European Court of Justice "Lacking Any Foundation in Law"
The European Commission in recent years has been funding rabidly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic campaign groups. Parading under the banner-term of "NGOs," they have one concerted aim, which is to manipulate international opinion against Israel: Foreign government-funded subversion of a democracy.
Few people would ever label the hydra-like institutions of the European Union as transparent... or responsive to the desires of we mere voters. The EU has long been in the habit of ignoring the will of the peoples of Europe, if their will is not the same as the will of the EU. Its accounting procedures are so lacking in accountability that the EU's own auditors have refused to sign off on the entity's budgets for the last 18 years running. And of course the European Court has a long and ignoble track-record of ignoring the security concerns of EU citizens in favour of the rights of terrorists to go about their lives and careers unhindered.
So nobody should be terribly surprised at the European Court of Justice's latest demonstration of opposition not merely to transparency but to the peoples it presumes to govern.
Shortly before Christmas the European Court threw out a lawsuit filed almost three years ago, which would have led to the EU being required to release the details of its funding of non-governmental organizations [NGOs]. The suit, filed in 2010 by the superb NGO Monitor, accused the European Commission [EC] -- the "executive branch" of the acronym-rich EU - of failing to fulfill the EU's own transparency obligations. These obligations -- included, for what it's worth, in European Freedom of Information law -- require that details of EC funding should be available upon request. For thirteen months, NGO Monitor has requested such information, and for all that time the EC has claimed"'privacy" and "commercial interests" among other reasons for refusing to have any transparency.
Previously, since June 2005, NGO monitor had identified almost $48 million of funding given by the EC to groups which include those actively involved in extremist anti-Israel activity. such as boycott campaigns and "lawfare" -- frivolous and malicious lawsuits to try, through the harassment and expense of lawsuits, to intimidate people from questioning or criticizing Islam.
Now, amazingly, the Luxembourg-based European Court has not only ruled in favour of the EC's resistance to transparency, it has labelled NGO Monitor's claims "manifestly unfounded" and "lacking any foundation in law." The fact that it is manifest to everybody else that the foundation for such claims lies in European law was completely overridden. Indeed the court even -- disgracefully -- ordered NGO Monitor to pay the costs incurred by the EC in the case.
Beyond the Israeli media, too little has been made of this case. But it is vital that Europeans and Americans understand the true nature of the subversion going on here.
There is only one true explanation as to why the various wings of European anti-democracy have engaged in this cover-up. The motivation comes down to this: Whatever criticism the European Court will get for its refusal to be transparent, it is nothing compared to the criticism the EC would get if the identities of the recipients of its funding were made publicly available.
Although the EU is institutionally incapable of listening to criticism, it would probably prefer to avoid it, or at least cut it off where it can. The events of recent weeks are merely a reminder that every lever of European "justice" will continue to be wielded to prevent such information being released. So since we cannot be "told" what the corrupt EC does with our money, perhaps this mere voter could say what he thinks is being done with it.
Although it is eminently possible that the EC is caught up in some corrupt commercial interest, the idea that the European Court has had to cover for the European Commission because of genuine concerns over "privacy" is ridiculous.
The EC in recent years has been funding rabidly anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic campaign groups. Though parading under the banner-term of "NGOs," such groups are in fact barely concealed fronts for a war against the Jewish state. They have one concerted aim, which is to manipulate international opinion against Israel by fabricating bad Israeli behaviour where it does not exist and exponentially exaggerating it where – as in any democracy – it does.
These groups actively seek not merely to poison the reputation of Israel in the international sphere, but to manipulate politics inside Israel. There are parties and politicians they would rather have in power than this one. They believe that through the destroying the reputation of the Israeli government at home as well as abroad, they can actively alter the outcome of the political process within Israel.
What these EU-funded groups are involved in is therefore not merely a campaign of propaganda: It is a campaign of subversion. And not just subversion, but foreign government-funded subversion. It is a subversion aimed at a country, and a democracy, with whom we are still – at least in name – meant to be allies. This is tantamount not merely to an act of folly or stupidity, but of actual and open hostility. It is a campaign about which every voter in the EU, as well as Israel and America, should know.
Or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the EU has changed its spots. Perhaps it has been spending our money on pro-Israel groups or groups intent on persuading the Palestinians to stop trying to annihilate the Jewish state, or on outreach water-parks in the greater Gaza area. But I doubt it. And so long as we EU citizens are allowed to remain citizens and not subjects of this accountable EU monstrosity, and so long as we still have the right to say what we like about it, we should say that the onus is on them – and not on us – to show what they are doing with our money. If they cannot be persuaded to do so, then we will gladly refrain from giving them any more.
Reader comments on this item
|A couple of points worth mentioning [127 words]||John Thomas||May 13, 2013 11:11|
|European Court - that says it all; we are meant to have individual sovereign courts with habeas corpus in the UK [45 words]||Kate Brennan||Jan 6, 2013 06:57|
|My country tis of thee, for thee I mourn [38 words]||Shars||Jan 5, 2013 22:13|
|Bravo [27 words]||Peter Robertson||Jan 5, 2013 15:11|
|Murray's guesses are spot on! [169 words]||Phillip Slepian||Jan 4, 2013 10:54|
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu-Zuhri said: "All Israelis are legitimate targets." What would the Palestinian death toll have been if Mr. Netanyahu's spokesman declared all Palestinians as legitimate targets?
Underdog-nation romanticism tells us Israel should not respond when under rocket attack because it is capable of intercepting the rockets.
That there are fewer Israeli casualties does not mean Hamas does not want to kill; it just means, for the moment, Hamas cannot kill.
by Soeren Kern
Austria figures prominently in a map produced by the IS that outlines the group's five-year plan for expanding its caliphate into Europe, and has emerged as a central hub for jihadists seeking to fight in Syria.
"The spectrum of recruits for the conflict in Syria is ethnically diverse. The motivation, however, appears to be uniformly jihadist." — Austrian intelligence agency BVT.
"Allah also gives you the opportunity to wage jihad in Austria." — Austrian jihadist Firas Houidi.
"We are proud that Allah has chosen us. We feel like lions." — Austrian jihadist Abu Hamza al-Austria.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
What Khaled Mashaal forgot to mention was that Hamas and the Islamic State do have at least one thing in common: they both carry out extrajudicial executions as a means of terrorizing and intimidating those who stand in their way or who dare to challenge their terrorism.
According to Hamas's logic, all members of the Palestinian Authority government are "traitors" who should be dragged to public squares to be shot by firing squads. According to the same logic, Mahmoud Abbas himself should be executed for maintaining security coordination with and talking to Israelis.
As for the two executed women, the sources said that their only fault was that they had been observed asking too many questions about Palestinians who were killed in airstrikes.
by Stephen Blank and Peter Huessy
It now appears that the plan was for these terrorists to shoot down a Russian passenger flight over the Ukraine in order to create a casus belli [cause for war].
Putin repeatedly claims that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons as a "de-escalatory measure" even against non-nuclear states.
The evidence that this war was preplanned is overwhelming. The planning for this Ukrainian operation started in 2006, when Putin offered to "guarantee Crimea's territory."
The forces fighting in Kiev consist not mainly of "separatists" or rebels, but of trained Russian army, intelligence and paramilitary officers, as well as Russian and some Ukrainian "volunteers" recruited by Moscow.
Putin would incite disturbances in Crimea, then graciously offer to take over Crimea to solve the problems.
For the Russians, and particularly for Putin, Ukraine can have no future other than as a Russian colony. This is indeed a phased invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. did not accept Russian aggression before; it should not accept it now.
by Douglas Murray
There has been a debate in the UK press suggesting we should hope that some of these ISIS killers come back to Britain, realize that jihad was all a phase and then head off to university for the start of the new term.
The beheading of James Foley was terrible, she stressed, "because we don't know what [his] views were."
Is there a time when even "combatants" -- or anyone else -- should be treated in this way? And who is to say who is a combatant and who not?