Author Topic: Wandering Off Topic  (Read 2234772 times)

misty and 153 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1830 on: March 04, 2017, 10:37:29 PM »
amaral has been able to defame them with a book that contains lies

Not according to Portuguese Law apparently.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1831 on: March 04, 2017, 10:52:21 PM »
Not according to Portuguese Law apparently.

The court hasn't ruled on the truth of his lies

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1832 on: March 04, 2017, 11:37:28 PM »
My understanding of fascism is that one of the pillars is suppression of free speech.

Brietta's example appears to support that.

The McCanns attempted to suppress Amaral's right to free speech.  Does that make their action fascist?

The ruling no doubt will have to be posted ad infinitum.  The McCanns pushing abduction opened the door for others to promote alternatives.  And Amaral's alternative was found to be largely based on the interim report in the PJ Files.

You obviously don't like the outcome.  Fair enough as everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But to attempt to say the McCanns should be able to suppress free speech whilst saying a judgement preventing such suppression is fascist is an oxymoron.

The McCanns have not emerged from this looking intelligent, IMO. 

They had access to the PJ Files and could have countered with the archiving report, the conclusion that Gerry has an alibi re Smithman, the lack of reliance placed in the dogs, the actual DNA evidence etc.

They could have shredded Amaral's book in the Portuguese media at basically no cost.

I don't know what sort of Team McCann summit may have been held to determine that the course should be litigation rather than the media so I can't evaluate who proffered which view.  The end result is a disaster in my opinion.

The interesting thing is that the McCanns right to free speech within Portugal appears not to have been altered the appeal judgement or the SC judgement.

Where's a good PR man when you need one most?

Free speech needs to be carefully defined, though, doesn't it?

Free speech does not mean, literally, 'freedom' to say anything you want, without let or hindrance.

The Portuguese constitution (very properly!) does not guarantee that, because enshrined into a part of it Joanna Morais never quotes is a clause that upholds the right of citizens and (by extension) visitors to a good name. 

Clearly, then, the Portuguese constitution does not uphold the 'right' of anyone to say anything they want.

And it is scarcely the hallmark of civilised laws of any country, including countries that uphold  the right of free speech, that anyone can say anything they want without let or hindrance, and without regard to accuracy of statements made or damage done to the reputations of others in those statements.

Indeed, were that the default position in Portugal, the first-instance judge would never have reached the judgement she did, and Isabel Durate should, surely, have been (metaphorically) shot for ever entertaining the idea that Kate and Gerry should pursue a case against Amaral. 

Portugal (at least in theory); certainly by its constitution, and certainly by the first-instance ruling in the libel trial, upholds the right of citizens and (by extension) visitors to a good name.

Yet the second-instance judgement, and the judgement following it, uphold Amaral's 'right' to publish clear and demonstrable lies that lower the reputations of Kate and Gerry, and harm the prospects, either of finding Madeleine alive, or of convicting the author(s) of crimes against her, by declaring Madeleine definitely dead, and of accusing her parents of being the authors of her 'death' and of a monstrous cover-up and deceit to follow.

None of that is 'free speech' as understood in a healthy democracy; its propagation, more in line with that that might be expected of a state with fascist principles at its core.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 11:41:13 PM by ferryman »

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1833 on: March 05, 2017, 12:14:52 AM »
Free speech needs to be carefully defined, though, doesn't it?

Free speech does not mean, literally, 'freedom' to say anything you want, without let or hindrance.

The Portuguese constitution (very properly!) does not guarantee that, because enshrined into a part of it Joanna Morais never quotes is a clause that upholds the right of citizens and (by extension) visitors to a good name. 

Clearly, then, the Portuguese constitution does not uphold the 'right' of anyone to say anything they want.

And it is scarcely the hallmark of civilised laws of any country, including countries that uphold  the right of free speech, that anyone can say anything they want without let or hindrance, and without regard to accuracy of statements made or damage done to the reputations of others in those statements.

Indeed, were that the default position in Portugal, the first-instance judge would never have reached the judgement she did, and Isabel Durate should, surely, have been (metaphorically) shot for ever entertaining the idea that Kate and Gerry should pursue a case against Amaral. 

Portugal (at least in theory); certainly by its constitution, and certainly by the first-instance ruling in the libel trial, upholds the right of citizens and (by extension) visitors to a good name.

Yet the second-instance judgement, and the judgement following it, uphold Amaral's 'right' to publish clear and demonstrable lies that lower the reputations of Kate and Gerry, and harm the prospects, either of finding Madeleine alive, or of convicting the author(s) of crimes against her, by declaring Madeleine definitely dead, and of accusing her parents of being the authors of her 'death' and of a monstrous cover-up and deceit to follow.

None of that is 'free speech' as understood in a healthy democracy; its propagation, more in line with that that might be expected of a state with fascist principles at its core.
Please, not the old fascism retort again.

Free speech (Amaral) v right to a good name (McCanns).

Free speech won.

Non-fascist.
What's up, old man?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1834 on: March 05, 2017, 12:22:06 AM »
Please, not the old fascism retort again.

Free speech (Amaral) v right to a good name (McCanns).

Free speech won.

Non-fascist.

You need to re-read my post.

Free speech is not the same as 'freedom' (to say anything you want).

Fascism would no doubt indulge, even encourage, the hypocrisy of allowing lies and suppressing truth in speech (far from free).

Online misty

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1835 on: March 05, 2017, 12:22:28 AM »
More than an element of fascism in these circumstances.

http://portugalresident.com/fury-and-despair-as-police-descend-on-culatra-island-to-ensure-compulsory-seizure-of-35-properties

Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on February 22, 2017
Fury and despair as police descend on Culatra island to ensure compulsory seizure of 35 properties

Chaotic scenes were playing out on Culatra island this morning, when government agency Polis Litoral moved forwards with the compulsory seizure of 35 properties on Farol nucleus, all earmarked for demolition.

Islanders refused point blank to hand over keys to homes as tense throngs chanted under the glare of TV cameras.

The worst of the morning was the suffocating police presence which island spokesman Feliciano Júlio said the embattled community had “never expected”.

With Polis agents flanked by maritme police as they moved slowly from property to property, daubing blue numbers on walls destined to be bulldozed, the islanders’ campaigning Facebook page alluded to the Nazi daubing of the homes of Jews in the run up to the Second World War.

One thing is certain: Wednesday’s compulsory seizure flew in the face of various court bids submitted by islanders the evening before, and could still be overturned.

This is what Feliciano Júlio, leader of Farol’s residents’ association is hoping.

He told reporters caught up in the jostling crowd and blaring klaxons, “we will fight this to the very last minute”.

Talking for one furious elderly man who said he wouldn’t move a stick of furniture out of his house, or hand over the keys, Júlio reiterated the government’s mistake in trying to wrestle properties from people who have nowhere else to go.

“We are still waiting for a renegotiation with the minister (of the environment)”, he stressed, as noise levels and rising emotions left reporters struggling to hear his words.
In fact, Júlio’s hope is that the tortuous ‘tomada de posse’ (compulsory seizure) which is expected to take two days, will be called off as a result of all the inconsistencies.

In parliament, MPs including Left Bloc firebrand Catarina Martins, and PCP leader Jerónimo de Sousa, are adamant that the so-called “renaturalisation process of Ria Formosa” - pushed through by Sociedade Polis in spite of protests - has been designed to promote private interests.

Visiting the island three days before Wednesday’s confusion, Catarina Martins said: “The data the government has supporting this plan cannot be trusted”, adding that the criteria put forward by Polis is also “far from reliable”.

Elsewhere, Algarve MPs Paulo Sá (PCP) and João Vasconcelos (BE) have been vociferous in their support for fishing folk forced out of their comfort-zone to try and take on an all-powerful government.

As campaigners always say, "hope is the last thing to die".

This has been an exhausting struggle - and as Catarina Martins pointed out starkly on Sunday: “Once a house has been demolished, there is nothing to recover the loss.

““Some of these houses are the only home of families who have no other alternative”, she said. “Nobody has spoken to these people, and no one here knows the criteria that determines these houses have to be demolished”, as official reasons have notoriously flip-flapped to suit the central agenda.

===================================================================


http://portugalresident.com/un-special-rapporteur-slates-portugal%E2%80%99s-golden-visa-programme-compulsory-home-seizures-and-%E2%80%9Cgross

Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on March 03, 2017
UN special rapporteur slates Portugal’s Golden Visa programme, compulsory home seizures and “gross violations of human rights”

Seen from the outside, Portugal has come in for quite a pasting from UN special rapporteur Leilani Farha who came here in December to assess how the financial crisis has affected housing.

One of the main focuses of her criticism was the much-lauded Golden Visa programme - the scheme that has seen millions pouring into the country in the form of ‘foreign investment’.

Farha’s frustration is that the investment didn’t go anywhere towards improving the lot of the country’s most underprivileged - not that this was its aim (far from it).

But the fact that it simply afforded wealthy foreigners fast-track visas (and estate agents a healthy turnaround) has not been the only limit of the scheme, she claims.

The Golden Visa ‘fad’ has driven up housing prices, “exacerbating the problems for middle and low income families”.

It has also taken properties from the rental market - again leaving everyday working folk the worse off in the equation.

“Despite the enormous injection of capital” (calculated to be €2.37 billion), the Golden Visa scheme did not result in the creation of jobs and “not even a small part of the gains were applied to the development of accessible habitation”, Farha explained in the report now in the hands of the Council for Human Rights.

As for the scheme’s effect on property prices, these increased in Lisbon by 5.2%, in Porto by 7.2% and in Amadora by 9.4%.

Farha was only in the country for a little over a week, so it is unlikely she made it down to the Algarve to see how the scheme affected prices there.

But the gist of her research was that Golden Visas have only benefitted a section of society that was already ‘perfectly well off thank you’ (other than perhaps it didn’t have free run of Schengen Space).

But that is not the only area of Portuguese policy that has worried the human rights advocate.

But that is not the only area of Portuguese policy that has worried the human rights advocate.

Farha, also executive director of NGO “Canada without Poverty”, is concerned by what she calls the “turistification” of large tracts of Lisbon and Porto so that they are rapidly becoming “enclaves for the rich and foreigners”.

Her trip to Portugal brought her face-to-face too with the government’s policy of evicting poor communities from what it deems ‘illegal dwellings’ - more usually communities in which the people have lived for generations.

Very much like what happening in the Algarve’s Ria Formosa, Farha was “confronted” writes ionline “with the evictions of the May 6 neighbourhood in Amadora” which she dubbed a “gross violation of international human rights legislation”.

In Loures, on the other side of the Tejo, she reports that she came upon conditions in the Torre ‘bairro’ (social housing project) that she “never expected to see in a developed country”.

“People living in the middle of rubbish, without electricity” were just some of the problems in an area just kilometres away from the capital.

Farha’s account will now be used to try and forge change in Portugal, but to what degree remains uncertain.

Ionline writes that it contacted the ministry of the environment for a response but did not get one in time for its publication deadline.

Elsewhere, MEP José Inácio told the Resident in a conversation about evictions in Ria Formosa that “the current environment minister hasn’t got a clue what he is doing” - a criticism that islanders wholeheartedly endorse after a week in which government promises to hear their points of view were railroaded with the help of battalions of police (click here).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1836 on: March 05, 2017, 12:29:36 AM »
You need to re-read my post.

Free speech is not the same as 'freedom' (to say anything you want).

Fascism would no doubt indulge, even encourage, the hypocrisy of allowing lies and suppressing truth in speech (far from free).
What suppressed speech?  The McCanns were, and are, entitled to freedom of speech.  How fascist is that, not.

They can state abduction until the death of time.

They cannot suppress the right of others to freedom of speech.
What's up, old man?

Online misty

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1837 on: March 05, 2017, 12:37:36 AM »
What suppressed speech?  The McCanns were, and are, entitled to freedom of speech.  How fascist is that, not.

They can state abduction until the death of time.

They cannot suppress the right of others to freedom of speech.

The McCanns' right to free speech in Portugal was suppressed  by the laws of judicial secrecy.

Offline Brietta

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1838 on: March 05, 2017, 12:38:36 AM »
You need to re-read my post.

Free speech is not the same as 'freedom' (to say anything you want).

Fascism would no doubt indulge, even encourage, the hypocrisy of allowing lies and suppressing truth in speech (far from free).

I believe fascists have in the past shown an expertise in organisation and the dissemination of propaganda.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1839 on: March 05, 2017, 12:46:09 AM »
More than an element of fascism in these circumstances.

http://portugalresident.com/fury-and-despair-as-police-descend-on-culatra-island-to-ensure-compulsory-seizure-of-35-properties

Which element of fascism?

We are moving to a property which has a rear garden (aka meadow) which is designated as both agricultural and environmental.  This means we can do sod all with it except farm it.  The previous owner had built various structures on it which violated these regulations.  The cãmara insisted these were ripped out before the house was sold to us.

We now have no pig pens.  We now have no 'orrible swimming pool.  Much else has gone due to the law.

Should I be calling the câmara fascist for enforcing the regulations?

I am not going to engage in a debate on properties built in Rio Formosa.  That is a designated natural park.  Go for the building regs on such on your own.

If you think this decision is fascist, you need to prove it.
What's up, old man?

Offline Brietta

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1840 on: March 05, 2017, 12:58:02 AM »
The McCanns' right to free speech in Portugal was suppressed  by the laws of judicial secrecy.

The laws of judicial secrecy and the trashing of the McCann's reputation in the Portuguese press ran contemporaneously. 
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Brietta

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1841 on: March 05, 2017, 01:09:18 AM »
Which element of fascism?

We are moving to a property which has a rear garden (aka meadow) which is designated as both agricultural and environmental.  This means we can do sod all with it except farm it.  The previous owner had built various structures on it which violated these regulations.  The cãmara insisted these were ripped out before the house was sold to us.

We now have no pig pens.  We now have no 'orrible swimming pool.  Much else has gone due to the law.

Should I be calling the câmara fascist for enforcing the regulations?

I am not going to engage in a debate on properties built in Rio Formosa.  That is a designated natural park.  Go for the building regs on such on your own.

If you think this decision is fascist, you need to prove it.

Vanessa Morgado and her father are among the activists fighting for the islanders against Polis. For four generations they have been linked to Farol. Vanessa’s grandfather lived here, her father lives here, she was born and raised here and her daughter has strong ties to the island.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1842 on: March 05, 2017, 01:13:40 AM »
Vanessa Morgado and her father are among the activists fighting for the islanders against Polis. For four generations they have been linked to Farol. Vanessa’s grandfather lived here, her father lives here, she was born and raised here and her daughter has strong ties to the island.
Fascist?
What's up, old man?

Online misty

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1843 on: March 05, 2017, 01:14:43 AM »
Which element of fascism?

We are moving to a property which has a rear garden (aka meadow) which is designated as both agricultural and environmental.  This means we can do sod all with it except farm it.  The previous owner had built various structures on it which violated these regulations.  The cãmara insisted these were ripped out before the house was sold to us.

We now have no pig pens.  We now have no 'orrible swimming pool.  Much else has gone due to the law.

Should I be calling the câmara fascist for enforcing the regulations?

I am not going to engage in a debate on properties built in Rio Formosa.  That is a designated natural park.  Go for the building regs on such on your own.

If you think this decision is fascist, you need to prove it.
From the UN report..
"Elsewhere, MEP José Inácio told the Resident in a conversation about evictions in Ria Formosa that “the current environment minister hasn’t got a clue what he is doing” - a criticism that islanders wholeheartedly endorse after a week in which government promises to hear their points of view were railroaded with the help of battalions of police (click here)."

Under what definition of freedom of speech does this fall?

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #1844 on: March 05, 2017, 01:24:45 AM »
From the UN report..
"Elsewhere, MEP José Inácio told the Resident in a conversation about evictions in Ria Formosa that “the current environment minister hasn’t got a clue what he is doing” - a criticism that islanders wholeheartedly endorse after a week in which government promises to hear their points of view were railroaded with the help of battalions of police (click here)."

Under what definition of freedom of speech does this fall?
You have a look. I have made it clear I am not interested in debating Ria Formosa cos I don't know the current rules and regs about a natural park.  Nor what they have to do about Madeleine.  Over to you.
What's up, old man?