Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Commission Struck By Cowardice 23


I have received this reply from the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Commission to my request to give evidence to them:

Dear Mr Murray

The Committee considered your request and decided it wanted to spend a little more time considering the information you sent before reaching a decision, so they will consider the matter again next Tuesday.

best wishes

Mark Egan

How typical. The Commission has been huffing and puffing and pretending to make a fuss about finding the truth behind the government’s attitude to intelligence from torture, with particular relation to the Binyam Mohammed case. This is part of the cosy Westminster game. But when someone comes along who can actually tell the truth, with documentary backing to prove it, they don’t really want to know – in fact their first instinct is to bury the truth.

The politicians will be seeking advice now from their political masters, and the government spin machine will yet again go into overdrive. The wires from Whitehall to Westminster and thw whips offices are already whispering yet again that Craig Murray is mad, alcoholic, corrupt and a pervert. Not the sort of chap you should take evidence from.

The government has had all those things published about me since I started fighting their use of torture. All of those things are lies.

But even if they were all true, I can nonetheless prove from documentary evidence and first hand testimony that the government systematically and as a matter of policy obtains evidence from torture abroad.

Why will parliament not hear me?


23 thoughts on “Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Commission Struck By Cowardice

  • Leo

    It’s not only cowardly; it shows that they are not fit to do their jobs and puts question-marks over everything else they do or do not do.

    But what’s new, I guess? Our leaders (and opposition and friends) happily tell a lie that kills hundreds of thousands of people and then, as if nothing happened, offer advice on petty morality or condemn a petty criminal or give sympathy over petty matters. They seem more like alien actors pretending to be human beings.

  • researcher

    I can’t believe the games being played with the automatic comments censorship here.

  • Andy

    Hang on a minute matey, how many people would your mate Saddam have killed in that time? (Re your side bar figure). So I guess you figure Saddam was a pretty good guy and should have been left in place. Well, if you argue the wall was illegal I think you have a point, but to suggest that things would have been so much better if the butcher was left in charge is really pushing it!

  • Ruth

    The butchery in Iraq has been quite the norm since the demise of Saddam. The difference is that this butchery is carried out by those who call themselves Christians and believers in democracy. But all they are in fact are thieves, torturers and murderers.

  • Craig

    researcher

    sorry about the comments problems – its a technical glitch, I think, rather than anything more sinister.

    Grateful if people ignore Andy’s attempts to throw this thread wildly off subject.

  • Mike

    “Why will parliament not hear me?”

    Because they are a bunch of two-faced, hypocritical, lying, torturing, mass-murderers and psychotics of selfishness who have spent so long lying to everyone else they can no longer recognise the truth.

    Or am I being unfair?

  • Mike

    And in a slightly more level headed tone:

    because they aren’t interested in the truth – only in power. If you want to be ‘listened’ to try telling them something they want to hear.

    But then you join the ruling elite and power and abuse are synonymous.

    So you get a choice: be ignored and decent, or be heard and abuse.

    It seems pretty obvious to me that neither parliament nor the mainstream media have any interest in the ‘truth’. Only in continuing to use power to sustain their acts of egotistical imperialism.

    Battling power is probably a lost cause at one level, apart from the personal satisfaction it can deliver, but if no one fights that battle we all end up worse off.

    I see no end to the battle of eternal greed that humans have always fought and probably always will.

    Thomas Hobbes was right in his “war of all against all” and democracy hasn’t changed that battle, only the battlefield.

    The ego wars of life. Later.

  • Stevie

    Craig,

    do you have a contact address/email regarding Mark Egan and other members of the ‘Committee’ that we can contact to urge them to follow you up on your request to give evidence. Thanks

  • MJ

    “Why will parliament not hear me?”

    Actually Craig, it might. Or at least the PJHRC is deferring its final refusal of your request until next Tuesday. When it comes I trust you will post the text here. I’m sure it will make very interesting reading.

  • anticant

    I also hope you will send it to the “Times”, “Guardian”, Independent”, and “Telegraph” as at least one of them should be willing to publish it.

    And will you please re-post your own email address – the one on your ‘Invite Craig to Speak’ page doesn’t work.

  • john

    Tell them they will have to torture you to find out what you know about torture. They will be hammering down your door in no time.

  • suraci

    Craig, can you put up a post that you are not suicidal, not in poor physical shape, that you don’t go walking in the hills, or swimming in winter. You could add that you don’t drive fast, juggle with knives or enjoy breaking into lions cages etc.

    Just so that should any harm come to you, we can all put this post. Should any harm come to you, it’ll probably be something we haven’t thought of, savaged by a rabid kitten or something.

    Best regards, hope you stay posting for years yet, though I frankly doubt it.

  • NomadUK

    Mark Egan is a flunky, I’m sure. You want someone to write to? Write to the MPs on the committee. Here they are:

    Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Chair)

    Mr John Austin MP

    Dr Evan Harris MP

    Mr Virendra Sharma MP

    Mr Richard Shepherd MP

    Mr Edward Timpson MP

    Lord Bowness

    Lord Dubs

    Lord Lester of Herne Hill

    Lord Morris of Handsworth

    The Earl of Onslow

    Baroness Prashar

    And you can send post to them at the usual place:

    House of Commons

    Westminster

    London

    SW1A 0AA

    House of Lords

    Westminster

    London

    SW1A 0PW

    Or send it directly to the committee:

    Joint Committee on Human Rights

    Committee Office

    House of Commons

    7 Millbank

    London SW1P 3JA

  • Vida

    Iraq was not invaded in order to remove Saddam Hussein but because we were told that Iraq was threatening us with nuclear weapons – pack of lies of course but that is what politicians do. I’ve asked the Committee to hear you and your evidence but don’t hold out any hopes – time we got rid of the lot of them and established a new Co-operative Commonwealth run on concensual lines.

  • Other John

    >The wires from Whitehall to >Westminster and thw whips offices are

    >already whispering yet again that

    >Craig Murray is mad, alcoholic,

    >corrupt and a pervert.

    If you don’t defend torturing people, if you don’t defend dropping bombs on the heads of children, you’re a pervert?

    The fact that they are resorting to personal abuse, which is very unprofessional – but since when were politicians professional? – is evidence that they are lying and have lost the argument.

    It should now be clear to everyone why the Labour Party – and the Tory Party – need to be destroyed. They have no respect for any of us, let alone human rights.

    I will be voting BNP in the next election, because there is no alternative now. Men who murder and impoverish children, and who want to give themselves the means to spy on all our Internet activity without a court order and without any oversight – at a cost of £12 billion to us – are not going to blackmail me: “It’s us or no one,” they are telling us, “Nothing you can do but vote for the two main parties”. I can vote BNP!

    As for Richard Dawkins, the man who wants to be another Thatcher, shaping society to his will, here’s what Steve Davis, a science blogger, has to say about Dawkins’ use of the term, “The Selfish Gene” (google “The Richard Dawkins Dilemma – Illusions of Natural Selection”):

    “For those readers who might be wondering about the reference to selfish gene theory having its roots not in science but in British history, here’s the explanation. The idea that selfishness is the primary motivator in human affairs emerged from the Norman Conquest, but was first articulated by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th Century. This idea struck a chord with a section of the British intelligentsia, as a result Hobbes is still regarded as an outstanding philosopher despite being proved wrong by Charles Darwin. So entrenched had Hobbes’ false view become that even Thomas Huxley perverted Darwin’s ideas on the evolution of human society.

    “Here is a snapshot of Thomas Hobbes’ theory of society: Individuals are concerned only with their own self-interest, they compete with other individuals within society to further that self-interest, society is an artificial construct built by individuals to protect them from other ruthless individuals and from outside dangers, society is secondary to the individual.

    “Here’s a snapshot of Dawkins’ theory of selfish genes. The primary function of genes is their own survival, they compete with alleles for a place in an organism, an organism being a structure built by genes to facilitate their survival in a natural world fraught with danger, from an evolutionary standpoint the organism is secondary to the gene.

    “Clearly Dawkins’ theory of selfish genes is no more than a rewrite of Hobbes’ political views.

    “Still not convinced? Consider Dawkins; SG p26, ‘For our purposes the word allele is synonymous with rival.’ For our purposes?! In science there should be no such thing as ‘our purposes.’ And just two pages before he had stated that genes have no foresight and do not plan ahead, which rules out rivalry altogether.

    “The Selfish Gene was not a book on science, it misused science to present a worldview. The sad and ironic fact is that Dawkins was, unconsciously, propagating a meme.”

    **

    Richard Dawkins’ view has been proved wrong by the latest research that shows the genes that survive from one generation to the next are not the “selfish” ones, not the ones that “out-compete” the others for their own “selfish” gain, but ones that are best at co-operating and co-existing with the rest of the genes in the gene pool.

    Richard Dawkins is trying to finish off the job Thatcher did. He has made no contribution to science, he doesn’t do any research – he just expounds his beliefs and writes propaganda “pamphlets” for the public – the guy is a politician!

    Interesting how selfishness is rooted in British history.

    One interesting quote from Thomas Hobbes, though, is this one: “Men are addicted to power because gaining power is the only guarantee of living well.”

    Certainly is in 2009 Britain.

  • researcher

    Thank you, Other John.

    Just like game theory: junk science as propaganda for the brainwashed.

    Are you sure those in power are living well ? Do they feel good ? Or are they cold suckers without feelings ?

  • Other John

    Sorry to go on about this stuff. I must stop, as this is a political blog not a science one.

    Scientists once told people that animals, such as dogs, were not conscious and, therefore, felt no pain (incredibly, some still do). So there in front of you is a dog writhing about in agony, whimpering, and doing everything you’d expect an animal in extreme pain to be doing, but a scientist tells you that, actually, that dog is feeling no pain WHATSOEVER – its behaviour is all a display!

    Where is the science that proves this? A dog can’t speak, so it’s at the mercy of some idiotic scientist who is too fond of his own intellect.

    Scientists used to tell us that humans occupied a special place in the universe – only humans are conscious, only humans feel pain. Sounds like something out of a religion, no?

    Scientists tell us, we – or rather our bodies – evolved. If we evolved, then we are an animal, and as we are conscious and feel pain, it makes sense that there MUST BE many other animals that are also conscious and feel pain. But it’s taken a very long time for certain scientists to acknowledge this fact.

    When it comes to inanimate objects, I will defer to a scientist’s better judgement, but when it comes to living creatures – of which I am one! – I will not defer to intellectual arrogance and stupidity.

    The latest intellectual arrogance is that the movement of matter in the brain creates consciousness.

    Scientists once thought Newton’s laws of motions could explain the movement of elementary particles, but they were wrong. The strange world inhabited by atoms and electrons could only be explained by Quantum theory, which no one truly understands.

    Scientists are in an equal fix today over consciousness – they just refuse to admit it. Or, in Dawkins’ case, refuse to even acknowledge its existence.

    An interesting quote from Albert Einstein (I can’t find the page in the book where he was cited, so I’ll paraphrase): science will never be able to explain the taste of this soup I’m eating.

  • Other John

    @RESEARCHER

    Well, I’m not saying Dawkins is spouting complete junk science – just that he’s interpreting things according to an agenda, or what he believes, and that’s fatal in science. He should never have used the term “selfish gene”. Genes aren’t selfish. Genes are bits of matter, and just are!

    >Are you sure those in power are living

    >well ? Do they feel good ? Or are they

    >cold suckers without feelings ?

    I would say they are cold suckers without feelings. Also doing pretty well financially – at least those at the top of the political ladder – white-collar crooks always do!

  • researcher

    Thanks, Other John.

    Did you know that Einstein was a fraud too ?

    Science is corrupt just like politics and mass media.

    Directed largely by those printing our money.

    The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (Bjerknes 2006)

    The Einstein Hoax – The Disastrous Intellectual War On Common Sense (H.E.Retic 1997)

  • Other John

    RESEARCHER writes: “Thanks, Other John. Did you know that Einstein was a fraud too ?”

    No, and I’d like evidence that he was. I’ve heard Internet rumours about Einstein, but no one corroborates what they say.

    For example, I’ve heard people claim that Einstein was a Jew and that he stole his theories from others. First, unless Einstein practiced the Jewish religion, he was not a Jew.

    Second, this kind of nonsense just plays right into the hands of Israel and Jewish extremists, allowing them to “vindicate” the lie that Jews are persecuted around the world, and, hence, they need a state that’s armed to the teeth.

    Einstein had to debate with some of the best theoretical physicists of his time – and, of all time! If Einstein was a fraud, he would have been exposed in seconds.

    Richard Feynman, as a young man, had to give a lecture to Einstein. At one point in the lecture, Einsten told Feynman to move on, that he knew all this.

    I will read the reviews of those books, though.

    But, yes, you’re right, science can be just as corrupt as politics, with agendas dominating the presentation of ideas, instead of allowing facts to speak for themselves – or not, as the case maybe. It should not be the job of scientists to proselytise others into certain beliefs.

    Calling genes “selfish” is not real science. Semir Zeki is a professor of neurobiology, an atheist, who researches consciousness. However, his research papers are objective, and he doesn’t let his beliefs interfere with his science. He just tells you what he did and what the results were.

    However, when journalists interview him, he does seem to let his personal beliefs shape what he has to say. However, he’s nothing like Dawkins.

    But, then, Zeki is just a man of his time – present day scientific orthodoxy forbids one to say that consciousness might be something other than the mere interaction of matter. Anyone who says otherwise is “clearly” stupid, or a religious nut.

    But, how is it stupid to say that matter does not feel anything, so how can matter interacting with other matter end up feeling pain? It makes no sense whatsoever, and I’ve read enough to realise that scientists and atheists have no answer – so they are hardly in a position to preach to the rest of us.

  • Other John

    I watched a TV programme today on the Nazis. It correctly stated that Hitler believed in “Darwinism” – or, rather, his own corrupt form of it – and the “survival of the strongest”.

    That should help counter Richard Dawkins’ propaganda that religion is the root of all evil. Even today, there are scientists and others who believe in eugenics, but after Hitler’s atrocities, they dare not make their views known.

    The Conservative party believes exactly what Hitler believed: “survival of the strongest”. But, then, the Tories are the CORPORATE party, and corporations have a long history of abusing human rights and impoverishing people. In 1930s Germany, for example, it was corporations – or, rather, CEOs – who supported Hitler’s rise to power, writing missives to the government and urging those with influence to push Hitler to the top. Corporations like ABSOLUTE CONTROL, which is what Hitler was offering the country, but it backfired badly for them in the 1940s.

    Just like Hitler, Tory politicians are damaged individuals, lacking empathy, understanding, and compassion. The only thing they have any concern about is money and their own lives.

    It’s SURVIVAL OF THE BEST ADAPTED TO ONE’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, not survival of the fittest or strongest. Humans, however, live in artificial environment, the work of our imagination. “Darwinism”, therefore, no longer applies to us.

    Evolution is also not about a species trying to impoverish and destroy its own kind, or a few individuals dominating the rest of the species, which is what politicians seem to think it’s about.

    Penguins expose this lie. When temperatures plummet, penguins gather around in a very large group and huddle together to keep warm. According to Conservative politicians – which the Labour party now mimics – the penguins on the outside should be left to die, as they are clearly the weakest, incapable of fighting their way towards the centre of the group to keep warm. However, this NOT what happens. The penguins on the outside eventually move in, and other, much warmer, penguins move to the outside. The burden of keeping warm is SHARED amongst all the penguins.

    Animals only care about themselves and their offspring, right? That’s evolution, right?

    But captured on tape was a herd of buffalo walking past a nearby buffalo being mauled by three of four lions. Suddenly a whole line of buffalos turned to face the lions, and a couple of the bravest ones ran forward and attacked the lions.

    So much for the “selfish” gene.

    Richard Dawkins influence is, sadly, spreading. A particular Canadian author, I used to read, has obviously read Dawkins, because – for no reason other than he wanted to say it – he wrote in a story that we share 50% of our genes with each parent and our siblings, so we care about them the most. We share 12.5% of our genes with our first cousins, so we care about them a quarter as much, and so on.

    The author, paraphrasing Dawkins, wrote that those who have none of our genes are people we “DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT”.

    The only notion Dawkins seems to be communicating to others is the notion of selfishness.

    First, humans that aren’t related to each other have a lot of genes in common. If they didn’t, one would have to be a completely different species – perhaps a plant from Alpha Centauri to be so different.

    Second, there are many dysfunctional families – or brother and sisters – who refuse to let genes get in the way of a dislike for each other. We’ve all heard the expression: you can choose your friends, but not your family.

    Third, there are cases where a cat and a dog have been brought up together and treat each other like family. According to Dawkins, however, the dog should kill the cat – for they have no genes in common.

    Many humans and animals live together like family. A pot-bellied pig once saved his owner from an attack. A burglar had entered the house, so the pig charged the man, winding him, then stood guard whilst his owner called the police.

    Children who are adopted should also not give a damn about their adopted parents and vice versa.

    The examples go on and on that violate this particular Dawkin’s religious tenet. So much for the genes having the final word on these matters.

    Finally, what has Dawkins described that the Canadian author wrote about? What kind of human is it that literally DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN about anyone, save, perhaps, his closest relatives?

    What would you call someone who has no empathy, no compassion, no concern for anyone – and, hence, no scruples and no conscience?

    Psychopath, perhaps? Or maybe a politician?

  • Other John

    Funny how our own country and our own lives have become irrelevant.

    My final post, as the British won’t debate anything – that’s generally! – so it’s better I expend my energy on my own survival.

    People are looking for a saviour, a political celebrity, to do what only we, the public, acting together, can do. So I suggest we punish the unemployed and disabled, and accuse those who are against Internet surveillance of having something to hide (I’m being sarcastic, but that’s about the level of debate in this country).

    As for “survival of the strongest”, animals aren’t consciously trying to destroy or harm other animals in the name of some ideology. They just live, and use various survival strategies for doing so. They don’t understand the implications of what they are doing, not in the way that we do. Only humans have a well developed sense of right and wrong pervading our every waking moment, only humans know the full consequences of their actions, think it all through, and still go ahead and harm others, and even get pleasure from doing so.

    So, even if it were “survival of the strongest”, it would still not apply to humans as we know EXACTLY what we are doing: we know we are harming others, and we know we are doing wrong.

    And doing wrong is something even scientists do – as RESEARCHER pointed out – along with the politicians. Many are pushing GM crops, including James Watson, the co-discoverer of the double helix. Even the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures had a scientist telling the audience of children that GM food will feed the hungry.

    Google “Biotech Snake Oil: A Quack Cure for Hunger”.

    “…the UN and World Bank recently completed an unprecedentedly broad scientific assessment of world agriculture…which concluded that biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate poverty and hunger. This four-year effort, which engaged some 400 experts from multiple disciplines, originally included industry representatives. Just three months before the final report was released, however, Monsanto, Syngenta and chemical giant BASF pulled out of the process, miffed by the poor marks given their favorite technology. This withdrawal upset even the industry-friendly journal Nature, which chided the companies in an editorial entitled, ‘Deserting the Hungry?'”

    **

    Google “deserting the hungry” and “nature” to read the second article.

    Economics and politics are responsible for hunger, not lack of technology.

    James Watson, in his book “DNA”, admitted that GM crops have no useful function right now, but advises that we accept them so that companies can make profits, and then invest those profits in further R&D to create actually useful GM crops.

    Nice try, Mr Watson. What this really is about is jobs for the biotech boys. Biotech scientists have the opportunity to leave academia, set up companies, and get rich. The public are being fed a pack of lies by certain so-called scientists so that the corporations they work for can make fat profits.

    The focus should NOT be on food safety – although that is important – but on how corporations are turning plants that nature created, plants that we all own, into patented products that only corporations own. A scientist, for example, adds a gene to a plant – a very minor modification! – and that entitles him to claim a patent on the entire plant’s genome. The seed companies who supply most of the seed to farmers also happen to be the same companies doing the genetic modification. Their economic interests, therefore, lie in selling only patented seeds, and feeding the public a cock and bull story about how GM food is needed to feed the hungry. Poor farmers actually speak out against GM crops.

    What this really is about is turning the source of all our nutrition – what keeps us alive! – into a corporate-owned and controlled product. Who in their right mind would think this is the right path to go down?

    I can name one: Tony Blair. Thatcher, of course, would have been right behind him.

Comments are closed.