Israel is the Legal Occupant of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Rules the Court of Appeal of Versailles

A groundbreaking ruling that was “forgotten” by the media is now surfacing. Israel’s just presence in Judea and Samaria is coming to light. 

This groundbreaking ruling by a French court was given in 2013, but somehow escaped the media’s awareness.

A pro Israel activist has worked to bring this “old news” to light, because of its outmost significance.

“I decided to put to work my years of Law Studies in France, and I meticulously analyzed the Court ruling,” Jean-Patrick Grumberg wrote.

The following is an analysis of the dramatic court proceedings and their significance:

In a historical trial, the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles declared in 2013 that Israel is the legal occupant of Judea and Samaria.

The Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is unequivocally legal under international law, dismissing a suit brought by the Palestinian Authority (PA) against Jerusalem’s light rail built by French companies Alstom and Veolia

To rule on the suit, the Court of Appeals had to determine the legal rights of Palestinians and Israelis in the region. Their conclusion was that the Palestinians have no right – in the international legal sense – to the region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to all land beyond the 67 line.

The story goes back to the ’90s, when Israel began work for the construction of the Jerusalem light rail. The tender was won by French companies Veolia and Alstom. The light rail was completed in 2011, and it crosses Jerusalem all the way through the city.

Following this, the PLO filed a complaint with the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Versailles France, against Alstom and Veolia, because according to PLO, the construction of the tram was illegal since the United Nations (UN0, the European Union (EU) and other governments consider Israel’s presence there illegal.

In order to rule whether the light rail’s construction was legal or not, the court had to review the texts of international law and examine international treaties in order to establish the respective legal rights of the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Unprecedented Ruling

This is the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 that an independent, non-Israeli court has been called upon to examine the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law, beyond the political claims of the parties.

While the Court’s findings have no effect in international law, they do have the utmost importance, which is to clarify the legal reality.

The Versailles Court of Appeal’s conclusions are resounding: Israel has real rights in Judea and Samaria, its decision to build a light rail in Jerusalem or anything else in the area is legal, and the judges rejected all the arguments presented by the Palestinians.

The PLO claimed that Israel’s presence in the area was illegal according to international treaties and that that the light rail construction has resulted in the destruction of Palestinian buildings and houses, and has conducted many illegal dispossessions. Therefore, several clauses from the annexed Regulations to the October 18, 1907 Fourth Hague Convention were violated.

The Court of Appeal rejected all the Palestinian arguments.

Referring to the texts on which the PLO claim is based, the Court of Appeal considers that Israel is entitled to ensure order and public life in the region, and therefore Israel has the right to build a light rail, infrastructure and dwellings.

The Court explained that the PA misinterpreted the texts and they do not apply to Israel presence in Judea and Samaria.

All the international instruments put forward by the PLO were acts signed between states, and the obligations or prohibitions contained therein are relevant to states. Neither the PA nor the PLO are states, and therefore, none of these legal documents apply to them.

Likewise, the Court showed that these texts are binding only on those who signed them, namely the contracting parties. Neither the PLO nor the PA have ever signed these texts.

The Court, quite irritated by the arguments presented by the PA, boldly asserted that the law cannot be based solely on the PLO’s assessment of a political or social situation.

The Court of Appeal therefore sentenced the PLO and Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS), who was co-appellant, to pay 30,000 euros ($32,000) to Alstom, 30,000 euros to Alstom Transport and 30,000 euros to Veolia Transport.

Neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority nor the AFPS appealed to the Supreme Court, and therefore the judgment became final.

This is the first time that a Court has legally destroyed all Palestinian legal claim that Israel’s occupation is illegal.

By: Jean-Patrick Grumberg for www.Dreuz.info

VICTORY: Climate Skeptic Scientist Peter Ridd Wins Big!

Astonishing win against Climate Change hysteria

Professor Ridd disputed the hysteria surrounding the demise

of the Great Barrier Reef and the fraudulent 'science'

upon which it was based. He got fired for it! 

Anthony Watts

Full legal document posted, along with some spectacular quotes from the judge.

In a huge victory for climate skeptics everywhere, Judge Salvatore Vasta finds all findings made by James Cook University, including his sacking, were all unlawful.

The order follows: h/t to @GideonCRozner and CTM

Background on the court case

In May 2018, after an academic career of more than 30 years, Peter had his employment terminated as a professor of physics at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Peter had spoken against the accepted orthodoxy that climate change was ‘killing’ the Great Barrier Reef.

There’s some absolute rubbish being spoken about the reef and

people’s livelihoods are being put in jeopardy. If nobody will

stand up, then this is just going to go on and on and on.

It has to be stopped.

Peter’s court case has enormous implications for the international debate about climate change, and for the ongoing crisis surrounding freedom of speech.

Peter writes via his GoFundMe page:

Dear All,

Excellent news.

My lawyers have told me that the judge handed down his decision and we seem to have won on all counts. 

It all happened very quickly and we had no warning , and because I live almost a thousand miles from the court, I was not able to be there. I have still not seen the written judgement and will update you all when I have that information.

Needless to say, I have to thank all 2500 of you, and all the bloggers, and the IPA and my legal team who donated much of their time free for this success. But mostly I want to thank my dearest Cheryl, who quite by chance has been my bestest friend for exactly 40 years today. It just shows what a team effort can achieve.

The next chapter of this saga must now be written by the JCU Council which is the governing body of JCU. What will they do about the VC and SDVC who were responsible for bringing the university into disrepute, not just in North Queensland, but also around the world. JCU crushed dissent, crushed academic freedom and tried to crush my spirit with their appalling behaviour. They only failed because I had your support. But if the JCU council does not act, they will be complicit in this disgraceful episode.

Attention must now focus on the JCU council.

I will update you shortly when I have more information, but for now I certainly have a spring in my step.

kind regards

Peter

Help spread the word!

For some reason the full legal document can't be accessed by a link provided in this article, but here are some excerpts:

217. Professor Ridd’s statement, that when he asked if he could mention them to his wife, he was not given permission, is the truth. It was not until 19 September 2017, that the University deigned to allow him to talk to his wife about these matters.

218. Whilst none of this makes any difference at all to my ultimate decision, the actions of the University in this respect are, quite frankly, appalling. They have had no regard for the anguish that Professor Ridd felt between 24 August 2017 and 19 September 2017. There has not even been an apology for what can only be seen as extremely callous behaviour. This is inexcusable.

219. Instead, Professor Ridd is accused of being misleading and untruthful because, even though the University eventually allowed him to talk to his wife, he did not mention this when he made statements on his WordPress website.

220. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. On one hand, the University is finding that Professor Ridd has breached the Code of Conduct in that he has made public a number of items to do with the disciplinary process. On the other hand, he is accused of breaching the Code of Conduct in that he has not referred to all of that material when he has made this particular statement.

221. The irony is even more spectacular when one considers that, in his original email to the journalist in 2016, Professor Ridd took the institutions to task for being misleading regarding the use of photographs. It seems the University found no problem with the use of those photographs because there was a footnote that led to the Wachenfeld article.

222. And yet when Professor Ridd pointed out that there was a hyperlink to all of the 2017 disciplinary process material (which would include the 19 September 2017 letter and the subsequent final censure), he is found guilty of a Code of Conduct violation for being misleading. One could be forgiven for thinking that the university was more concerned with the splinter in the eye of Professor Ridd whilst ignoring the plank in their own.

223. The University still sought to justify this finding on the basis of a breach of the Code of Conduct. I disagree.

224. Professor Ridd was expressing his opinion about the operations of JCU and expressing disagreement with decisions of JCU.

225. I find that Professor Ridd was exercising his rights pursuant to cl.14.2 and cl.14.4 of the EA when he made these comments.

…

235. This is an extremely peculiar finding by the University. The University has found that Professor Ridd preferred his own interests, and those of the Institute of Public Affairs (“the IPA”), above the interests of the University. The University found that this was in breach of the obligations under the Code of Conduct to “take reasonable steps to avoid, or disclose and manage, any conflict of interest (actual, potential or perceived) in the course of employment”.

236. During the course of the trial, I repeatedly asked Counsel for the University to tell me what the conflict of interest actually was. Try as he might, Counsel was unable to do so. Yet he would not concede that this finding was not justified.

…

296. To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.

297. Many aspects of the Code of Conduct cannot sit with the concept of intellectual freedom and certainly contravene cl.14. For example, the Code speaks of the need to “value academic freedom, and enquire, examine, criticise and challenge in the collegial and academic spirit of the search for knowledge, understanding and truth”. The University has denounced Professor Ridd because his enquiry, examination, criticism and challenge was not, in their view, done in the collegial and academic spirit. But there is no need for such enquiry, examination, criticism or challenge to be done that way under the rights conferred upon Professor Ridd by cl.14.

298. The University have been at pains to say that it is not what Professor Ridd has said, but rather the manner in which he has said it, that is the underlying reason for the censure, the final censure and the termination. But the University has consistently overlooked the whole of what has been written. They have concentrated on small, almost incidental parts of what has been said and then used the Code of Conduct to pass judgement on those small parts, with the intention that the flow on effect of that judgement would impugn the whole of what Professor Ridd has written.

299. The Code of Conduct is subordinate to cl.14 of the EA. And what is said by Professor Ridd must always be looked at in its whole context. The University have continually “cherry-picked” portions of the writings of Professor Ridd and said “that is not the exercise of intellectual freedom”. But it is the whole of what is written that must be looked at rather than excerpts taken out of context.

…

302. That is why intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the neverending search for knowledge and truth. And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about. To suggest otherwise is to ignore why universities were created and why critically focussed academics remain central to all that university teaching claims to offer.

FINDINGS:

303. In light of the above, I make the following rulings:

a) The first finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

b) The censure given to Professor Ridd was unlawful as it contravened cl.14 of the EA.

c) The First Speech Direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

d) The Second Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

e) The First Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to give that direction, and even if it did have the power, such a direction was in contravention of the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

f) The Third Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant cl.14.

g) The Second Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did have the power, such a direction was in contravention of the rights conferred on Professor Ridd by virtue of cl.14.

h) The Fourth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

i) The Fifth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd given to him by cl.14.

j) The Sixth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd given to him by cl.14.

k) The Seven Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

l) The Eighth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

m) The Third Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.

n) The Second Speech Direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

o) The Fourth Confidentiality Directions was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.

p) The no satire direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

q) The Fifth Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.

r) The Second Censure was unlawful because it contravened cl.14 of the EA.

s) The Ninth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.

t) The Tenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.

u) The Eleventh Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.

v) The Twelfth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

w) The Thirteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights the Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

x) The Fourteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.

y) The Fifteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because of breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

z) The Sixteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

aa) The Seventeenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it had no substance whatsoever, and even if there were the slightest scintilla of evidence, it was contrary to the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

bb) The termination of Professor Ridd’s employment was unlawful because it punished Professor Ridd for conduct that was protected by cl.14 of the EA.

This First Nations Woman Refuses to Let Ottawa Help Hide Her Band's Finances

Charmaine Stick won her court case to force Onion Lake Cree Nation to make public the finances of the chief and band council

Charmaine Stick of the Onion Lake Cree Nation.Screen grab

Special to Financial Post
By Todd MacKay

It’s a bit odd for a happy dance to break out after a court ruling about financial reporting, but when Charmaine Stick got the decision from her lawyer, she held hands with her kids and did a little jig.

“This is a victory for all First Nations people out there who’ve been fighting for transparency and accountability,” said Charmaine. “In our culture, you know transparency and accountability is first and foremost, especially when you’re in leadership.”

Onion Lake Cree Nation was given 30 days to publish financial disclosures online as required by The First Nations Financial Transparency Act, according to a Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench ruling released on June 15. The band’s lawyers are appealing, but Charmaine is confident that the decision will stand. She will then find out how much her chief and council are paid and what’s happening with her community’s finances. The ruling came after Charmaine partnered with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to launch the court application last fall.

The First Nations Financial Transparency Act is simple: It requires First Nations to publish salaries and expenses for chief and council as well as basic financial documents online — the kind of information the rest of us can get with a Google search. The overwhelming majority of First Nations follow the law, but Onion Lake is one of six bands that have never complied. The previous Conservative government withheld non-essential funding from those bands, but the new Liberal government suspended all enforcement. 

Charmaine’s victory enforces the legislation and for her it’s a very personal victory. The stay-at-home mom went on a 13-day hunger strike to demand accountability from her leaders during the summer of 2014. They told her she’d never get anywhere. She now has judicial validation.

The most fascinating parts of this ruling are the arguments Onion Lake left out. Rather than contesting matters of fact, Onion Lake asked the court to stay Charmaine’s application until other court proceedings conclude. Justice B.A. Barrington-Foote rejected the stay application.

The minister can leave grassroots citizens like Charmaine to ask courts to enforce the law, while the government does nothing, or she can help

“There is no evidence before me as to the political or economic reasons why Onion Lake has refused to provide and post the specified information,” he wrote.

Opponents of The First Nations Financial Transparency Act often raise vague concerns that transparency causes economic harm, but hundreds of First Nations communities have disclosed that information and it’s obvious those fears are unfounded.

Another omission was even more conspicuous by its absence.

“Curiously, Onion Lake did not defend this application on the basis of the constitutional issues,” wrote Barrington-Foote.

In earlier legal battles, Onion Lake argued The First Nations Financial Transparency Act is unconstitutional. However, it failed to raise those arguments in relation to Charmaine’s application. In fact, those arguments have been on hold.

“Despite the passage of almost two and a half years since the action was commenced (by Onion Lake to challenge the constitutionality of the act), discoveries have not yet been scheduled,” wrote Justice Barrington-Foote.

It seems Onion Lake raised constitutional arguments as stalling tactics.

Charmaine’s victory puts pressure on Indigenous and Northern Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett. The minister can leave grassroots citizens to ask the courts to enforce the legislation while the government does nothing. She can weaken the legislation to darken this newfound transparency. Or she can enforce the legislation and strengthen it with new protections such as an auditor general for First Nations communities.

But for Charmaine, future legal and political struggles can wait, because right now she’s celebrating, along with grassroots First Nations people across Canada.

Way to go Charmaine. You're a hero.

German Court Rules Setting Synagogue on Fire Legit Protest

What goes around, comes around - antisemitism was only 'mostly dead' in Germany, but is breathing on its own again now.

The perpetrators received suspended sentences after the court ruled that the blaze was intended to draw 'attention to the Gaza conflict.'

Wuppertal Synagogue

A German regional court ruled that the setting fire to a synagogue was not an anti-Semitic act, but rather was intended to draw “attention to the Gaza conflict.”

As such, the three men convicted of the crime – identified only as Muhammad E., 31, Ismail A., 26, and Muhammad A., 20 – were given suspended sentences. The men threw a firebomb into the synagogue in Wuppertal which caused $850 of damage in the summer of 2014 during Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s response to continuous rockets and missiles fired into its territory by Hamas. 

How dare those Israelis protect themselves from Hamas missiles!

In the ruling, the court noted that the men had been drinking alcohol and that no one was injured. The fire was contained when a 13-year-old boy who lived near the synagogue saw the blaze and called police. The ruling upheld a similar decision made by a lower court.

Synagogue attackers

German lawmaker MP Volker Beck, a leader of the Green Party, disagreed with the court ruling.

“This is a mistaken decision as far as the motives of the perpetrators are concerned,” he said, as quoted by the Jerusalem Post. “What do Jews in Germany have to do with the Middle East conflict? Every bit as much as Christians, non-religious people or Muslims in Germany, namely, absolutely nothing. The ignorance of the judiciary toward anti-Semitism is for many Jews in Germany especially alarming.”

Beck is correct. One only wonders what the response of a German court would have been if a Christian who had been drinking firebombed a mosque as a way of registering a protest against Islamic State.

Ironically, the original synagogue in Wuppertal was set ablaze by the Nazis in 1938 on Kristallnacht, a night of pogroms against Jews, Jewish business and homes and synagogues throughout Germany. It is a sad day in Germany when the firebombing of a synagogue is once again a state-sanctioned political act.   

Wuppertal, Germany