Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Anti-Protest Laws

News Fifth column Recommended Links Wikipedia Article Reference Color revolutions
US anti-protest laws Canada anti-protest laws        
Compradors Russian compradors

Color revolution playbook

NGOs in Russia Revolving door between US government and human rights watch Sect of fraudulent election witnesses
Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair "Fight with Corruption" as a smoke screen for neoliberal penetration into host countries Anatol Leiven on American Messianism New American Militarism Humor Etc

Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Anti-Protest Law Passed by Congress

DarkGovernment
A bill passed Monday in the US House of Representatives and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony-a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration-to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the "anti-Occupy" law, but its implications are far broader.

The bill-H.R. 347, or the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011"-was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.

The virtually unanimous passage of H.R. 347 starkly exposes the fact that, despite all the posturing, the Democrats and the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the corporate and financial oligarchy, which regarded last year's popular protests against social inequality with a mixture of fear and hostility.

Among the central provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that would make it a criminal offense to "enter or remain in" an area designated as "restricted."

The bill defines the areas that qualify as "restricted" in extremely vague and broad terms. Restricted areas can include "a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" and "a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

The Secret Service provides bodyguards not just to the US president, but to a broad layer of top figures in the political establishment, including presidential candidates and foreign dignitaries.

Even more sinister is the provision regarding events of "national significance." What circumstances constitute events of "national significance" is left to the unbridled discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. The occasion for virtually any large protest could be designated by the Department of Homeland Security as an event of "national significance," making any demonstrations in the vicinity illegal.

For certain, included among such events would be the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, which have been classified as National Special Security Events (NSSE), a category created under the Clinton administration. These conventions have been the occasion for protests that have been subjected to ever increasing police restrictions and repression. Under H.R. 347, future protests at such events could be outright criminalized.

The standard punishment under the new law is a fine and up to one year in prison. If a weapon or serious physical injury is involved, the penalty may be increased to up to ten years.

Also criminalized by the bill is conduct "that impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions" and "obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds." These provisions, even more so than the provisions creating "restricted areas," threaten to criminalize a broad range of protest activities that were previously perfectly legal.

In order to appreciate the unprecedented sweep of H.R. 347, it is necessary to consider a few examples:

Under the ancien regime in France, steps were taken to ensure that the "unwashed masses" were kept out of sight whenever a carriage containing an important aristocrat or church official was passing through. Similarly, H.R. 347 creates for the US president and other top officials a protest-free bubble or "no-free-speech zone" that follows them wherever they go, making sure the discontented multitude is kept out of the picture.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act is plainly in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which was passed in 1791 in the aftermath of the American Revolution. The First Amendment provides: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (The arrogance of the Democratic and Republican politicians is staggering-what part of "Congress shall make no law" do they not understand?)

H.R. 347 comes on the heels of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was signed by President Obama into law on December 31, 2011. The NDAA gives the president the power to order the assassination and incarceration of any person-including a US citizen-anywhere in the world without charge or trial.

The passage of H.R. 347 has been the subject of a virtual blackout in the media. In light of the unprecedented nature of the bill, which would effectively overturn the First Amendment, this blackout cannot be innocent. The media silence therefore represents a conscious effort to keep the American population in the dark as to the government's efforts to eviscerate the Bill of Rights.

The bill would vastly expand a previous law making it misdemeanor to trespass on the grounds of the White House. An earlier version of the bill would have made it a felony just to "conspire" to engage in any of the conduct described above. The bill now awaits President Obama's signature before it becomes the law of the land.

What lies behind the unprecedented attack underway on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a growing understanding in the ruling class that the protests that took place around the world against social inequality in 2011 will inevitably re-emerge in more and more powerful forms in 2012 and beyond, as austerity measures and the crashing economy make the conditions of life more and more impossible for the working class. The virtually unanimous support in Congress H.R. 347, among Democrats as well as Republicans, reflects overriding sentiment within the ruling establishment for scrapping all existing democratic rights in favor of dictatorial methods of rule.

This sentiment was most directly expressed this week by Wyoming Republican legislator David Miller, who recently introduced a bill into the state legislature that would give the state the power, in an "emergency," to create its own standing army through conscription, print its own currency, acquire military aircraft, suspend the legislature, and establish martial law. "Things happen quickly sometimes-look at Libya, look at Egypt, look at those situations," Miller told the Star-Tribune in Casper, Wyoming. Repeating arguments employed by every military dictatorship over the past century, Miller declared, "We wouldn't have time to meet as a Legislature or even in special session to do anything to respond." Miller's so-called "doomsday law" was defeated in the Wyoming legislature Tuesday by the narrow margin of 30-27.

Via: wsws

March 5th, 2012 | Tags: anti protest, anti protest law, congress, law, occupy, wall street | Category: Law

CB, March 5, 2012 at 9:05 am ∑

This law constitutes a total infringement on the precise right the First Amendment was penned to protect! I think most of the Occupiers are young, brainwashed, and misguided serfs who are begging their masters for more of the same violence (government law and rule) that created their predicaments in the first place, but they have a right to protest.
.
PenguinCookies, March 11, 2012 at 1:31 pm
I wouldn't say they're brainwashed, though a lot of motives are unclear. I do believe it is time for a new generation to take charge though.
Geoff, March 14, 2012 at 7:17 pm
While I am sure Rep. Paul would have voted against this bill, I am guessing the fact that he did not vote means he was not in D.C. at the time. I would also point out that Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn, did vote against the bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h20Ö

Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill - RT USA

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events - essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill's latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don't realize is Secret Service protected and "engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct" or "impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions."

The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form "means it's easier to prosecute under 'knowingly,'" instead of both knowingly and willfully, "which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime." Speaking with IB Times, Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.

"[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn't supported by the facts," Verheyden-Hilliard adds. "This has always been a bad law."

Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union adds to IB Times, "Bottom line, it doesn't create any new violations of the law." So far, however, it has raised awareness of the levels that the US government are willing to go to in order to make it harder to express ones' self.

Under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars, and the thing about the Secret Service (in case you couldn't tell by their name), is that they don't always make it clear where they are. You could even say that the service they provide, at times, is kept secret.

Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now officially covered under Secret Service protection, making it a federal offense to disrupt a campaign stop. That means whether it's by way of a glitter bomb protest or causing a disturbance on the same Holiday Inn hotel floor that Santorum is staying in, doing such could cause a bit of a legal battle for the persons involved.

Although the G-8 Summit originally scheduled for Chicago this spring would have made much of the Windy City a protected area where crimes could easily be tacked on to arrested protesters, the event was moved this week to the presidential retreat at Camp David. In turn, many have suggested that the White House is only going out of their way to limit protesting rights. While a Chicago summit would have meant the Trespass Bill could have been enforced in the same area where thousands of demonstrators were expected to protest, moving the event to a heavily fortified rural location will instead deter protesters from likely coming close atto the meeting at all.

And before you forget, the president can now detain you for getting too close to his front yard, order your assassination if the country considers you a threat and lock you away for life with no charge if you're alleged to be a terrorist. You, on the other hand, can't yell obscenities at Newt Gingrich without risking arrest.

Recommended Links

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles

Sites

Anti-mask laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In many US states, there are anti-mask laws.[1]

Anti-mask laws date back to the mid 20th Century when states and municipalities passed them as to inhibit the Ku Klux Klan, whose members typically wore hoods of white linen to conceal their identities.[2][better source needed]
In some states you may be required to carry a note from your physician stating that you need to wear the mask for health reasons.[1]

In current times masked political protestors, such as those in the Occupy Movement, and in particular, Anonymous, a collective group of online hackers with strong political beliefs, who consistently sport Guy Fawkes masks, have been targeted with anti-masking laws.[3][4][5][6]

Ukraine Proposes Sweeping Crackdown on Dissent

January 16, 2014 | RIA Novosti

The measures threaten jail terms for protesters who block entrances to government buildings and 15 days in detention for those who take part in demonstrations not sanctioned by the police, even if peaceful.

Protesters also face up to 15 days in detention for covering their faces with masks or helmets. People will also be detained for 15 days if they set up tents, stages or other makeshift structures without approval from city authorities.

The move is apparently aimed at the thousands of people who have joined anti-government protests on Kiev's Independence Square, known as Maidan.

The Financial Times said demonstrators faced up to 10 years in prison for blocking access to government buildings, a tactic adopted by protesters in Kiev since anger erupted over President Viktor Yanukovych's rejection of an association agreement with the European Union in November.

Yanukovych opted instead for closer ties with the Russian-led Customs Union, a move that has prompted continuous street protests.

The measures, which were introduced only on January 14, were passed by a show of hands by the pro-presidential majority, with 235 of 450 deputies in support. The parliament's electronic voting system was said to be out of use because opposition deputies were blocking it.

The package of 11 laws, which must be signed by Yanukovych, also threatens up to a year's hard labor in prison for anyone convicted of libel, including on the internet. It also aims to require all internet media to register with the authorities.

Emulating a similar controversial law in Russia, the legislation also proposes to force civil society groups and non-governmental organizations to label themselves as a "foreign agent" on all their publications If they receive any funding from abroad.

The term "foreign agent" is seen by many people as a throwback to a Soviet-era term that branded dissidents as traitors and spies for criticizing the regime.

The legislation also seeks to outlaw motorcades of more than five cars by threatening to confiscate their vehicles and revoke drivers' licences for two years if they do not have permission fro the Interior Ministry.

The move targets members of Automaidan, a pro-European movement whose members drive in motorcades around Kiev and use their cars to block riot police busses as well as access to government buildings and pretrial detention facilities where detained activists are being held.

In one of their most notable protests, thousands of honking cars with protesters drove within 350 meters (about 1,000 feet) of the president's suburban residence outside Kiev on December 29.

The bill also allows Ukrainian authorities to block online pages, if experts conclude that their content is unlawful.

Mikhail1228:

More duplicity and hypocrisy, 22:50, 16/01/2014

The story above states,"Emulating a similar controversial law in Russia, the legislation also proposes to force civil society groups and non-governmental organizations to label themselves as a "foreign agent" on all their publications If they receive any funding from abroad".

First, some background supplied by the FEC: The goal of the 1966 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was to "minimize foreign intervention" in U.S. elections by establishing a series of limitations on foreign governments and nationals. In 1974, the prohibition was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), giving the FEC jurisdiction over its enforcement and interpretation.

According to the FEC, FECA "prohibits any foreign national or government from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals or governments violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."

This new Russian Law was modeled after existing US Laws. So if this
new law is controversial and draconian why isn't the same US law taken to task?

Why, because this is more, don't do what we do, only do what we tell you to do!

Duplicity and hypocrisy at its finest!!!

Arthur Clark

Duplicity and hypocrisy at its finest!!!, 06:31, 17/01/2014

Yes you are absolutely correct, in the USA these demonstrators would have been cleared from the streets the very first day. Also correct about the foreign agent law -- Ukraine should have passed similar legislation long ago.

Anti-Protest Law Passed by Congress " DarkGovernment

A bill passed Monday in the US House of Representatives and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony-a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration-to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the "anti-Occupy" law, but its implications are far broader.

The bill-H.R. 347, or the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011"-was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.

The virtually unanimous passage of H.R. 347 starkly exposes the fact that, despite all the posturing, the Democrats and the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the corporate and financial oligarchy, which regarded last year's popular protests against social inequality with a mixture of fear and hostility.

Among the central provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that would make it a criminal offense to "enter or remain in" an area designated as "restricted."

The bill defines the areas that qualify as "restricted" in extremely vague and broad terms. Restricted areas can include "a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" and "a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

The Secret Service provides bodyguards not just to the US president, but to a broad layer of top figures in the political establishment, including presidential candidates and foreign dignitaries.

Even more sinister is the provision regarding events of "national significance." What circumstances constitute events of "national significance" is left to the unbridled discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. The occasion for virtually any large protest could be designated by the Department of Homeland Security as an event of "national significance," making any demonstrations in the vicinity illegal.

For certain, included among such events would be the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, which have been classified as National Special Security Events (NSSE), a category created under the Clinton administration. These conventions have been the occasion for protests that have been subjected to ever increasing police restrictions and repression. Under H.R. 347, future protests at such events could be outright criminalized.

The standard punishment under the new law is a fine and up to one year in prison. If a weapon or serious physical injury is involved, the penalty may be increased to up to ten years.

Also criminalized by the bill is conduct "that impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions" and "obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds." These provisions, even more so than the provisions creating "restricted areas," threaten to criminalize a broad range of protest activities that were previously perfectly legal.

In order to appreciate the unprecedented sweep of H.R. 347, it is necessary to consider a few examples:

Under the ancien regime in France, steps were taken to ensure that the "unwashed masses" were kept out of sight whenever a carriage containing an important aristocrat or church official was passing through. Similarly, H.R. 347 creates for the US president and other top officials a protest-free bubble or "no-free-speech zone" that follows them wherever they go, making sure the discontented multitude is kept out of the picture.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act is plainly in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which was passed in 1791 in the aftermath of the American Revolution. The First Amendment provides: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (The arrogance of the Democratic and Republican politicians is staggering-what part of "Congress shall make no law" do they not understand?)

H.R. 347 comes on the heels of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was signed by President Obama into law on December 31, 2011. The NDAA gives the president the power to order the assassination and incarceration of any person-including a US citizen-anywhere in the world without charge or trial.

The passage of H.R. 347 has been the subject of a virtual blackout in the media. In light of the unprecedented nature of the bill, which would effectively overturn the First Amendment, this blackout cannot be innocent. The media silence therefore represents a conscious effort to keep the American population in the dark as to the government's efforts to eviscerate the Bill of Rights.

The bill would vastly expand a previous law making it misdemeanor to trespass on the grounds of the White House. An earlier version of the bill would have made it a felony just to "conspire" to engage in any of the conduct described above. The bill now awaits President Obama's signature before it becomes the law of the land.

What lies behind the unprecedented attack underway on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a growing understanding in the ruling class that the protests that took place around the world against social inequality in 2011 will inevitably re-emerge in more and more powerful forms in 2012 and beyond, as austerity measures and the crashing economy make the conditions of life more and more impossible for the working class. The virtually unanimous support in Congress H.R. 347, among Democrats as well as Republicans, reflects overriding sentiment within the ruling establishment for scrapping all existing democratic rights in favor of dictatorial methods of rule.

This sentiment was most directly expressed this week by Wyoming Republican legislator David Miller, who recently introduced a bill into the state legislature that would give the state the power, in an "emergency," to create its own standing army through conscription, print its own currency, acquire military aircraft, suspend the legislature, and establish martial law. "Things happen quickly sometimes-look at Libya, look at Egypt, look at those situations," Miller told the Star-Tribune in Casper, Wyoming. Repeating arguments employed by every military dictatorship over the past century, Miller declared, "We wouldn't have time to meet as a Legislature or even in special session to do anything to respond." Miller's so-called "doomsday law" was defeated in the Wyoming legislature Tuesday by the narrow margin of 30-27.

Via: wsws

March 5th, 2012 | Tags: anti protest, anti protest law, congress, law, occupy, wall street | Category: Law

Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill - RT USA

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events - essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill's latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don't realize is Secret Service protected and "engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct" or "impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions."

The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form "means it's easier to prosecute under 'knowingly,'" instead of both knowingly and willfully, "which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime." Speaking with IB Times, Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.

"[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn't supported by the facts," Verheyden-Hilliard adds. "This has always been a bad law."

Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union adds to IB Times, "Bottom line, it doesn't create any new violations of the law." So far, however, it has raised awareness of the levels that the US government are willing to go to in order to make it harder to express ones' self.

Under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars, and the thing about the Secret Service (in case you couldn't tell by their name), is that they don't always make it clear where they are. You could even say that the service they provide, at times, is kept secret.

Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now officially covered under Secret Service protection, making it a federal offense to disrupt a campaign stop. That means whether it's by way of a glitter bomb protest or causing a disturbance on the same Holiday Inn hotel floor that Santorum is staying in, doing such could cause a bit of a legal battle for the persons involved.

Although the G-8 Summit originally scheduled for Chicago this spring would have made much of the Windy City a protected area where crimes could easily be tacked on to arrested protesters, the event was moved this week to the presidential retreat at Camp David. In turn, many have suggested that the White House is only going out of their way to limit protesting rights. While a Chicago summit would have meant the Trespass Bill could have been enforced in the same area where thousands of demonstrators were expected to protest, moving the event to a heavily fortified rural location will instead deter protesters from likely coming close atto the meeting at all.

And before you forget, the president can now detain you for getting too close to his front yard, order your assassination if the country considers you a threat and lock you away for life with no charge if you're alleged to be a terrorist. You, on the other hand, can't yell obscenities at Newt Gingrich without risking arrest.

US Condemns Ukraine's Anti-Protest Laws as 'Undemocratic'

January 17 | RIA Novosti

The United States on Thursday condemned the parliament of Ukraine's decision to pass wide-ranging laws severely restricting the right to protest as undemocratic.

The measures were stiffly resisted by outraged opposition deputies in a testy, and sometimes violent, session in the Rada, but were nonetheless pushed through by the ruling pro-presidential Party of Regions.

"Both the process and the substance of the Rada's actions today cast serious doubt on Ukraine's commitment to democratic norms," the US State Department said in a statement following Thursday's parliamentary session.

The legislation passed by the Rada was apparently aimed at curtailing street demonstrations sparked by President Viktor Yanukovych's decision to back off from signing key integration agreements with the European Union in November.

US and EU diplomats also condemned Ukraine's parliament for violations of procedure. Laws were approved swiftly and largely without formal debate.

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt warned of "dark designs against democracy" in a post on Twitter.

The restrictive laws drew swift criticism from rights organizations.

"It is disheartening to watch the democratically elected government of Ukraine moving further away from the democratic aspirations of the people of Ukraine," said David Kramer, head of US-based rights advocacy group Freedom House.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara described the comments as an attempt to interfere in his country's internal affairs, while speaking at a meeting with US and European ambassadors on Friday.

"The minister expressed Ukraine's concern about comments by certain officials from foreign states and international organizations concerning the work of Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada," the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

"Kiev considers these comments to be interference in internal affairs of our state," the statement reads.

The bill passed by the Rada, which must be signed by Yanukovych to become law, included jail terms for protesters that block entrances to government buildings and threatens arrest for those who take part in unsanctioned demonstrations or who wear helmets or masks during rallies.

Measures also reportedly include new restrictions on Ukrainain NGOs apparently modelled on a similar law passed by Russia earlier this year, restrictions on the Internet and harsher punishments for extremism.

The parliamentary session took place amid scenes of chaos. Votes were counted by a show of hands, one deputy was pictured with bloody face after fist fights broke out between rival factions and opposition deputies occupied the rostrum in bid to stop the passage of the bill.

Opposition leaders in Ukraine compared the actions of the Party of the Regions to a coup, according to a BBC report.

Ukraine has been convulsed by mass street demonstrations since Yanukovych halted preparations to sign a long-planned free trade deal with the EU, and agreed a deal with Russia deepening economic ties.

Protesters have also occupied government buildings, and established barricades and a permanent tented camp in the center of the capital, Kiev.

Ignarus, The United States, 20:29, 17/01/2014

From what we can see, the United States comdemning the parliament of Ukraine is because the United States believes that the Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs is the same as the protesters and they the Americans aren't impartial, your friend.Kenneth Okpeki an ex-student of the London School of Management in the United Kingdom.

Mikhail1228

Hypocrisy! 20:38, 17/01/2014

So if police in Kiev clear its main square of squatters the way we cleared Zuccotti Park of Occupy Wall Street they are undemocratic that is hypocritical!



Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Haterís Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: September, 11, 2020