following the Cambridges recent tour of Pakistan, the Duchess has been praised for the ease with which she handles royal engagements.Vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham and political author, Sir Anthony Seldon told the Sun: “Kate has that rare ability, possessed by very few people, of being able to talk and relate to those of different ages, backgrounds and ethnicities.”

He added: “It’s a magical talent that is infinitely precious and you either have it in life or you don’t.

“Most people don’t, but Kate does.”

According to Palace insiders, Kate is as popular within The Firm as she is with the general public and her no-fuss approach to royal duty is a hit with her grandmother-in-law, the Queen.

Kate’s ability to juggle motherhood with a packed schedule of royal engagements puts her in good stead as future Queen Consort.

The insider added: “The Queen is not one for platitudes, so when she gives a compliment you know she means it.

“She has been extremely impressed by the Duchess of Cambridge’s ability to keep several balls in the air at once.

“Never before has a royal of the Duchess’ standing taken such a hands-on role in raising a future king – and don’t forget that is George’s destiny. It has traditionally been left to nannies and governesses.“Catherine seems to thrive on the workload.”

[50]

”If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.

We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice.”THE GUARDIANWHATEVER MEGHAN DOES, SHE IS DAMNED.LET US NOT REPEAT HISTORYZOE WILLIAMS
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/meghan-duchess-sussex-damned-hate-figure

[51]

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DOASTRID ESSED2 OCTOBER 2019
https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-sue-tabloid-prince-harry-defending-his-wife-the-only-honourable-thing-to-do/

[52]
THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 
https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

“Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Notes [1 t/m 52] at article ”Smear campaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones/Some dirty examples”

Filed under Divers