Prisoners voting: time to ask who governs Britain (Express)

Yep Human Rights trumps everything so that victims of crime get a worse deal than the perpetrators. After all if you've been murdered by a criminal in the furtherance of a crime you have no human rights at all whereas the guy who killed you gets to vote, study for a degree, conjugal rights, etc etc. Pretty fair deal wouldn't you say, you break societal rules and then use those same rules to your advantage?

Oh and whilst we are talking about human rights I suppose you numpties will just call this another case of pinkwashing
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4234038,00.html

Whilst on the subject of human rights . . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18149573

suzanna you are a numpty aren't you? Human rights abuses!

How about this for a start

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17644406

Why do you bother?

And by the way numpty if you had actually read the report you would have read " ... has released a video that appears to show Israeli soldiers standing by while Jewish settlers open fire on stone-throwing Palestinian protesters in ..."

So Jews fearing for their lives fire on a violent mob who are stoning them - they wound one - that is a human rights abuse? You obviously do not believe in self defence that is if it is a Jew defending himself pretty much goes with the territory.

You are right Adviser sometimes the victims get a worse deal than the criminal.Would you prefer we were like the U.S ,criminal courts dealing sentences of vengeance.Wouldn't you like to see Johnathan Pollard released(I would).We are different , we don't need premeditated acts of vengeance against criminals.If we went your way we could hang murderers and leave criminals no hope,you know what they say "better to get hung for a sheep than a lamb",We could have a murder rate like America and boy would we get justice.

Oh Sorry Advisor I'm not a Hamas of Fatah man.I'm just not into corruption and no I don't agree with capital punishment in Gaza .A sentence till the end of the occupation will do collaborators

No you are wrong. I do not support hanging and I am not sure anything I said would indicate that I did - that is a projection on your part.

Israel for example does not have the death penalty for capital crimes. In ancient times some said that a Sanhedrin (Jewish Court of Law where you needed a court of 23 judges to be able to impose a death sentence) that imposed the death penalty once in seven years was considered "bloody;" another opinion is that it was one in seventy years.

If a criminal is sent to prison he should be entitled to decent accomodation decent food but minimal recreation facilities in order to reflect on the wrong he has done both to his victim and society.

Being incarcerated while otherwise being given the same "human rights" as law abiding citizens seems somehow to excuse his crime especially if the victim of his crime is no longer able to exercise any human rights by virtue of being deceased.

http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20120520_asira_al_qibliya

Btselem???

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=111&x_article=4...

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_article=1533

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=12&x_article=1265

About as reliable as Pravda and/or Dr Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry.

From suzanna's comment:

On Saturday, 19.5.2012, (Shabbat) around four thirty in the afternoon, a large group of settlers descended on the eastern outskirts of the village 'Asira al-Qibliya, from the settlement Yitzhar (and they know this how?). B'Tselem volunteer photographers filmed the events from two angles.(they just happened to be there, how convenient?) The video shows the settlers, some of whom were masked and armed, throwing stones at Palestinian homes, and fires beginning to burn (remember it was Shabbat so Orthodox Jews who the pictures seem to portray would not have been setting fires) - the BBC report shows Palestinians throwing the rocks not the Jews.

The members of B'tselem are so politicized that they are totally incapable of discerning the accuracy of what they see and instead report what they thought they saw.

Human rights being taught to Arab children

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq2P4e1acXM&feature=player_embedded

How cute!

Advis3r: Human rights being taught to Arab children

here's the transcript of the poem, which the little girl "lara" read out on pa children's tv two weeks ago (PA TV (Fatah), May 11, 2012) …

khaybar was a jewish oasis (with fortresses) conquered by mohammed (and his son-in-law ali) in 629

the surrender terms have been used ever since as a precedent for the treatment of jews, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar …

khaybar is also the name of the missiles hizbollah fired on israeli civilian cities in 2006

A poem comparable to shooting at unarmed villagers?

A little girl compared to armed illegal settlers supported by an occupying army?

What was it the BBC survey found about Israel the so called 'only democracy in the ME'?

Bottom four in the world:

Pakistan, Israel, N Korea and Iran.

And the main reason for the world's disdain is that they view Israel's treatment of its own citizens and of the Palestinians in a negative light.

Yep Israel in the bottom 4 because numpties like you were polled and like you with little between their ears except Jew hatred obviously they put Israel down the bottom.

However if you look at Freedom House which actually measures freedom http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Table%20of...

You will see that Israel's score is the same as Japan's and far better than all the other countries in the Middle East and many of the countries in the UNHRC that regularly condemn it for Human Rights abuses. So who believes BBC polls anyway?

suzanna only a dope like you could make a comment like this

"A poem comparable to shooting at unarmed villagers?"

There again only a Jew hater could claim that a violent rock throwing mob can be classed as something as innocent as "unarmed villagers".

I suppose you agree with the "little girl's poem" instead of condemning a society that promotes young children being encouraged to recite racist poems.

suzanna: A poem comparable to shooting at unarmed villagers?

they weren't unarmed, they were throwing stones, and advancing

suzanna: A little girl compared to armed illegal settlers supported by an occupying army?

a little girl being used to encourage other little girls and boys to grow up to "despise" christians and jews

suzanna: What was it the BBC survey found about Israel …
Bottom four in the world:
Pakistan, Israel, N Korea and Iran.

suzanna, are you being deliberately dishonest?

not "Bottom four in the world", only bottom four in sixteen …

no other middle east countries there!

Oh and by the way even Freedom House had to have alittle dig by stating Israel received a downward trend arrow due to the passage of the so-called Boycott
Law, which allows civil lawsuits against Israeli individuals and groups that call for an
economic, cultural, or academic boycott of the State of Israel or the West Bank settlements. Someone should have told them that the law only prescribes a civil lawsuit by someone who is economically harmed by the boycott it is not a criminal offence. The UK has a similar legislation there it is called Tortious interference, and is also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of tort, and occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

Taking the conversation in a different direction.

Should people be allowed to vote under the following circumstances;

On remand awaiting sentencing?
Subject to house arrest?
On parole?
Subject to a suspended sentence?

Are there certain crimes which should bar an individual from being eligible to vote for a certain period/life.

Suzanna - Get your facts correct.

Evaluations of Israel’s influence in the
world—already largely unfavourable in
2011—have worsened in 2012. On
average, in the 22 tracking countries
surveyed both in 2011 and 2012, 50
per cent of respondents have negative
views of Israel’s influence in the world,
an increase of three points from 2011.
The proportion of respondents giving
Israel a favourable rating remains
stable, at 21 per cent.

Joshua just prints what he would like you to know. Let's see the whole story shall we. It's below and is a testament to the biased media which shapes peoples' perceptions and the countries taking part most of whom have long held negative views of Israel - what's new?

As I said above if you look at the Freedom House website you will see what countries are actually free and many of the countries that hold negative attitudes to Israel are much less free than Israel is.

It is a lesson in the how biased the media is in that 27% base their negative view on how Israel treats its own people and yet Israel probably treats its own people far better than the country in which those people holding that view live. Shows how unreliable it all is.

For a start the number of Muslim Countries and those having no relations with Israel at all has to be taken into account.

Secondly the countries with a record of being anti-Israel per se which means most if not all of the South American Countries.

Then you have the UK where many people get their news from a media which has long had a negative attitude to Israel you have only have to go to the BBC website which contains not one positive story about Israel on its Middle East web page or to the Guardian whose articles about Israel are reminiscent of the articles Der Sturmer carried about the Jews in the 1930s.

So this is the comment about Israel:

Israel
Evaluations of Israel’s influence in the
world—already largely unfavourable in
2011—have worsened in 2012. On average, in the 22 tracking countries surveyed both in 2011 and 2012, 50
per cent of respondents have negative views of Israel’s influence in the world, an increase of three points from 2011.
The proportion of respondents giving Israel a favourable rating remains stable, at 21 per cent. Out of 22 countries polled in 2011, 17 lean negative, three lean positive, and two are divided.
In the Western countries surveyed, views of Israel show improvement only in the US. Fifty per cent of Americans
have a favourable view of Israel in 2012, and this proportion has increased by seven points. At the
same time, the proportion of negative ratings has gone down six points to 35 per cent and, as a result, the US has gone from being divided in 2011 to leaning positive in 2012. These are the most positive views on Israel’s
influence expressed in the US since tracking began in 2005. Apart from the US, the most favourable views of
Israel are found in Nigeria and Kenya, where views have also shifted since 2011. A majority of 54 per cent of
Nigerians (up 23 points) rates Israel positively, and the country has moved from being divided to leaning positive in 2012 (54% positive vs 29% negative). In Kenya, negative ratings have fallen ten points (to 31%), while positive views have risen by 16 points (to 45%), shifting the country from leaning negative in 2011 to leaning positive in 2012.
Among the Muslim countries surveyed, perceptions of Israel have deteriorated in Egypt (85% negative ratings, up 7 points and the highest negative percentage in the survey), and remained largely negative but stable in Pakistan (9% positive vs 50% negative) and in Indonesia (8% vs 61%).
In the EU countries surveyed, views of Israeli influence have hardened in Spain (74% negative ratings, up 8 points) and in France (65%, up 9 points)—while positive ratings remain low and steady. Negative ratings from the Germans and the British remain very high and stable (69% and 68%, respectively). In other Anglo-Saxon countries, views have worsened in Australia (65% negative ratings, up 7 points) and in Canada (59%, up 7 points).
This hardening of opinion towards Israel’s influence in the world is strongly apparent in South Korea, where negative views have risen (69%, up 15 points) while positive views have decreased by 11 points (to 20%).
Negative attitudes have also increased among the Chinese, the Indians, and the Russians.
In China, a 9-point drop in positive ratings (to 23%) makes the overall balance of views even more negative (23% positive vs 45% negative). In India, negative perceptions have gone up 24 11 points (to 29%), and overall opinion has shifted from being divided in 2011 (21% vs 18%) to leaning negative in 2012 (17% vs 29%). In Russia, public opinion has shifted from leaning
positive in 2011 to being divided in 2012 (25% positive vs 26% negative).
In Ghana, favourable views have fallen by 13 points while negative views have decreased by eight points, and the country has shifted from leaning somewhat positive in 2011 (32% positive vs 27% negative) to being divided in 2012 (19% vs 19%). Over six in ten Ghanaians (62%, up 20 points) do not give a rating, the highest percentage in the survey.
In Latin America, perceptions are negative overall, with pluralities giving negative ratings in Chile (34%, stable), Peru (35%, stable), and Mexico (44%, up 15 points). Brazilians continue to be strongly unfavourable to Israel’s influence, with a stable majority of 58 per cent who rate it negatively.
Factors shaping perceptions of Israel (see note at top of page 7 for details)
For those who held negative views of Israel influence in the world, the foreign policy of the Israeli State is by some distance the main reason explaining their negative rating (45%). The way Israel treats its own people stands out as the second most important reason (27%).
Of those holding positive views, Jewish traditions and culture are cited by 29 per cent globally, closely followed by foreign policy (26%).

The biased media?

Of course there is no bias in the US media or political system is there? Which would explain why only in the US - of the Western Countries- is Israel not viewed in a predominantly negative manner.

(Comparing the Guardian to Der Sturmer is wildly inaccurate)

The fact that the US media is so heavily politicised and that lobby groups such as AIPAC bank roll US congress men and women explains why the US is never balanced when dealing with Israel / Palestine.

In addition a study titled Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination by the Frederich Ebert Stiftung in Germany (http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/do/07908-20110311.pdfreveals the persistence of anti-Semitism throughout Europe). Reason enough for people to have negative views about Israel. A substantial number of people in all the European countries polled believe that Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians. So Joshua where do you think they got that idea from the tea leaves in their cups?

Because the study covers a variety of forms of prejudice (anti-Muslim, anti-homosexual, anti-immigrant) its analysis focuses on ideological, political and economic factors. These may not be central to anti-Jewish animosity which appears to be driven by immutable processes.

The highest figures for anti-Jewish attitudes persist in Eastern and Central European countries where Jews have largely disappeared due to prior genocides and emigration and in countries like Norway and Spain that have not had large Jewish populations ever or in many centuries.

Interestingly, in all the countries polled, a majority of respondents believed that Jews have enriched their culture. (That was also shown in the Poll of 22 Countries) The fact that this positive belief co-exists with such negative beliefs about Jews does not augur well for campaigns promoted by Jewish organizations and the Israeli government emphasizing the positive contributions made by Israel and the Jewish community as a way to shift public opinion towards Israel.

The study also documents a generational shift towards more anti-Jewish hostility among the youngest cohort. This reverses a long trend of declining anti-Semitism with each new generation.

"The fact that the US media is so heavily politicised and that lobby groups such as AIPAC bank roll US congress men and women explains why the US is never balanced when dealing with Israel / Palestine"

You mean like the Saudis and other Middle Eastern oil rich Arab countries (including Libya - LSE for example)that bank roll the universities in Britain so Israel never gets a balanced view on British University campuses?

According to the long quote you pasted:

For those who held negative views of Israel influence in the world, the foreign policy of the Israeli State is by some distance the main reason explaining their negative rating (45%). The way Israel treats its own people stands out as the second most important reason (27%).

So what has that to do with 'anti-Semitism'?

It's to do with foreign policy. (Plus you quote: ‘Interestingly, in all the countries polled, a majority of respondents believed that Jews have enriched their culture’.) So again absolutely nothing to do with 'anti Semitism’ as we all suspect. It's to do with the manner in which Israel treats those it occupies in The West Bank, those living under siege in Gaza and those who are non Jewish i.e. black Africans, Palestinians and Arabs living in Israel.

'You mean like the Saudis and other Middle Eastern oil rich Arab countries (including Libya - LSE for example)

Any other examples?

Why one is more than enough!

You said 'universities'

So which are the other ones?

Exeter, Oxford etc etc etc

Really? Your evidence for this is?

(Exeter? Is it because Ilan Pappe works there? Lol)

And there I thought he only got the job at Exeter because of Arab sponsorship!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/836...

Between 1995 and 2008, eight universities – Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, University College London, the LSE, Exeter, Dundee and City – accepted more than £233.5 million from Muslim rulers and those closely connected to them.
Much of the money has gone to Islamic study centres: the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies received £75 million from a dozen Middle Eastern rulers, including the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia; one of the current king’s nephews, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, gave £8 million each to Cambridge and Edinburgh. Then there was the LSE’s own Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, which got £9 million from the United Arab Emirates; this week, a majority of the centre’s board was revealed to be pushing for a boycott of Israel.
While figures since 2008 have yet to be collated, the scale of funding has only increased: such donations are now the largest source of external funding for universities by quite a long way. The donors claim that they want only to promote understanding of Islam – a fine goal for any university.
But the man who gathered the earlier figures, Prof Anthony Glees, argues that their real agenda is rather different: to push an extreme ideology and act as a form of propaganda for the Wahhabist strain of Islam within universities. They push, he says, “the wrong sort of education by the wrong sort of people, funded by the wrong sorts of donor”.
This is not simply scare-mongering. The management committees of the Islamic Studies centres at Cambridge and Edinburgh contained appointees hand-picked by Prince Alwaleed. Other universities have altered their study areas in line with their donors’ demands. And it works.
A study of five years of politics lectures at the Middle Eastern Centre at St Antony’s College, Oxford, found that 70 per cent were “implacably hostile” to the West and Israel. A friend of mine, a former Oxford academic, felt that his time was largely spent battling a cadre of academics overwhelmingly hostile to the West, in an ambience in which students – from both Britain and abroad – were presented a world-view that was almost exclusively anti-Western.
Although much of the money is claimed to be directed towards apolitical ends, this can often be misleading. The gift by foreign governments of language books, for instance, can have a significant effect on what is taught; in one case, the gift of an art gallery was found to have had a direct impact on teaching and admissions policy.
This is all so easily done because there is no requirement for serious scrutiny of either the source of funding or its impact on research. As a report from the Centre for Social Cohesion puts it, our universities “are now effectively up for sale to the highest bidder”. If the LSE’s actions have a saving grace, is that they could help to expose the wider scandal surrounding the behaviour of UK universities.

Still laughing?

yyyaaawwwnnn

And that's without even reading it.

Interesting JC editorial. Lieberman was NOT elected Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. He became an MK by virtue of his position on a party list. He was APPOINTED Foreign Minister in a smoke filled room, for the sole purpose of consolidating Bibi's tenure.

Reform doesn't "speak with authority"? What on earth does that mean? Who does speak with authority? Stephen Pollard? Jonathan Hoffman?

What we can say is that reform are increasingly the present, and undoubtedly the future. Bye bye Johnny Boy.

Slight change of subject.
RE: The demo

http://hoffmanchronicled.wordpress.com/jewish-chronicle-defames-the-brit...

Chris Tucker: RE: The demo
http://hoffmanchronicled.wordpress.com/jewish-chronicle-defames-the-brit...

that article (about the jc, the bic, and jonathan hoffman) is entirely invented, isn't it?

why are you linking to it?

joshua789: The fact that the US media is so heavily politicised and that lobby groups such as AIPAC bank roll US congress men and women explains why the US is never balanced when dealing with Israel / Palestine.

aipac does not "bankroll" us politicians (and its accounts are fully audited and published)

joshua, why are you making this anti-semitic slur against a major jewish organisation?

Because happygoldfish he like Real Real kopin-dreard are anti-Semites. When faced with facts Real Real kopin dreard feigns boredom a sure sign he has no answer but we have known that for a long time.

You should see (or maybe you shouldn't) the repulsive comments he posts under the name "rich" on Richard Millets Blogsite I can't understand why he is tolerated perhaps so that we can easily recognise a mentally challenged bigot when we see one.

In any event they are all totally depressed because Habima's performance went off without a hitch.

"He was APPOINTED Foreign Minister in a smoke filled room ..." Real Real Kop in dreard so was every other minister in the Israeli Government including when he was a minister your darling Yossi Beilin.

happygoldfish have you noticed when confronted with the truth - they run away and pop up on another thread spewing the same lies?

gulp