On Twitter I 'follow' swissinfo_en. Yesterday swissinfo_en posted this tweet:

"Polanski visits Montreux Jazz Festival http://bit.ly/bamVUO "

The link is to a news item which commences with this statement:

"Roman Polanski has made his first
public appearance since being released
on Monday from house arrest in Switzerland,
attending the Montreux Jazz Festival."

The news item goes on to say, among other things, that:

"Swiss officials turned down the demand
[for Polanski's extradition to the US],
citing potential technical faults and
saying that their request for access to
confidential testimony had been turned down.

Th[ese] documents would have helped clarify
whether the director of films including
Chinatown and The Pianist had in fact served
his sentence more than 30 years ago, the
officials believed."

This news may be of interest and relevance to OLO viewers, and others, given what arose out of GrahamY's General Discussion topic 'The Polanski conundrum - when is pedophilia forgivable', started on 28 September 2009. It was while contributing to this thread that I learned of the US demand for Brian Howes' extradition from the UK.

It would seem the Swiss have finally sucked it up. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3093#73927

Perhaps they got indigestion from eating too much Trojan Horse. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3093#74752

And all this so soon after Bastille Day, too!



What about Brian Howes, Julia? If the USDOJ is telling the truth in its request to the UK government, there are grounds (and other reasons) for extraditing him to Australia.

You're Prime Minister in Australia now, and Gordon Brown is no longer Prime Minister in the UK. You wont be creating a problem for a fellow Labour PM. You also can't be accused of creating a destabilising problem for the Australian government (its now YOUR government) as you may have been able to have been when you were only Deputy PM.

You know what people are saying, that you didn't have any independent views under Kevin. Here's a chance to prove them wrong.

POlanski's crime in Switzerland is that he is not a Catholic Priest. The Swiss would not protect him like they have if he was. The usual leftist double standards.

Er runner, you must at least have read the opening post to some extent to have cottoned-on to the name Polanski you used in your post, brief as it is, as it does not feature in the topic title at all. Did you by any chance only read as far as the second, or maybe even the fifth, line of the post?

Just to save the Prime Minister's minders' time in wading through yet-to-be-posted irrelevancies, I'll take this opportunity to make it clear that the topic is not about Polanski, crime, Catholic Priests, leftists, or double standards. It is about the abuse or perversion of the course of justice as it may be administered within the US, and the export of that administration of justice by way of a bullying disrespect for the sovereignty and judicial processes of other mature democracies, such as those of Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Australia, on the part of the USDOJ.

In the ultimate it is about Brian Howes, arrest and detention without CHARGE (let alone trial), and whether the Australian Prime Minister, now facing a Federal election, is prepared to uphold the historic protections of our shared British legal and constitutional heritage against the abuse of executive authority, and assist in getting, at the least, an extradition HEARING for Brian Howes. It is my understanding she could do this by trumping the US extradition request for Howes at the last minute with an Australian one.

Julia Gillard could do this against a background of a somewhat similar sell-out of a permanently resident British subject in Australia having been done under the Howard government, that of the case of Hew Griffiths. While doing so, she could ponder the necessary implications of the rider to sub-section (iv) of Section 44 of the Constitution for the disfranchisement of all of the 'ten pound poms' and their children and the constitutionality of the 1982 legislation that barred them from the electoral rolls.

runner, you missed your time and place in history. AD 32. Jerusalem - The Pavement, the mob. Crucify!

Runner, you are dead wrong (as tediously usual).

The priests *Know* when they do wrong, and they presume, as you do, to represent the view of a "god" they demonstrably know nothing about. They even dispense "punishments" and historically "favours" in the name of their "god".

The only problem with "they deserve all they get" is that there is no such "god" to make sure.

Like runner, they think words written on paper by men are more important than reality (whether "created" by a "god" or not).

This is a failing. I am thankful the catholics are *supposed* to be celibate. It reduces the prevalence of the genetic component of their pathology. Hopefully we can do the same for the cultural component.

Rusty

A news article on page 19 of the Sydney Sun-Herald of 18 July 2010 highlights the potential relevance of the Howes case to Australia. That article can be viewed online here: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/designers-jail-hell-as-police-mistake-powder-for-drugs-20100717-10f53.html

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the article is the claim that despite having made a mistake in having identified the white powder found in Lisa Maree Boersma's car as a methamphetamine precursor chemical, and knowing it was a mistake, the police still refused to drop their charges, charges which if sustained carried a penalty of 25 years gaol!

Equally disturbing was this statement in the news item:

"the [white] powder was caffeine dimethyl sulfone,
a legally obtainable supplement taken by bodybuilders."

The similarities as to supply/possession of legally obtainable chemicals, together with drug law enforcement official intransigence in both the Howes' case in the UK, and the Boersma case in Australia, leads to suspicion that a plea-bargaining style of bullying may have been going to be attempted upon Boersma while she still had those unfounded charges hanging over her head. That's what the USDEA and USDOJ have tried to do with the Howes.

The commendable decision of the Swiss authorities to refuse Polanski's extradition is relevant, and an appropriate lead-in to this matter, because much surrounding that extradition request has to do with the evils of plea-bargaining as it may be used in the US to advance certain careers at the expense of the liberty of innocent citizens from within, but more importantly, outside, US jurisdiction.

The Swiss seem to be waking up to this 'system'. I suggest it is time Australia does, too.

The Swiss may also be waking up to possible compromise of their governmental and electoral processes in the IT area, following the Trojan Horse discoveries in the Swiss Foreign Affairs department's computer system, to which I made reference in the last post to the now archived 'Polanski conundrum' thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3093#74752

It is my understanding that the Swiss have been experimenting with computerized elections. I am uncertain as to whether that is in the areas of vote casting, vote counting, electoral roll management, or all three. I would certainly not be surprised to learn that it might at least be in the area of electoral roll management, for it was from Switzerland that the Australian Electoral Commission (or its outsourcee) imported its optical mark recognition (OMR) scanners, first used for the 1987 Federal elections.

Hermes Precisa is, I understand, a Swiss company, one which I presume to be, or have been at some point, related as a parent-company to Hermes Precisa (Australia). Hermes Precisa (Australia) Pty Ltd had a role in the introduction, in the mid-1980s, of the unique-to-polling-place certified lists (and its associated OMR scanning of the marked-off electoral rolls) now routinely used for the conduct of Australian elections. I think for a number of years Zygmund Edward Switkowski was the Chairman of this company at a time when he was also a senior executive of Kodak (Australasia), but whether this means that Kodak have, or had, a controlling, or for that matter any, interest in HPA I do not know.

Funny how a TV dramatization can bring matters from the past to mind. The airing of the docudrama 'Hawke' in recent days has brought to mind the $60 million of Australian taxpayers funds that was made available to Kodak in 1986, Kodak having at that time a significant presence in the electoral division of Wills, in Melbourne, Hawke's old electorate. There would have been obvious local employment implications to Kodak's presence there, if jobs is what those taxpayers' funds were used for sustaining.

A Swiss connection.

How's that?