Saturday 22nd of June 2024

investigating ursula von der leyen for complicity...

Today the International Criminal Court has been officially called to investigate Ursula von der Leyen for complicity.

Reasonable grounds exist to believe that the unconditional support of the president of the European Commission to Israel – military, economic, diplomatic and political – has enabled war crimes and the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

The Hague (The Netherlands), 22 May 2024

 

ICC case against Ursula v.d.Leyen before the ICC for complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza    By Geneva International Peace Research Institute

 

– A communication is submitted today to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), setting forth in detail, through facts and evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the current president of the European Commission, Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen, a national of Germany, is complicit in a number of violations of international humanitarian law, amounting to crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, committed by the Israeli armed forces (IDF) against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), including the Gaza Strip.

This communication, endorsed by various human rights groups and prominent academics and experts in international criminal law, calls the Prosecutor to initiate investigations on the basis of the information provided against Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen.

The communication documents in detail the fact that Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen personally is criminally responsible and liable for punishment for some of the war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide having been committed (and still being committed) by the Israeli armed forces in the OPT, to the extent that she has aided, abetted and otherwise assisted in the commission or attempted commission of such crimes, including providing the means for its commission, in the meaning of Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute of the ICC. Mrs. von der Leyen enjoys no functional immunity before the ICC by virtue of article 27 of the Rome Statute.

Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen has become complicit in violations of articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute through a range of positive acts as well as omissions, in her official capacity as president of the European Commission. Positive acts include the following:

− Military support to Israel: Mrs. von der Leyen, in her official capacity as president of the European Commission, has been instrumental in securing the provision of means, under the form of military support, to the IDF. During the period 2019-23, Israel has been the 3rd main recipient of weapons provided by a EU Member State, Germany, itself the 5th largest exporter of major arms in the world.
− Economic and financial support to Israel: both by refusing to take any steps toward the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and by promoting, amidst the current Israeli assault on Gaza, new EU-Israel cooperation instruments.
− Diplomatic support to the Israeli government: this appears to be a response to the demand formulated by Prime Minister Netanyahu on 7 October 2023, on the international community “to ensure freedom of action for Israel in the continuation of the campaign”. The diplomatic support enjoyed by Israel has been the condition sine qua non of the perpetration of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide plausibly committed by the IDF in the Gaza Strip since 7 October.
− Political support: the various official statements of Mrs. von der Leyen expressing unconditional support to Israel  have amounted to giving encouragement and moral support to members of the IDF, involved in the commission of crimes against the Palestinian population in the OPT.

The President of the European Commission had knowledge of participating, by aiding and abetting, in the commission of the relevant crimes. Given the wide publicity given on a daily basis to the violations of international humanitarian law perpetrated by the IDF in the Gaza Strip, especially since October 2023, and the wealth of official United Nations reports and documents available, which as a matter of fact have prompted numerous UN officials – including the UN Secretary-General – to express their utmost concern, Mrs. von der Leyen cannot escape the simple fact that she knew of such crimes, or at the very least she knew of the plausibility of such crimes, as determined by the ICJ in its Order on provisional measures of 26 January 2024 as regards genocide. She should have taken every possible action at her disposal to prevent the continued commission of such crimes, and at the very least not to facilitate in any manner the commission of these crimes, as she unfortunately did. The obligation to prevent the commission of genocide is paramount in the Genocide Convention and the ICC Statute.

The President of the European Commission has also failed to act to prevent the commission of the relevant crimes. She is thus complicit by omission. Indeed:

− President von der Leyen was, and still is, under a legal duty to act in the circumstances considered, to the extent that international law places upon a person vested with public authority a duty to act in order to protect human life.
− President von der Leyen had, and still has, the ability to act; means were (and still are) available to her to fulfil her duty to act. This is confirmed by actions taken by the European Commission under her presidency, in other contexts (e.g. Ukraine), to prevent the commission of war crimes and curtail the ability of certain powers to conduct military operations.
− Should President von der Leyen have acted pursuant to her legal duty to act, rather than sought to “ensure freedom of action for Israel in the continuation of the campaign”, the crimes would have been substantially less likely to occur, or at the very least to be perpetrated over such a long period of time, and on such a scale and magnitude.

PRESS CONTACTS
Geneva International Peace Research
Institute (GIPRI), Geneva, Switzerland

 

https://johnmenadue.com/icc-case-against-ursula-v-d-leyen-before-the-icc-for-complicity-in-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity-in-gaza/

 

stupidthink.....

 

BY Rachel Marsden

 

Von der Leyen proposes ‘vaccines’ for minds and a ‘shield’ for democracy

The European Commission president‘s campaign features an unprecedented preventive crackdown on wrongthink...

One of the hallmarks of the European Union is that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. In fact, it often means the exact opposite.

Take, for instance, the idea that Ursula Von der Leyen, the European Commission president, is running for re-election when in reality she’s just publicly squabbling with a few other establishment hacks to be handpicked and confirmed by the establishment itself, not by popular vote. But that hasn’t stopped her from cosplaying as an actual democratic candidate. It’s not like she didn’t have the opportunity to actually be one rather than just play one, but when her German colleagues asked her to run for an elected EU seat in Germany to establish some democratic credibility, she reportedly declined the inconvenience.

But that hasn’t stopped her from posting “campaign” ads on social media, as though she’s actually trying to appeal to voters. In one such video, she promises that if she’s re-coronated, er, “re-elected,” she’ll defend Europe with a “Democracy Shield.” The whole idea, she says, is to “detect disinformation and malign interference... remove content, including [artificial intelligence] deepfakes, [and] to make our societies more resilient.” Nothing about defending Europe’s democracy from unelected bureaucrats wielding excessive power though, I guess?

Ever since billionaire tech entrepreneur, Elon Musk, took over Twitter, renamed the social media platform ‘X’, and publicly shamed all the Western government authorities that tried to exploit the platform directly for their own propaganda purposes, his “community notes” feature has allowed users to react directly and in real time to content, including deep fake videos, and has proven that the antidote to inaccuracy is more free and democratic speech, not less.

“Democracy,” in the case of this “Democracy Shield” is really just a euphemism for censorship. Because what does this “shield” really protect Europe from, that more free speech can’t achieve, other than inconvenient facts? Or from Queen Ursula and the rest of the European establishment having to defend their own ideological lunacy and explain to citizens why the narratives they peddle often don’t jibe with reality.

Apparently, they figure that democracy would be better off if everything and everyone that didn’t fit their top agenda narratives could just be whacked over the head and dragged off into the shadows by the online Gestapo serving von der Leyen’s online “Democracy Shield.” 

But maybe characterizing the Democracy Shield as little more than a “propaganda shield” is unfair. After all, it’s not like the EU or Ursula actually say that they’re interested in doing propaganda. No, instead she says that she just wants to do a little “pre-bunking,” which totally doesn’t sound like propaganda at all. 

Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit earlier this month, von der Leyen explainedthat “research has shown that pre-bunking is more successful than de-bunking. Pre-bunking is the opposite of de-bunking. In short, prevention is preferable to cure. Think of information manipulation as a virus. Instead of treating an infection once it has taken hold, that’s the de-bunking, it is better to vaccinate, so that our body is inoculated. Pre-bunking is the same approach.”

Yeah, folks, just think of free debate and discussion as a nasty virus that could get really messy. May provoke verbal diarrhea. Ugly stuff. Wouldn’t it just be better if the EU could inject its narratives like a vaccine straight into the minds of citizens to eliminate any risk of messy opposing views or information?

What if the pre-bunk narrative IS the disinformation, though? Of course that never happens, right? Everything that the EU and Western governments say is always the total and complete objective truth and anyone questioning it is some kind of foreign agent.

By the way, von der Leyen’s “societal resilience” here really just means compliance – that everyone piles into the clown car on command so these bozos can take everyone on a joyride down Dystopian Highway towards wherever fresh Hell their hidden special interests dictate at any given time.

But perhaps Queen Ursula should be given the benefit of the doubt here, though. Maybe she really does just want to deploy her Democracy Shield against armies of annoying online bots and not on the political playing field to quash dissent?

“It’s not just fakes or fabricated content,” von der Leyen argued in announcing the Shield. “It’s also buying influence and causing chaos. We have seen far-right politicians and lead candidates from AfD in Germany in the pockets of Russia. They are selling their souls on Russian propaganda outlets and videos.” 

Well, if she puts it that way… doubt benefit erased.

Want to smear a political opponent because they happen to enjoy free speech on a variety of platforms? Sounds like a job for Queen Ursula’s Democracy Shield, which, like NATO, is totally defensive and does not ever do offensive operations and actively snuff out opponents on the political landscape. The EU already tried to pick off entire media outlets that it didn’t like, censoring Russian platforms like RT and Sputnik at the supranational level and imposing that ban on all member states of the entire bloc in the absence of sovereign and democratic due process. The justification? That they were spreading “distortion of facts” that threatened the EU democratic order. Nothing better for credible journalism than governments arguing that they’re the ultimate arbiters of truthful information.

It turns out that blanket censorship didn’t quite knock everyone into line, so von der Leyen says in her ad that the Democracy Shield will “track down information manipulation and coordinate with national agencies.” Hunting down wrong-speakers on the informational landscape? Sounds super democratic. So does the idea of “national agencies” deciding what qualifies as news.

Is this authoritarian Democracy Shield going to require any independent oversight? Because von der Leyen, back when she was German defense minister under Chancellor Angela Merkel, wasn’t really into that kind of thing. Western press reports were rife with details of her underwhelming performance, with the Washington Post, for instance, citing a shortage of military equipment and promises to rectify the situation that were never fulfilled. They also said that the troops used broomsticks instead of machine guns for NATO exercises. Guess she had lots of those at her disposal.

We know from her stonewalling of the committee demanding to see her text messages with Pfizer brass over her vaccine deals that Queen Ursula really isn’t into transparency, either. Who needs actual democratic values though, when you have a Democracy Shield? Maybe we can see it deployed in real time in a sort of test. If it was truly doing its job of shielding democracy, it would mow down von der Leyen’s propaganda first, then just blow itself up.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/598243-leyen-eu-democracy-shield/

 

WHY NOT CALL IT "MONOCRACY" IF YOU WILL OR "IDIOTOCRACY" FOR GOOD MEASURE......

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....