Caledonian Voice says Happy Brexit Day!
Date: June 19, 2017
Categories: Articles, Party News
Category » Articles
Nations without States Conference ‘Today and Tomorrow’
We must call for a referendum to determine the political status of all ‘national peoples’ in the world!
The Nation Without States (NWS), an independent organisation and pressure group for self-determination sponsored by the National Liberal Party (NLP) hoisted a conference on 30th April 2017 to bring all the stateless people together to fight for their right to self-determination in London. Fourteen speakers covering at least ten different nationalities addressed the conference of over 100 delegates over the two sessions.
At the welcome note, Mr Graham Williamson, Councillor and Chairman of the NWS, who chaired the event, stated that “Despite the right to self-determination being part of the first article of the United Nations Charter, it is not willingly adhered too. Despite there being perhaps 200 nations looking to be empowered or simply recognised, only a handful have become free since the great periods of decolonisation in the 1940/50/60’s e.g. East Timor, Kosovo, South Sudan.
He further stated, “Whilst this usually involves a minority peoples struggling against a majoritarian one, it crucially involves a world community (or at least its elites) backing the latter against the former. This is partly due to self-interest i.e. fear of their own oppressed nations but also what the global elites expect. Whether it be the UN, OAU or the EU, ‘separatist’ movements are ultimately unwelcome”.
The conference explored the opportunities for self-determinist struggles at present (today) and the future (tomorrow). Many activists from various oppressed ethnicities attended this event and gave speeches of the problems they face in their own countries..
Mrs Melani Dissanayake, a Human Rights Lawyer from Sri Lanka who is currently working as a volunteer researcher with the International Centre for Prevention and Prosecution of Genocide (ICPPG) and Tamil Information Centre (TIC) represented the Tamils from Sri Lanka in this event and invited them to act immediately before it is too late. The full version of her speech as follows;
“Good evening ladies and Gentleman.
First of all, I must thank you all for inviting me to this event and giving me this golden opportunity to speak to you today.
Coming from the Singhalese Majority Community in Sri Lanka, I am proud to be here today and support you in your struggle right to Self-Determination and justice for the oppressed. I must specially thank the National Liberal Party (NLP) who sponsors the Nation Without States (NWS) to host this very important event.
As a Human Rights Lawyer, I have represented and assisted a number of Tamils detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act – known as PTA, the most draconian act, specially designed t suppresses the freedom struggle of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The denial of the right of self-determination to the Tamil people in Sri Lanka who have been subject to an agenda of genocide since independence in February 1948 is deeply disappointing.
This history of Sri Lanka confirms that the Tamils existed for more than 3000 years in Sri Lanka. Therefore, their Right to self-rule is legitimate. As Professor Paul. E. Peiris stated;
“The Tamils continued their rule until 1833 when the British invaded Sri Lanka and destroyed the Kingdoms”.
The British united the Island was for their administrative ease of the Tamils. This ended the sovereignty of Tamils in the North and East of Sri Lanka.
When the British left Sri Lanka in February 1948, they acted in the most irresponsible way and handed the power to the Singhalese Majority. This is called the Independence Day of Sri Lanka. But the bitter truth is – this is the inauguration day of Tamil Genocide in Sri Lanka. Since this day, the Sri Lankan successive Governments embarked on a programme of discrimination, marginalisation, Sinhalisisation and Buddhisisation on aiming at assimilation, disintegration and ultimate disappearance of Tamils as a race and nation in Sri Lanka.
The discriminatory legislations introduced by the Sri Lankan Government, triggered the Tamils to realise their need for self-determination.
The Sinhala only Act of 1956 and the Standardization Act of 1972 further relegated the Tamil language with the Tamil students being denied of admissions to universities on merit, leaving them angry and frustrated.
However, the now- violence struggle of Tamils was suppressed by the violent riots. In 1956, in 1958, in 1971, in 1977 and in 1983 mass massacres directed against the Tamils in all parts of the Island by the Security forces with the blessing and support from the State. These were aimed to make them feel as unwanted inferior citizens or aliens in their own country.
The crushing of non-violent agitations with brutal force forced the Tamils to restore to violence as a self-defense. Finally, the Tamils were forced to take arms, as their last resort, and fight for their existence.
The freedom struggle led by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE] was portrayed as terrorism by the Sri Lankan Government. The West was also misleading and made to proscribe the LTTE as terrorists. In the name of “war against terrorism”, the Sri Lankan Government mercilessly killed more than 1,40,000 innocent Tamils. The violation committed by the Sri Lankan state forces during the war perfectly fulfils the legal requirements of the crime of Genocide.
The most draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979 – known as the PTA – is specifically targeting the rebelling Tamil youth in Sri Lanka. The sixth amendment of the Sri Lankan Constitution criminalises anyone who speaks about independence or a separate state. These were aimed to deny the Right of Self-Determination to the Tamils in Sri Lanka and to silence their voice for freedom. The Tamils are now left to ensure their existence with no other alternative but to resort to the Right of self-determination granted in the UN Covenant. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 has its preamble even endorsed the right to rebellion against tyranny and repression so that human rights should be protected by the ‘Rule of Law’.
If the Tamils in Sri Lanka, fail to call for their right of self-determination, their very existence will be in question.
We must call for a referendum to determine the political status of Tamil people in Sri Lanka. Tamils cannot afford to suffer the systematic Genocide any longer. Hoping for justice from the UN and International community will not be sufficient. Tamils must continue to fight to ensure its survival and preservation of its culture, language, history and religion in Sri Lanka.
I am shocked to see that some Tamil Organisations such as the British Tamil Forum (BTF) and Global Tamil Forum (GTF) began to dance to the tune of the Sri Lankan Government and began to betray their own People. This situation must immediately change. Tamils of Sri Lanka need the support from other nationals and organisations such as NLP and NWS.
In conclusion, I hereby promise you that, we, the Singhalese brothers and sisters who follow lord Buddha genuinely, will stand by you in your struggle for Self-Determination.
Thank you all again for giving me this opportunity. Every human being in this world must enjoy the right of Self-Determination”.
At the conclusion of the Conference a petition was launched and signed by speakers calling upon the UN to support the call to de-criminalise the cause of self-Determination wherever it be found.
.
Elected Assemblyman Dr. Jeffrey Kitinam, who flew all the way from Sabah (North Borneo), signs the petition
.
An online petition has also been raised:
Article 1 of the United Nation’s Charter (1945), International Covenants on Human Rights (1966), and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and people (1960) states that Self-Determination is a right.
Yet this human right is ignored by many states around the world. Some make it illegal under Sedition Laws, e.g. in India or Malaysia, others in their Constitution e.g. in Sri Lanka (Article 157A), some under Treason Laws e.g. in Nigeria and others by simple extra-judicial action against individuals supporting self-determination. All lead to arrest, imprisonment and sometimes worse.
We urge the United Nations to lobby and support campaigns against the use of legal instruments that ban and/or make it illegal to call for self-determination, including national recognition and/or support for separation within a state.
You can sign this via António Guterres (Secretary-General of the United Nations): UN: De-criminalise Self-Determination!
Other speakers at the conference were:
Jawad Mella – Syrian Kurdish President of the Kurdish National Council
Bernard Dube – Matabele activist
Ranjit Srai – Secretary of Parliamentarians for National Self-Determination
Akli Sh’kka – Imuhagh International Youth Organisation for Justice and Equality
Mehrab Sarjov – Campaign Director for an Independent Baluchistan from Iran
Faisal Maramazi – Ahwazi Democratic Popular Front
Mahmoud Mzreh – Sec. General of the Ahwazi Democratic Front
Araz Yurdseven – GIAP (Independence for South Azerbaijaini Party) UK Representative
Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan – President of STAR (State Reform Party – Sabah) and Assemblyman (MP)
Doris Jones – Chairperson of Sabah & Sarawak Union
Ms Melani Dissanayake – Sri Lankan Human Rights Lawyer
Yogalingam Sockalingam – MP of the Tamil Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam
Graham Williamson – Chairman of Nations without States
Date: June 14, 2017
Categories: Articles
National Liberal Debate 22 – The Manchester Bombing: What Should Our Response Be?
BBC presenter Andrew Neill says that the 'time for rhetoric is over' as he criticised the 'choreographed response' to the recent Manchester bombing. Here suicide bomber Salman Abedi killed 22 people and left 120 injured.
THE MANY problems faced by Britain – whether economic or social – are not going to be solved by screaming and shouting. Thus, the National Liberal Party is not interested in ‘hitting the headlines’ using the tired formula of macho–posturing and gesture politics. These problems will only be overcome by a combination of careful thought and action.
This means that we favour informed and reasoned debate. Here we concentrate on arguments, points of view and facts. We are not interested in personalities, prejudice or promoting self-interest.
The National Liberal Party seeks to build an organisation that encourages free speech and debate. To do this, we also attempt to take into consideration as many views as is possible in open debate. Thus, members and supporters are always encouraged to have their say.
We’re also interested in encouraging people to develop their debating skills. That’s why the NLP has introduced a new series of articles called Have Your Say! Whilst each subject will be announced on this web-site, they’ll be conducted in full on the National Liberals Facebook site, which can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/
Before we start this debate we’d like to remind folks of our ground rules:
• First of all, say what you think – but think what you say.
• Secondly, just debate the issue(s) raised. There should be no personal attacks.
• As previously noted, we’re simply not interested in personalities.
• Please note that we may ask selected members and supporters to play ‘devil’s advocate’. Hopefully, this’ll help sharpen the debating skills of all involved!
• Finally, it should be remembered that all of the views expressed in Have Your Say! are personal and should not be taken to be the official view of the NLP itself.
Our latest debate asks one simple question. In the wake of the terrible Manchester bombing, what should our response be?
To share your views, simply look out for this article on the National Liberals facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/?fref=nf and have your say in the comments section.
• THIS ARTICLE should be read in conjunction with the following:
President Trump, The Death Penalty, The EU Referendum & International Women’s Day – What Do They All Have In Common?
National Liberal Debate 21 – Running Scared Of Religious ‘Child Abusers’
Date: May 30, 2017
Categories: Articles, Party News
From The Liberty Wall – Nations without States – Syria’s ‘Hierarchy Of Suffering’ (Part 2)
THE END of last month saw Nations without States (NwS) reproduce the first part of an article – http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-nations-without-states-%e2%80%93-syria%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98hierarchy-of-suffering%e2%80%99-part-one – by Bob Fisk. The article itself had originally appeared in The Independent. Fisk is is the multi-award winning Middle East correspondent of The Independent.
The original article was published after two horrific attacks in Syria – one of which led US President Donald Trump to launch a missile attack on a military facility loyal to President Bashar al-Assad’s government. The other attack was carried out by opponents of President Assad, but there was no retribution by the US. With this in mind, Fisk appears to argue that there is a ‘Hierarchy Of Suffering’ in Syria.
This is the second part of Fisk’s original article. NwS has reproduced it in an effort to stimulate debate concerning the situation in Syria. It goes without saying that there are no official links between Robert Fisk, The Independent or Nations without States.
.
If Trump cares so much about Syrian babies, why is he not condemning the rebels who slaughtered children?
US President Donald Trump (left) and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (right). Trump sudenly went from being the devil incarnate to a ‘good guy’ after launching a missile attack on a pro-Assad military facility.
There’s no doubting the flagrant, deliberate, vile cruelty of Saturday’s attack. The suicide bomber approached the refugee buses with a cartload of children’s cookies and potato chips – approaching, I might add, a population of fleeing Shia civilians who had been starving under siege by the anti-Assad rebels (some of whom, of course, were armed by us). Yet they didn’t count. Their “beautiful little babies” – I quote Trump on the earlier gas victims – didn’t stir us to anger. Because they were Shias? Because the culprits might have been too closely associated with us in the West? Or because – and here’s the point – they were the victims of the wrong kind of killer.
For what we want right now is to blame the “evil”, “animal”, “brutal”, etc, Bashar al-Assad who was first “suspected” to have carried out the 4 April gas attack (I quote The Wall Street Journal, no less) and then accused by the entire West of total and deliberate responsibility of the gas massacre. No-one should question the brutality of the regime. Nor its torture. Nor its history of massive oppression. Yet there are, in fact, some grave doubts about Bashar’s responsibility for the 4 April attack – which he has predictably denied – even among Arabs who loath his Baathist regime and all it stands for.
Even the leftist but hardly pro-Syrian Israeli writer Uri Avneri – briefly, in his life, a detective – has asked why Assad should commit such a crime d (1) when his army and its allies were winning the war in Syria, when such an attack would gravely embarrass the Russian government and military, and when it would change the softening western attitude towards him back towards open support for regime change.
And the regime’s claim that a Syrian air attack set off explosions in al-Nusra weapons store in Khan Shaykoun (2) (an idea which the Russians also adopted) would be easier to dismiss if the Americans had not used precisely the same excuse for the killing of well over a hundred Iraqi civilians in Mosul in March; they suggested that a US air strike on an Isis arms lorry may have killed the civilians.
But this has nothing to do with the weekend’s far more bloody assault on the refugee convoys heading for western Aleppo. They were part of a now-familiar pattern of mass hostage exchanges between the Syrian government and its opponents in which Sunni opponents of the regime in villages surrounded by the Syrian army or its allies have been trucked out to Idlib and other “rebel”-held areas under safe passage in return for the freedom of Shia villagers surrounded by al-Nusra, Isis and “our” rebels who have been allowed to leave their villages for the safety of government-held cities. Such were the victims of Saturday’s suicide bombing; they were Shia villagers of al-Foua and Kfraya, along with several government fighters, en route to what would be – for them – the safety of Aleppo.
Whether or not this constitutes a form of ethnic cleansing – another of Bashar’s sins, according to his enemies – is a moot point. Al-Nusra did not exactly urge the villagers of al-Foua and Kfraya to stay home since they wanted some of their own Sunni fighters back from their own encircled enclaves. Last month, the governor of Homs pleaded with Sunnis to leave the city on “rebel” convoys to Idlib to stay in their houses and remain in the city. But this is a civil war and such terrifying conflicts divide cities and towns for generations. Just look at Lebanon 27 years after its civil war ended.
But what ultimately proves our own participation in this immoral and unjust and frightful civil war is our reaction to those two massacres of the innocents. We cried over and lamented and even went to war for those “beautiful little babies” (3) whom we believed to be Sunni victims of the Assad government. But when Shia babies of equal humanity were blasted to pieces this weekend, Trump could not care less. And the mothering spirit of Ivanka and Federica simply dried up.
And we claim that Middle East violence has nothing to do with us.
Date: May 24, 2017
Categories: Articles
From The Liberty Wall – Free Speech: How Do We Protect It? – Tyranny Of The Minority (Part 2)
TOWARDS the end of March we published Part 1 of Tyranny Of The Minority – http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-free-speech-how-do-we-protect-it-tyranny-of-the-minority-part-1 – written by Mick Hume. Hume will be familiar to freedom lovers as the author of the thought-provoking book Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech?
Tyranny Of The Minority is based on his new book Revolting! Part 1 of this article looked at how – in the light of Brexit and the election of President Donald Trump – some members of the elite are wondering if ordinary voters are fit to make decisions on major issues. Part 2 continues with this theme.
As we’ve previously noted, this article originally appeared in the Daily Mail in late February. However, we’ve taken the decision to reproduce it in four sections – as we feel that this is the best way to stimulate debate. Thus, if you have any comments please leave them on the Free Speech Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/1607711629485795/ once you see this article appear.
It goes without saying that there are no official links between Mick Hume, the Daily Mail and Free Speech.
.
Tyranny Of The Minority: How the most sinister trend of our age is a poisonous conviction taking root on the Left and among the elite that ordinary people are too stupid to be trusted with voting
Members of the elite are wondering if ordinary voters are fit to make decisions on major issues like Brexit.
In the eyes of the Establishment, the only possible explanation was that those millions were simply too ignorant, uneducated, gullible, bigoted or emotional to understand what they were being told.
What is curious is that those from the liberal and Left wings — the ones who claim to be most in favour of change in the UK — were most upset.
But instead of trying to understand, the response of many was to dismiss the result as merely a ‘howl of rage’ by voters who must have taken leave of their senses — and to find ways to block it. The Guardian paper, alleged voice of liberal Britain, produced an official post-referendum T-shirt that declares: ‘Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.’
Its columnist Polly Toynbee, grande dame of British liberalism, demanded that 231 Labour MPs — 70 per cent of whose constituencies voted for Brexit — must ‘save us’ from the referendum result. In the name of ‘democracy’, of course.
Such responses let slip the mask and revealed the ugly fact that this country’s political elite believes that matters of government are far too complex and sophisticated to let the governed decide.
For the record, I voted Leave with passion, but my attack is not aimed at the 16.1 million who voted to Remain. They made a rational choice, just as the Leavers did. The difference is that most Remainers now accept the result, unlike elitists such as Tony Blair or Richard Branson — or their poster girl Gina Miller, the City financier who led the court challenge, declaring that the revolting voters’ verdict ‘made her physically ill’.
The reaction from those on the Left was the same when the American electorate handed Trump the keys to the White House.
He had been denounced as a disgrace to U.S. politics not only by the political establishment and the media but also by alpha intellectuals Beyoncé and Jay-Z, Lady Gaga and Madonna, Jon Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen. How could Americans resist being dazzled by such a star-studded appeal, you might think?
Yet more than 62 million Americans did just that. They voted Trump in — to the consternation of every ‘liberal’ voice in the land. On campuses, students held protests and college authorities offered counselling and time off to ‘grieve’, as if they were victims of a tragic disaster.
Personally, I have no truck with the illiberal, free-speech-stomping, narrow-minded Trump. But what I don’t get is their astonishment and hysteria at what happened.
After the election, everybody suddenly started asking: ‘How could they vote for him?’
But it should not have been difficult to get a sense beforehand of the growing anger against the political elite among the voters Clinton branded ‘deplorables’.
It was just that nobody had ever bothered to ask those ‘deplorables’ what they thought. The underlying problem in the UK, the U.S. and other Western societies is that politics and public life have increasingly become the preserve of a self-regarding elite of officials, opinion formers, intellectuals and so-called experts. They treat ‘ordinary people’, the masses, as outside of politics and beyond the pale, their concerns marginalised and ignored.
The Brexit vote marked a revolt against the ‘enforced conformity’ preached by this elite. That it came as such a shock to them was a sign of how little contact they had with the real world. And still many of them don’t get it.
In the Left-wing New Statesman magazine, Professor Richard Dawkins, the leading evolutionary biologist and renowned humanist was unable to suppress his true feelings that the large slice of humanity who voted Leave were ‘stupid, ignorant people’. He protested that ‘it is unfair to thrust on to unqualified simpletons the responsibility to take historic decisions of great complexity and sophistication’.
Presumably such decisions would be better left to highly intellectual minds such as his own. Great atheist that he is, he appears to think the rest of us should have blind faith in people like him.
Meanwhile, the normally unflappable ‘leading man of the Left’, philosophy professor A.C. Grayling, wrote to every MP (apparently in the name of his students), demanding that they vote to ignore the result — which he said was driven by mere ‘demagoguery and sentiment’ — and remain in the European Union.
His extraordinary contention was that the majority of people are what he called ‘System One’ thinkers, who make decisions on impulse — and that what we need is to pay more heed to ‘System Two’ thinkers, who seek information, analyse it, and weigh arguments in order to come to decisions. People similar to him, presumably.
• For an excellent review of Trigger Warning click here: https://countercultureuk.com/2015/07/26/trigger-warning/
• To check out a review of Free Speech click here: http://nationalliberal.org/review-of-issue-1-of-free-speech
• Check out Free Speech: How Do We Protect It? Click here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1607711629485795/
• Check out Revolting! Click here: https://www.amazon.com/Revolting-Establishment-Undermining-Democracy-Theyre/dp/0008220824/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1490209013&sr=1-1&keywords=mick+hume
Date: May 18, 2017
Categories: Articles
Green & Healthy Cities?
THE CORE VALUES of National Liberalism include Liberty, Democracy, Independence and Ecology. In respect of the latter, we believe that it’s the duty of man to live in harmony with nature – and not destroy it.
National Liberals believe that we need to live a more sustainable way of life – being less greedy, being less wasteful, using less natural resources and knowing where our food comes from. We feel that this will lead to a more rewarding, healthy, considerate and possibly ‘simpler’ life.
We also passionately believe in the concept that Small is Beautiful! With this in mind, it’s hardly surprising that we are not great fans of massive cities and towns. Indeed, we would like to see a wholescale – but totally sustainable – move back to the land.
However, even with our focus on ruralism, cities are a fact of life. The question is how do we make them greener and healthier places in which to live? We believe that the answer may be provided by a project – based in Detroit – run by the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative, which seems to successfully combine environmentalism and localism.
The article below originally appeared on the web-site of the Food Revolution Network – https://foodrevolution.org/blog/food-politics/first-sustainable-urban-agrihood/ – to whom we extend acknowledgements. It goes without saying that there are no official links between the Food Revolution Network, the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative and the National Liberal Party.
.
The First Sustainable Urban Agrihood in the U.S. Could Serve As A Model for Urban Development
Could fresh, healthy, affordable food be the future of urban neighborhood development?
In Detroit, Michigan, “the first sustainable urban agrihood” in the U.S. centers around an edible garden, with easily accessible, affordable produce offered to neighborhood residents and the community.
Each year, this urban farm provides fresh, free produce to 2,000 households within two square miles of the farm. They also supply food to local markets, restaurants, and food pantries.
The concept of agrihoods isn’t new —the Urban Land Institute estimated that about 200 agrihoods had been or were under construction across the U.S. — but this agrihood is unique because it’s the first truly urban agrihood. It plans to operate in a sustainable way and is more accessible than most other agrihoods.
Agrihoods, also called agritopias or community-supported development, are an exciting concept because they create a remarkable improvement to the dominant food system.
They help tackle food insecurity and other community problems. They make it easy for people in low-income communities to get fresh, healthy food. And they give people a connection with the food they eat, the earth, and each other.
All About The First Sustainable Urban Agrihood
The first sustainable urban agrihood, which recently debuted in Detroit, is the project of the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative — an all-volunteer nonprofit, which seeks to empower urban communities using sustainable agriculture.
The three-acre development has vacant land, along with occupied and abandoned homes centered around a two-acre urban garden, with more than 300 organic vegetable varieties, like lettuce, kale, and carrots, as well as a 200-tree fruit orchard, with apples, pears, plums, and cherries, a children’s sensory garden, and more.
The nonprofit is also working on other projects that go beyond farming, including:
- Turning a long-vacant building into a community resource center, which will offer educational programs, event and meeting space for the neighborhood, a nonprofit incubator, and two commercial kitchens
- Developing a healthy food café, and
- Restoring a home into student intern housing and an off-grid shipping container.
Other projects to make the place more sustainable include:
- Installing solar panels,
- Converting a basement into a water harvesting cistern that will automatically irrigate the garden
- A public composting toilet, and
- A retention pond made from the foundation of a blighted home to supply the farm with water.
Could Sustainable Agrihoods Work In Other Urban Areas?
In the U.S., food travels 25% farther than it traveled about 20 years ago. With all this travel, freshness suffers and so does the environment. But more and more people are seeking out locally grown food, so communities that solve this problem in a sustainable way could make a big difference.
With its agrihood in Detroit, the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative is rethinking how urban spaces are developed and redefining what life in an urban environment looks like.
And perhaps other communities will look to this agrihood as a model to increase healthy, local food and to solve community problems, like hunger and access to fresh food – all while giving people a greater sense of community and happiness, creating more sustainability for cities, and improving our food system.
Date: May 15, 2017
Categories: Articles