FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS NOT FAIR COVERAGE

PERSECUSSION,BEHEADINGS

JESUS PERSECUTED BIGTIME

PSALMS 14:1
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

ISAIAH 53:4
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

MATTHEW 9:34
34 But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.

JOHN 8:41
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

JOHN 10:20
20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

PHILIPPIANS 2:10-11(JESUS GETS REVENGE)
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.(JUDGEMENT SEAT OF CHRIST AND FOR SINNERS, THE GREAT WHITE THRONE FINAL JUDGEMENT).

WE ARE CHRISTIANS WE WILL BE TREATED THE SAME.

2 TIMOTHY 3:1-5 (WHY WE ARE PERSECUTED BY THE WORLD)
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous (DANGEROUS) times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

MATTHEW 5:10-12
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

MATTHEW 24:9
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

JOHN 15:18-20
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me (JESUS) before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

REVELATION 6:9-11
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain(BEHEADED) for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

REVELATION 20:4
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE (HATE SCAM NOT FAIRNESS)
http://www.cbn.com/media/index.aspx?s=/vod/MCH28
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/581524.aspx
JANET PARSHALL ON FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AT 14 MINUTE MARK
http://www.cbn.com/media/index.aspx?s=700club&title=The%20700%20Club&prgm=700club
RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS VIDEO ON 700 CLUB
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/580861.aspx
THE OBAMA DECEPTION A MUST WATCH (OBAMAS A MUSLIM DECIEVER)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

LOOKOUT CHRISTIANS WHEN THIS FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS PASSED,WE WILL BE HATED FOR TEACHING,PREACHING SALVATON AND HELL.THE WORLD CAN NOT STAND JESUS' MESSAGE OF SALVATION AND WE WILL BE PERSECUTED BIGTIME BY THIS BILL PASSING.OBAMA WANTS TO BACK DOOR THE BILL THROUGH THE FCC SO WATCH CLOSELY FOR THE SNEAKY VOTE TO GET IT PASSED INTO LAW.

YOU MUST SEE ON PAT ROBERTSON TALK SHOW HOST JANET PARSHALL TALK ABOUT THIS BILL AND HOW IT WILL ESPECIALLY AFFECT PEOPLE LIKE ME THAT BELIEVE PROPHECY.WE ARE CLASSIFIED AS RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS.NOW I KNOW WHY I GOT GOOGLE,AP,BELL ALL WATCHING MY SITE LIKE A HAWK,AND WHO KNOWS ALL THE GOVERNMENT SITES WATCHING ME.

The Fairness Doctrine: What Does It Mean?
By Jennifer Wishon CBN News Washington Correspondent
April 17, 2009

CBNNews.com - WASHINGTON -- Does the Fairness Doctrine offer balance to talk radio dominated by conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh or does it stifle free speech? It is a question that's created controversy since it was implemented in 1949. The Federal Communications Commission abolished it in 1987, but some broadcasters fear pieces of the Fairness Doctrine are on the way back.If you let the government determine which speech is controversial and which isn't.worse than that, if you let the political appointees in any particular government administration make those decisions, you're just setting up a framework for abuse, said Dr. Frank Wright, President and CEO of the National Religious Broadcasters or NRB.The association's 1,400 member stations fear a reinstatement of even portions of the doctrine would require Christian stations to present viewpoints from other religions. Something they believe violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the freedom of speech and religion.

It's anything, but the Fairness Doctrine,said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC. We call it the Unfair Doctrine,.DeMint has pushed legislation through the Senate that prohibits the doctrine's return. However, another amendment, sponsored by Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin, is also being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives.The bill reads that the Federal Communications Commission or FCC shall encourage and promote diversity in communications media ownership and ensure broadcast licenses are used in the public interest.Democratic staffers say the language reaffirms longstanding policies, but DeMint doesn't buy it.For all we know, diversity of ownership for a Christian station would mean atheists, Muslims, people of all kinds of beliefs which are…it could be different sexual preferences,he explained.We just don't know.Since the Fairness Doctrine was never law to begin with, only a regulation, some believe the real fight will transpire inside the FCC, an agency that's in transition with the new administration. Still others say cries over a Fairness Doctrine comeback are unwarranted.Dr. Christopher Sterling at George Washington University worked at the FCC while the doctrine was in place.You'll find people on the right and the left who agree that government ought to stay out of content,he said.Still, groups like the National Religious Broadcasters aren't taking chances. Instead, they're working hard to ensure the Fairness Doctrine remains part of broadcast history.Syndicated Talk Radio show host Janet Parshall will appear on Friday's The 700 Club to discuss the issue of the Fairness Doctrine and what it could mean for Christian radio stations.Check local listings. Parshall's entire interview will be posted to CBNNews.com Friday morning after 11:00 EDT.

October 29, 1993 Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair
by Adam Thierer Executive Memorandum #368 ,This key research from 1993 has been updated in James Gattuso's new paper Back to Muzak? Congress and the Un-Fairness Doctrine http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm1472.cfm

Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the fairness doctrine.The legislation, entitled the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993, is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as unbalanced views.

Tested in Court
The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.As an independent regulatory agency, the FCC has the power to reimpose the doctrine without congressional or executive action. So far, the Commission has taken no position on the Hollings-Hefner legislation or expressed an interest in reregulating on its own. Current FCC Chairman James Quello, though, has stated that, The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.(Doug Halonen,Twelve to Watch in 1993,Electronic Media, January 25, 1993, p. 66.) The Clinton Administration has not taken an official position on the legislation.Supporters of reviving the fairness doctrine base their argument on the very same three faulty premises that the FCC and most judicial rulings have rejected.Faulty Premise #1: The scarce amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Supporters of the fairness doctrine argue that because the airwaves are a scarce resource, they should be policed by federal bureaucrats to ensure that all viewpoints are heard. Yet, just because the spectrum within which broadcast frequencies are found has boundaries, it does not mean that there is a practical shortage of views being heard over the airwaves. When the fairness doctrine was first conceived, only 2,881 radio and 98 television stations existed. By 1960, there were 4,309 radio and 569 television stations. By 1989, these numbers grew to over 10,000 radio stations and close to 1,400 television stations. Likewise, the number of radios in use jumped from 85.2 million in 1950 to 527.4 million by 1988, and televisions in use went from 4million to 175.5 million during that period. (The Fairness Doctrine, National Association of Broadcasters, Backgrounder (1989).)Even if it may once have been possible to monopolize the airwaves, and to deny access to certain viewpoints, that is impossible today. A wide variety of opinions is available to the public through radios, cable channels, and even computers. With America on the verge of information superhighways and 500-channel televisions, there is little prospect of speech being stifled.Faulty Premise #2: Fairness or fair access is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is fair nor enforce it.

The second fallacy upon which the doctrine rests concerns the idea of fairness itself. As defined by proponents of the doctrine, fairness apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what fair access is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings.(Thomas W. Hazlett,The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment,The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.(Tony Snow, Return of the Fairness Demon,The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard. By requiring, under threat of arbitrary legal penalty, that broadcasters fairly represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.Thus, the result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance,and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. (FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine,Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.) Even liberal New York Governor Mario Cuomo has argued that, Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press.(Mario Cuomo, The Unfairness Doctrine,The New York Times, September 20, 1993, p. A19.)

Simple Solution
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.1995 Persimmon IT, Inc.

FEAR OF YOU OUT OF YOUTUBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V025E_b5I4g&feature=player_embedded

Video Bloggers Fear You Being Phased Out Of YouTube
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Friday, April 17, 2009

A new You Tube video getting a lot of attention highlights concerns that the You is being phased out of YouTube, as individual users are sidelined by regulation and censorship in favor of corporate domination of the popular video website, an eventuality that we first warned about years ago.The clip makes the case that You Tube has all but eliminated the prominence of individual video channels and artificially suppressed their chances of topping the popular ranking charts.In addition, the ranking charts themselves have been buried on the website and replaced with an assortment of featured videos, a combination of bland corporate promos and inane mindless clips, selected by You Tube bosses themselves, while viral videos voted on by individual users have been almost completely hidden.The top ranking and most discussed categories used to appear on the front page of the website, but are now demoted to a sub-tab, the video claims. However, looking at the You Tube website this morning, small links to these categories have now been added to the main page.

The clip points out that ratings have been removed from the most viewed page to prevent bland corporate videos from being voted down by users, which does appear to be the case. Inoffensive political videos are also being flagged for deletion while clips that amount to soft porn are allowed.The point made in the video about censorship is well received. We have had numerous accounts deleted by You Tube with little or no explanation and we receive e mails every week from people who have suffered the same fate. We have also documented how view counts on our videos have been altered to prevent them from going viral.The video also claims that You Tube is switching over to a new design which will place corporate-sponsored TV shows and movies on the front page while relegating individual users’ videos to a sub-page. This corresponds with the announcement that, YouTube…. is partnering with major studios to stream full-length movies and TV shows on its site for free,according to an Associated Press report.The growth of community websites like You Tube, Facebook and MySpace brings with it the very dangers that we first highlighted years ago when the social networking and video blogging phenomenon was first taking off, that such sites represented a cyber trojan horse and the media elite’s last gasp effort to reclaim control of the Internet and sink it with a stranglehold of regulation, control and censorship.

The domination of user-driven community websites owned by large corporations over websites run and owned by individuals has created the perfect opportunity for corporations to swallow Internet traffic and put individual blogs and websites in the shadows.Websites like You Tube became so successful because they allowed free reign for users to upload whatever videos they liked and put in place ranking systems determined by users themselves and not at the discretion of You Tube bosses. This meant that truly important videos, along with the usual celebrity trash that is par for the course, were allowed to go viral. However, since You Tube was bought by Google and changes were made to the website, You Tube has been dominated by bland paid-for corporate videos while videos popular with the actual community have been relegated to the sidelines.This was always the danger of investing so much power and interest in community websites owned by large transnational corporations, as we warned years ago.However, You Tube’s evolution from a community-driven first amendment outpost to a tightly regulated, corporate mouthpiece will only drive users away to smaller video blogging websites as well as a move back towards setting up their own private websites that aren’t subject to the controls of the corporate media oligarchy.MORE RESEARCH LINKS
http://www.infowars.com/video-bloggers-fear-you-being-phased-out-of-youtube/
http://www.infowars.com/obama-appointee-wants-soviet-styled-media/

Obama Appointee Wants Soviet-styled Media
Infowars April 16, 2009

It’s bad enough the Obama administration has pledged trillions to bailout the bankers and has made moves to control business in the private sector. Now they want a Soviet-styled media financed and run by the government.Brooks, who has taken up a post as an adviser at the Pentagon, advocated upping direct government support for public media and creating licenses to govern news operations.Influential Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks has hung up her journalistic hat and joined the Obama administration, but not before penning a public proposal calling for some radical ideas to help bail out the failing news industry, reports Fox News. Brooks, who has taken up a post as an adviser at the Pentagon, advocated upping direct government support for public media and creating licenses to govern news operations.Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off,she wrote in her parting column on April 9.You can only imagine how such licenses would govern Infowars and the alternative media.

In the former Soviet Union, Pravda was an organ of the CPSU Central Committee, while Izvestiya was published by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. Ms. Brooks is advocating a likewise scheme here in America, formerly a land that respected the idea of an independent press and the First Amendment. She would put an end to all of this once and for all with her suggestion that media be licensed by the state. Brooks said her authoritarian scheme would help rescue the corporate media from a death spiral and left the government unaccountable to the journalists who must keep it honest. [I] can’t imagine anything more dangerous than a society in which the news industry has more or less collapsed,she wrote.Why is the corporate media in the process of collapsing? Because a growing number of people get their news from the internet and alternative media sources. Large numbers of people no longer trust the corporate media to tell the truth. Corporate media is a dinosaur that needs to either reinvent itself or go the way of the Brontosaurus. Instead, this Obama appointee wants to turn the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times (where she worked before joining team Obama) into Izvestiya.But then the argument is academic. The New York Times and the rest of the corporate media is owned and operated by the same corporatist and Wall Street leviathans that financed and supported the Soviet Union.

DOCTOR DOCTORIAN FROM ANGEL OF GOD
then the angel said, Financial crisis will come to Asia. I will shake the world.

JAMES 5:1-3
1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.
3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

REVELATION 18:10,17,19
10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

EZEKIEL 7:19
19 They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.

REVELATION 13:16-18
16 And he(FALSE POPE) causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:(CHIP IMPLANT)
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.(6-6-6) A NUMBER SYSTEM

WORLD MARKET RESULTS
http://money.cnn.com/data/world_markets/

HALF HOUR DOW RESULTS FRI APR 17,2009

09:30 AM +1.20
10:00 AM +8.21
10:30 AM -8.84
11:00 AM -18.16
11:30 AM -9.16
12:00 PM +10.30
12:30 PM +7.09
01:00 PM +8.76
01:30 PM +29.71
02:00 PM +46.28
02:30 PM +41.10
03:00 PM +19.68
03:30 PM +50.66
04:00 PM +5.90 8131.33

S&P 500 869.60 +4.30

NASDAQ 1673.07 +2.63

GOLD 868.90 -10.90

OIL 50.28 +0.30

TSE 300 9420.74 +77.37

CDNX 989.23 +7.10

S&P/TSX/60 573.03 +5.48

MORNING,NEWS,STATS

YEAR TO DATE PERFORMANCE
Dow -7.42%
S&P -4.20%
Nasdaq +5.92%
TSX Advances 941,declines 586,unchanged 271,Volume 2,547,050,498.
TSX Venture Exchange Advances 384,Declines 391,Unchanged 373,Volume 253,074,364.

Dow +29 points at 4 minutes of trading today.
Dow -39 points at low today.
Dow +35 points at high today so far.
GOLD opens at $872.40.OIL opens at $51.20 today.

AFTERNOON,NEWS,STATS
Dow -39 points at low today so far.
Dow +35 points at high today so far.

DAY TODAY PERFORMANCE - 12:30PM STATS
NYSE Advances 2,042,declines 1,508,unchanged 110,New Highs 9,New Lows 45.
Volume 3,701,554,539.
NASDAQ Advances 1,277,declines 1,312,unchanged 140,New highs 16,New Lows 10.
Volume 1,003,145,013.
TSX Advances 770,declines 512,unchanged 255,Volume 1,101,204,962.
TSX Venture Exchange Advances 240,Declines 265,Unchanged 283,Volume 94,205,892.

WRAPUP,NEWS,STATS
Dow -39 points at low today.
Dow +65 points at high today.
Dow +0.07% today Volume 537,674,431.
Nasdaq +0.16% today Volume 2,147,483,648.
S&P 500 +0.50% today Volume N/A

GM,CEO-BANKRUPTCY PROBABLE.
22 Dead in Afghanistan Quake.
Sony to slash more jobs.

RECORD LOWS DOW
-Sept 30,1996 5,882.17
-Oct 30,1996 5,993.23
-Nov 6,1996 6,177.71
-Dec 16,1996 6,268.35
-Apr 15,1997 6,587.16
-Apr 21,1997 6,660.21
-Apr 28,1997 6,783.02
-May 1,1997 6,976.48
-May 7,1997 7,085.65

RECORD LOWS S&P 500
-Sept 5,1996 649.44
-Sept 6,1996 655.68
-Sept 11,1996 667.28
-Sept 12,1996 671.13
-Oct 1,1996 689.08
-Oct 28,1996 697.26
-Nov 4,1996 706.73
-Nov 5,1996 714.14
-Dec 17,1996 726.04

YEAR TO DATE PERFORMANCE,WEEKENDER
Dow -7.35%
S&P -3.73%
Nasdaq +6.09%
CANADAS WEEK ENDING STATS
TSX Advances 981,Declines 573,Unchanged 263,Volume 2,480,719,331.
TSX Venture Advances 395,Declines 365,Unchanged 366,Volume 199,510,543.

EU must ensure business respects human rights, says UN
ANDREW WILLIS 16.04.2009 @ 17:48 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - United Nations special representative on human rights and business John Ruggie told MEPs on Thursday (16 April) that governments must step up to the plate and accept their role in preventing human rights abuses related to business.While admitting that the international community was still only in the early stages of dealing with the topic, Mr Ruggie said the status quo was unacceptable. One thing is clear, even in this early state, business as usual isn't good enough for anybody, including business. We have to change our ways,he said. Last year the United Nations, under Mr Ruggie's stewardship, published a document, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a framework for business and human rights that attempted to define the different roles of governments and companies in the area. When a state adopts human rights instruments [such as guidelines for businesses produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development], as the European states of course all have, they also adopt an obligation to protect against human rights abuses,he said.

This includes protection from potential abuses perpetrated by businesses, he added.

One failing in this area is the tendency of EU governments to define human rights excessively narrowly so that they are rarely mentioned in the domains that most affect EU businesses, such as corporate and investment law.As an example, Mr Ruggie pointed to the fact that the government of South Africa is currently engaged in a legal dispute with an Italian mining company that wants to be re-imbursed for the economic effects of the country's black economic empowerment act.There's a problem with that. If post-apartheid South Africa cannot adopt legislation to promote the rights of the majority population without fear of having to pay off a substantial sum of money to an Italian company, there is something wrong with the way we draft investment treaties,he said. Also addressing the European Parliament subcommittee on human rights, Jan Wouters, a professor with the Catholic University of Leuven told MEPs that the EU policy on corporate social responsibility was suffering from an implementation failure. Corporate social responsibility is continuously invoked in EU external policy documents, but very little action is taken,he said.

Industrial production down

While MEPs debated human rights issues related to business practices, new figures out on Thursday on industrial production for the euro area show a drop of 2.3 per cent in February of this year compared to January. The data produced by the European statistics office indicate that the fall is a dramatic 18.4 per cent when February's production levels are compared to the same month last year.At the same time, new inflation figures also produced by Eurostat indicate that annual inflation for March of this year was a meagre 0.6 per cent, down from 1.2 per cent in February. Such drops will strengthen the case for an interest rate cut next month when the European Central Bank meet on 7 May.

Rogues and has-beens invited to EU summit
ANDREW RETTMAN Today APR 17,09 @ 18:09 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Four leaders suspected of having blood on their hands, one who let police beat up peaceful protesters and one lame duck, are to receive invitations to an EU summit in May.The Czech EU presidency's foreign minister, Karl Schwarzenberg, personally handed an invitation to autocratic Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko in Minsk on Friday (17 April). Similar invitations will be sent to Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine by Monday. The form of the invitation leaves each country free to decide who to actually send. But Mr Schwarzenberg's spokeswoman, Zuzana Opletalova, said Prague expects to host generally presidents or prime ministers - it depends on the constitution of each country.The Eastern Partnership summit is a Polish-Swedish initiative to promote democratic reform and boost EU energy security through better relations with the six former Soviet states. But human rights activists have accused the EU of putting geopolitical games ahead of foreign policy ethics in the scheme.The darkest stain on Mr Lukashenko's reputation is the disappearance on his watch in 1999 and 2000 of four opposition activists, whose families are still campaigning for judicial enquiries today.

In an eccentric public relations campaign, Mr Lukashenko has started to bring his four-year old son, Kolya, to top-level meetings, such as a summit with Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan in March. Asked if the boy would be welcome to meet the 27 EU leaders in Prague on 7 May, Ms Opletalova repeated: It is up to each country to decide who to bring.Kolya's presence may also be required in Mr Lukashenko's biggest public relations coup to date: the Vatican on Friday told Reuters that he will meet the Pope later this month.Meanwhile, the question of who Moldova will send to the EU summit is wide open. The country currently has no official government after inconclusive elections on 5 April. Caretaker President Vladimir Voronin is expected to informally retain control by taking the powerful post of parliament speaker or chair of the Communist party, leaving the option of a puppet president speaking for him in Prague. The Voronin administration has the death of three opposition protesters on its record after a police crackdown on 7 April, with the president this week announcing an amnesty that covers security forces involved in the killings.

Armenia's Mr Sargsyan has yet to hold anyone to account for post-election violence in March 2008 in which eight protesters and two policemen lost their lives.At least 300 protesters sustained serious injuries in clashes in Azerbaijan after President Ilham Alyiev was voted to power in October 2003. NGO Human Rights Watch says security forces also beat to death one man, 52-year old Hamidaga Zakhidov.

Different league

In a different league to the four men above, Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili fell from grace in terms of democratic credentials in November 2007 when riot police hospitalised 508 peaceful protesters in Tbilisi.A fresh round of anti-Saakshvili protests entered its eighth day in the Georgia capital on 17 April, with the president showing restraint for the time being but with the opposition hoping for a second crackdown to help oust him from power.Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko emerges as the cleanest of the six EU summit candidates. Ukraine transport minister Heorhiy Kyrpa was found dead in his home with gunshot wounds to the head shortly after the Orange Revolution that brought Mr Yushchenko to power in November 2004. The country's former interior minister Yuri Kravchenko also died in suspicious circumstances in March 2005. The deaths of the two men, both loyal to the pre-Orange Revolution regime, were never linked to the new administration.But Mr Yushchenko is himself a ghost politically-speaking, with long-running allegations of corruption and incompetence seeing his approval rating hit just four percent ahead of presidential elections later this year.

Sarkozy insults EU colleagues and US leader at lunch
LEIGH PHILLIPS Today APR 17,09 @ 09:26 CET

OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE BEWARE.
Nicholas Sarkozy, the talkative and not infrequently tactless French president, has once again been robustly, awkwardly blunt. His style, which has seen the politician call impoverished suburban youth scum and tell a heckler to sod off, asshole, normally brings a smile to the kind of conservative voters who find it refreshing to hear a politician abandon the langue du bois, or wooden speaking style historically used by the country's leaders.But this time those whom he has insulted are some of his most important international allies, and they might have a different sense of humour to the politically incorrect man on the street.At a lunch with 24 French senators and MPs from all parties invited to discuss the state of the ongoing financial crisis on Wednesday (15 April), the French president gave an update to his colleagues on the results of the recent meeting of the G20 in London.In so doing, he described Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, as stupid, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, as simply following Mr Sarkozy's lead and Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, as absent.By the end of the lunch, he had also cast the new American president, Barack Obama, as inexperienced and not up to speed on the issue of climate change.The sole global leader that remained high in the French president's estimation was the equally unpolished Silvio Berlusconi, for his repeated electoral successes.Mr Sarkozy had perhaps assumed that the private discussion would not be passed on by his guests, but among their number were not a few opposition politicians, and Liberation, the left-wing French daily, immediately published their reports of the meeting.

According to the politicians, the president said of his American counterpart: Obama has a subtle spirit, very intelligent and very charismatic. But he's only been elected two months and has never headed up a government ministry in his life.There are a certain number of things about which he has no position, he said, Liberation reports. I told him:I don't think you've really understood what we have done regarding CO2. You have talked, but one must act.The [EU] climate-energy package that I got passed during the french [EU] presidency will see in 2020 a reduction of emissions on 1990 [levels]. We in Europe have sanctions against states and companies. He just wants to return to 1990 emission levels and there are no sanctions.French magazine L'Express reports that Mr Sarkozy also joked about Mr Obama's saintly image in the context of a planned visit to France in June. I am going to ask him to walk on the [English] Channel, and he'll do it,the French leader said.Mr Sarkozy qualified the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, as totally absent from the G20 and said of the German chancellor: When she realised the state of her banks and her automobile industry, she had no choice but to take on my position.The most piquant phrase came with dessert, for the Spanish prime minister. One can say many things about Zapatero ...He's maybe not very intelligent,Mr Sarkozy said. He added that intelligence is not a vital element in politics, as he knows many intelligent politicians who have failed to get re-elected.He then saluted the Italian prime minister for being able to surmount such hurdles. The important thing in a democracy is to be re-elected. Look at Berlusconi. He's been re-elected three times.The 24 deputies are scheduled to be invited for another presidential lunch briefing on the financial crisis in June.

Commission criticises think-tanks over lobby register
ANDREW WILLIS Today APR 17,09 @ 17:50 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Europe's anti-fraud commissioner, Siim Kallas, criticised EU think-tanks in Brussels on Friday (17 April) for failing to sign up to the European Commission's register of lobbyists. The lobby register lists the names of organisations that attempt to influence European legislation, their stated aims and funding sources amongst other details, but Brussels lobbyists - numbering an estimated 15,000 - do not have to sign up if they do not wish to as the register is voluntary. Mr Kallas said the register was not only intended for public relations firms working in Brussels but for all organisations wishing to influence policy formulation and decision-making processes in the European institutions. We explicitly and deliberately included think-tanks in the target group,he said. So far the European Policy Centre is the only Brussels-based think-tank to sign up to the register and was also the host of the breakfast meeting at which Mr Kallas chose to make the speech. Many European think-tanks gain part of their revenue through membership subscriptions from businesses that in turn hope to gain better access to EU officials by attending the same organised events. Mr Kallas singled out the Friends of Europe think-tank who are organising an event later this month entitled Investing in Africa's growth and health.This is obviously a very serious event, but with two senior representatives on the panels, it is also a lobbying opportunity for the company Total, the corporate co-organiser of the event, putting it in touch with the EU development commissioner, high EU officials and MEPs,he said.Nobody from the Friends of Europe was available to comment on Mr Kallas' remarks.

Guilty by association

One reason why Brussels-based think tanks have been slow to sign up to the register is concern that joining the list would add to the perception that their main role is indeed lobbying. Most see their work as promoting constructive debate on EU topics.
Our side of the story is really very simple, we objected to the inclusion of think-tanks in the same basket with lobbyists, that's the main problem we have with the register,Marco Incerti of the Centre for European Policy Studies told EUobserver. If you ask a think-tank to sign up as a registered lobbyist, you are providing more ammunition for those who claim think-tanks are lobbyists.Instead, the organisation chooses to list membership details and funding sources on its website. Mr Incerti pointed out that many think-tank employees are already labelled as lobbyists by the European Parliament as part of their system for categorizing groups entering the parliament buildings.Currently, different groups accessing the buildings such as members of the press, MEP assistants, and lobbyists are distinguished by the colour of their security badges.

EU dismayed by Romania mass citizenship plan
ANDREW RETTMAN Today APR 17,09 @ 09:24 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU institutions are appalled at Romania's proposal to give citizenship to up to 1 million Moldovans - a project that could damage Romania's standing inside the union. If the scheme goes ahead and Moldova retaliates by making dual citizenship illegal, the EU country would effectively annex one quarter of its neighbour's population in a scenario described by one EU official as frightening in terms of regional stability. Several EU staff questioned by EUobserver on Thursday (16April) believed the plan is political bluster ahead of Romania presidential elections and will never come to pass.This is just a proposal, an expression of will. I am not sure if it is not just a political statement,EU foreign relations spokeswoman Christina Gallach said. But the Czech EU presidency publicly rebuked Bucharest after a meeting between Czech EU minister Alexandr Vondra and Romanian foreign minister Cristian Diaconescu, in a sign of rising tension within the bloc.I told my Romanian colleague about our serious concerns of the possible risks arising from adopting simplified procedures for Romanian citizenship,Mr Vondra said.Bucharest on Wednesday night put forward a bill to extend the right to naturalisation for Moldovans whose grandparent or great-grandparent was a Romanian. Previously, only Moldovans with Romanian grandparents could apply. The draft law - which still needs parliamentary approval - also cut the deadline for processing paperwork from six months to five months and dropped a Romanian language test. The move is a tit-for-tat reaction to Moldova's decision to impose visa requirements on Romanian citizens after accusing Romania of trying to stage a coup following elections last week.

Under EU law, Romania is free to give citizenship to anybody it likes.

EU states in any case collectively naturalise over 730,000 people a year in what amounts to an annual mini-enlargement, bigger in scale than the individual populations of the smallest member states, Malta and Luxembourg. In 2006 - the latest data available - the UK and France each gave citizenship to some 150,000 people, while Germany gave passports to 125,000 individuals. But mass-scale naturalisation on the Romania-Moldova model would be unprecedented.

The Spanish gambit

Spain in 2005 normalised 600,000 irregular migrants. The move stopped short of granting EU citizenship but did give permanent residency and right to work, with Madrid at the time facing strong criticism for failing to consult EU colleagues. Poland at one point mooted offering citizenship to up to 1 million ethnic Poles left in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan following post-World War II changes to its borders and Stalinist relocations.But Warsaw feared potential complications in its bid to join the EU's passport-free Schengen zone. The final deal in 2007 - the right for ethnic Poles to apply for a Polish Card - limited rights to a refund of visa costs, access to healthcare and a cheap bus pass. People still haven't quite forgiven Spain. You see that in the little obstacles put in their way during day-to-day talks on immigration matters,one EU diplomat said.The EU institutions have a long memory.