Josh’s blogg

HJFP have agreed to twin communities in Haringey with those in the village of Aizaria in the occupied West Bank. Twinning is described as promoting formal and informal links at all levels between British and Palestinian communities, with emphasis on grass roots friendship links and solidarity.   Aizaria (also known as Bethany) is a suburb of Jerusalem split off by a huge wall on three sides. All its land has been taken for the large (infamous) settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim. They are asking that Haringey friends go to Aizaria to see for themselves the way the wall, checkpoints , settlements and land grabs affect the people there and publicising this on return. The wall is destroying the economy. Its purpose is to annex large areas of Israeli settlements in and around Jerusalem and to separate off Palestinians from Palestinians. It splits people off from family & relatives, jobs & markets, universities & schools, health services and much more. Aizaria, Bethany is a sacred and historic town, home to Martha & Mary and their brother Lazarus and is very important to Muslims and Christians. It has thirteen Mosques and ten Churches who now cry out for the return of pilgrims and tourists.The historic road connecting Aizaria, Bethany to Jerusalem is now completely sealed off.

 A major battle is underway in France. The newly elected president Nicolas Sarkozy and his right wing government have launched a wave of attacks on workers and students.

But the movement against neoliberalism has fought back magnificently – with resolute rank and file activism to the fore.

The media is comparing Sarkozy’s attacks on French workers to those undertaken in Britain by Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s.

Spearheading the struggle are railway workers, whose strike has gone into a second week, and students, whose protests have affected more than half of France’s 85 universities.

Teachers, nurses, solicitors, magistrates, post workers, gas and electricity workers, fishermen and civil servants have also taken action, along with ballet dancers, actors and stagehands at both Paris opera houses and the Comédie-Française theatre.

Railway and metro workers are defending pension rights in the public sector.

They are part of a group of half a million workers who have the right to retire earlier on a full pension, although in return they make higher social security payments.

The government wants to end this “privilege” so that nobody is eligible for a full pension until they have worked for 40 years. It will then launch further attacks on the pension rights of all workers.

Opposition from the Socialist Party and its leader, François Hollande, has been weak.

He is in favour of pension reform and has only criticised the way Sarkozy has gone about it. As one railway worker put it, “When I hear poor old Hollande, I want to cry.”

Opposition

It is the railway and metro workers themselves, rather than the official opposition, who have taken the fight to Sarkozy. They walked out on strike on Tuesday of last week.

Daily mass meetings then voted to renew the action so they were still out when other public sector workers demonstrated over pay and job cuts on Tuesday of this week.

The government has entered into talks with some groups, such as gas and electricity workers, in the hope of isolating the railway workers.

It is trying to divide France’s various union federations and wants to draw the railway workers’ main union, the CGT, into calling off the strike, negotiating and selling out the fight over pensions.

But pressure from below has ensured the action has remained effective, with as much disruption to the transport system as during France’s great strike wave of 1995.

The CGT leadership knows that if it calls off the action it will lose credibility and members. But its control of events is already threatened by rank and file activity.

By ensuring the current strike has been continuous, union activists have prevented it from being focused on individual days of action and thereby fragmented.

Sarkozy is also confronted by another battle, led by students, against a new law which will shift control of higher education from the state to the market, opening the door to privatisation of the university system.

Disrupted

As the transport network ground to a halt last week, universities across the country were disrupted by action, with riot police attacking students who had set up blockades in Rennes and Nanterre.

The students’ national coordinating committee urged students to join workers on Tuesday of this week and to prepare for a nationwide strike in schools and universities two days later.

The students have also issued a call for every “sector in struggle” to mobilise for a day of action on Tuesday of next week.

The coordinating committee declared, “We must build a movement of all young people and workers to fight back against the government’s offensive.”

One student activist summed up the mood last week, “We’re not great leaders – we’re just students who are afraid our future is being flogged off.”

Anger at the havoc and misery caused by neoliberalism is what unites all the different groups now engaged in struggle, whether over pay, pensions or market-led education reforms.

Sarkozy has sought confrontation in order to neutralise their movement, which has undermined every French government elected since 1995.

But students and workers are drawing on the activist networks and experience they have built up over the past 12 years.

Despite the government’s offensive, this means they have entered the conflict with a higher level of organisation than on previous occasions.

Yet they are faced with a government that is confident it has a mandate for cutbacks and a trade union leadership that has failed to give impetus to the movement.

There are signs that the strikes are provoking tensions on the right. Last week Sarkozy was forced to head off attempts by members of his own UMP party to inflame the situation further by organising an anti-strike demonstration.

He knows that if the government is defeated, the reputation of his hardline presidency will be in ruins.

But the movement of workers and students has already proven its capacity to overcome setbacks.

This week will be a crucial test of the strength of opposition to Sarkozy, who is prepared for a long conflict.

The ability of activists to maintain radical action and mobilise wider layers of workers and students will be crucial.

As one railway worker put it, “After the demonstration on 20 November, the movement has to snowball.”

Thousands of protesters converged in South Korea’s capital Seoul on Sunday 11 November for the biggest demonstration in recent years. The protests had three focuses:

• to express opposition to the continuing deployment of Korean troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
• to stop the planned Free Trade Agreement (FTA) the government is signing with the US
• to support the struggle of the contract workers against the increasing casualisation of labour.

A fourth dimension was added the week before the protests when Samsung’s top lawyer resigned to expose a scandal of systematic bribery across all sections of the powerful in Korean society.

The government had declared the demonstration illegal – supposedly on the grounds that a demonstration 200,000 would cause chaos in the city and leave the police “unable to cope”.

The police across the country moved to stop people reaching Seoul. They set up roadblocks on major roads to block coaches and some 450 coachloads of protesters were stopped.

These included many farmers coming – usually among the most militant protesters.

Many who were stopped from reaching the capital made their voices heard locally and several police stations were raided and attacked.

Nevertheless, 80,000 did make it to the capital, and everywhere workers, farmers, students and anti-war activists were represented in an upbeat, defiant mood.

Somali journalist Abdisalam Guled witnessed the rise of the Union of Islamic Courts and the US-backed invasion by Ethiopian troops. He spoke to Simon Assaf.

‘The US claims that Somalia is the “third front” in the “war on terror”. It supported the Ethiopian invasion in December 2006, saying that it was saving ordinary people from a form of “Taliban rule” by the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), which had transformed the country into a “haven for Al Qaida”.

This is a distortion of the truth. The rise of the UIC is rooted in the chaos that befell our nation since the collapse of the central state in 1991. It has nothing to do with terrorism.

There was no government in Somalia for many years, especially in the south central area of the country. These were years of tragedy where our nation was turned into rubble.

Somalia was under the control of over 20 rival warlords and their militias. They engaged in banditry, kidnapping, ransom, looting and extortion.

The warlords carved up the capital Mogadishu between them and placed checkpoints on every main street. Many tens of thousands of people suffered or died at their hands.

After years without a government ordinary people began to say, “Because there is no police and no justice, let us establish something we can trust.”

So they set up an informal justice system based on the principles of Islamic sharia law. One or two people would have the responsibility of policing a neighbourhood and would attempt to hold the warlords and their militias to account.

This demand for fairness and justice rose everywhere and many neighbourhoods appealed for similar courts to be established in their areas. The UIC emerged out of this grassroots movement.

It galvanised those who lived in fear of the warlords and peeled away their support inside the clans. As the UIC gained influence it was able to appeal to the general dissatisfaction.

The warlords began to fear the UIC’s influence and attacked the courts, claiming they were a Somali version of the Taliban. The warlords formed themselves into an “alliance against terrorism” who were fighting against an “Al Qaida plot” to take over the country. Then they turned to the US for weapons and aid.

In June 2006 this struggle between the UIC and the warlords turned into a popular uprising that drove the militias out of the capital. Other regions staged similar rebellions.

At first those involved in the UIC had no idea that they would be pushed into power. It was not their original intention to become the government. They where taken by surprise by the popular insurrection that swept away the warlords.

The six months that they were in control of south central Somalia were a period of peace. The roadblocks had gone, the kidnappings and killings had stopped. The UIC restored property to people who had been robbed. It reopened the port and the international airport.

This period is painted as one of “Taliban rule” where music shops were burnt down and cinemas closed. But this was not my experience.

There are many in Somalia driven by anger against the West, the US and Ethiopia, but the UIC kept them in check.

To my knowledge there was one case where an owner of a camera shop was threatened by religious fundamentalists – but this was resolved by the UIC and the shop remained open.

After the warlords were driven out they reorganised themselves in the north with the support of the US and Ethiopia.

They appealed to the “international community”, saying that Somalia was being overrun by Islamists. They claimed that they were part of the fight against the “war on terror”.

Legitimate

These warlords rallied to the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) that then controlled hardly any territory, claiming that they were the legitimate power in the country. They planned their revenge on the people from their base in the north.

Their opportunity came in December 2006 when Ethiopian troops, supported by US warplanes, warships and special forces, invaded Somalia.

At first the Somalis attempted to resist, but they were overwhelmed and the UIC had no choice but to abandon the capital.

This left Mogadishu open to the warlords and militias who returned with the Ethiopian troops.

They began kidnapping citizens and holding them to ransom.

These militias set themselves up in the main prison where they tortured and killed those who could not afford to pay a ransom. Others were sold on to the US as “Al Qaida operatives”.

Meanwhile Ethiopian troops established themselves in high buildings where their snipers spread terror among the people.

As Somalia had been through years of war, many people were not gun shy. Within weeks of the capital falling to the invaders a popular resistance began to emerge.

There were many attacks on Ethiopian troops. But following mass repression, the TFG claimed that this resistance was ebbing away.

However the old rivalries among the warlords in the TFG began to re-emerge.

The president Abdullahi Yusuf sacked prime minister Ali Mohammed Gedi, while ministers complained that important decisions were taken by backroom advisors and that they only “operated on licence”.

The TFG was not fit to lead the nation and had no plan of how to rule.

By November the growing unrest exploded into a mass uprising in Mogadishu. The Ethiopians were at first taken aback by the scale of the rebellion.

Then they responded with utmost brutality. They pounded the capital with thousands of artillery shells. Over 4,000 people were killed.

I was in the capital at the time and was witness to the indiscriminate murder that followed.

Crisis

People had fled the bombardment, but others, mainly elderly men, remained behind to protect their family homes.

Many of these men were dragged out of their homes and executed in the streets. We discovered over 146 bodies in three days in Mogadishu. Hundreds of others were killed in similar ways.

Tens of thousands fled the capital, making the humanitarian crisis worse than in the troubled Darfur region of Sudan.

According to the United Nations, only 60,000 of the estimated 1.5 million Somali refugees are receiving any form of aid.

The resistance has now re-established itself outside the capital. The Union of Islamic Courts is only a small part of this new national movement.

Those who are resisting the occupation are the people who were at the heart of the popular uprising against the warlord regime.

Ethiopia cannot afford to occupy Somalia, so it is trying to get African Union troops to take over. This is proving very difficult, because they have no mandate.

But the Ethiopian occupation is in deep crisis. It has created a very high level of popular hatred, which is translating into widespread support for the resistance.

This resistance will eventually end the occupation, but I believe our country will pay a high price before then.’

At about 2pm Pakistan time (9am UK time) today, Monday, November 19th, comrade Manzoor Ahmed was released from the Central Jail of Gujranwala where he had been detained since last Friday for organising protest demonstrations against Martial Law.

Outside the jail Manzoor was met by hundreds of triumphant supporters who greeted his release with enthusiasm.

Comrade Manzoor is now being brought back to his home state of Kasur in a revolutionary caravan composed of hundreds of his supporters chanting revolutionary slogans. Along the way in every town and village the caravan is being met by crowds of jubilant workers and peasants cheering and shouting their support for the revolutionary Marxist MP.

We, activists at Hands Off Venezuela have come to learn that the first rule when reading most media coverage about Venezuela is to turn it around 180 degrees If we want to find out the truth!

A case in point is the recent coverage of the exchange between Chavez and Spanish King Juan Carlos I at the 17th Ibero-American summit in Chile in which the King told Chavez to shut up.

The headline in the London Metro gives us “Spanish King sends a clear message to ‘insulting’ Venezuelan: Put a sock in it, Chavez”.

AFP news says: “Spain’s King Juan Carlos won praise back home on Sunday after telling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to “just shut up” before storming out of an Ibero-American summit. Spain’s monarch was applauded by Spanish media for his angry reprimand Saturday of Chavez, after the Venezuelan leader described a former Spanish prime minister as a “fascist” and launched into a wide-ranging tirade.”

El Mundo newspaper from Spain is more of the same but includes quotes like: “The King has put Chavez in his place in the name of all Spaniards,” and goes on to say the monarch’s rebuke was “something that should have been said to him (Chavez) a long time ago.”

From most sources you get the idea that Chavez is a loose cannon throwing around random insults. TIME says: ‘The King got fed up when the Venezuelan firebrand went on one of his rants and repeatedly accused former Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar of being a “fascist”‘.

When describing who Chavez is, the yellow press often use the term ‘populist’ to imply a lack of intellectualism or to paint a picture of a man who will say anything just to stay popular. He is described with a dismissive tone and almost always set up as a bit of a mad man who has often ‘grabbed attention with flamboyant speeches’ and is, ‘renowned for his long, rambling speeches’.

The length of his speeches is not disputed, but ‘rambling’ means to ‘wander aimlessly’ and I have personally heard and read many of Chavez’s uncut speeches and would never describe them as aimless.  In fact, one doesn’t have to look very hard at all to see he has very clearly and consistently put forward policies - as voted for by the Venezuelan people - that aim to transform Venezuelan society from predominantly serving the interests of the wealthy minority to serving the interests of the poor majority.  To do this, he is very clearly trying to break the traditional colonial ties of control over Venezuela’s resources and economy in a bid for sovereignty. And, he knows Venezuela cannot do it in isolation, which informs the bulk of his international work and the speeches that come from it.

Nevertheless, his consistency of aim is often ignored by the main stream media.

So what is the context of this recent incident between Chavez and the Spanish Monarch?

One of the mandates of this year’s Ibero-american summit was to try to overcome the wealth and social inequality in Latin America and a fierce ideological debate ensued. The role of imperialism and the multinationals and the policies of privatisation were cited as having serious effects in Latin America. Spanish multinationals in particular, were criticised. They have carried out what could be described as a second colonisation of the continent, taking over and looting companies, particularly electricity suppliers, gas companies, banks, telecommunications companies. The names of Repsol, Union Fenosa, BBVA, Telefonica, inspire justified rage when they are mentioned in Latin America.

Evo Morales, defended his policy of nationalisation in Bolivia, saying that basic resources and services like water, gas and electricity cannot be in private hands.  Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, mentioned the fact that the Spanish embassy had taken a position against him and the FSLN (Sandinista Front of National Liberation) in the recent elections despite which, Ortega won.

Zapatero, the social-democratic president of Spain intervened to defend the interests of Spanish multinationals, saying that there It did not matter whether basic services where state-owned or private and that nationalisation was not the solution. He added that foreign interference should not be used as an excuse for the many problems in Latin America itself that have impeded development.

When it was his turn, Chávez replied to Zapatero that foreign intervention in Latin America should not be minimised as a factor in the problems of the region. He said that in Chile, the democratically elected president, Salvador Allende was killed because of the interests of US multinationals. He added that in the 2002 coup in Venezuela, the two ambassadors involved, who greeted short-lived dictator Pedro Carmona, had been the Spanish and the US ambassadors.  Then Chavez went on to attack Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister at the time of the coup who, Chavez noted, has no right to go around the world criticising Chávez as a dictator. It was in this context that Chavez called Aznar a “fascist”.

It should be noted that at the time of the coup Aznar was supporting an unelected regime led by Carmona, who shut down the Venezuelan state TV station Channel 8, who had Chavez held against his will in jail and who ordered the repression and arrest of the Venezuelan people who were protesting the coup. In all, the coup resulted in approximately 20 people killed and hundreds wounded.

It is also interesting to note that Aznar’s father and grandfather both played big roles in the fascist dictatorship of Franco. As a teenager, Aznar was an active  member of a student union which was a branch of the falangist official party - the fascist party of Franco.

Also of interest, King Juan Carlos I was installed by none other than fascist dictator Generalisimo Franco in 1975.

Despite the fact that Chávez made it very clear that he was attacking the former Spanish government, not the current one, Zapatero felt the need to defend Aznar . He said that Aznar had been democratically elected by the Spanish people and had to be respected. Chávez interjected, asking him to tell Aznar to respect Venezuela. Zapatero replied “of course”.

It was at this point that the King jumped in, in a very rude manner and said to Chávez “¿porqué no te callas?” which means “why don’t you shut up?”, using the familiar “tu” instead of the polite and respectful “usted”, as if he was talking to one of his servants.

Later, Carlos Lage from Cuba and Daniel Ortega both defended Chávez and further attacked Aznar. It was then, that the King walked out of the meeting while Ortega was attacking Spanish electricity multinational Unión Fenosa.

In a press conference after, Chávez said that “we have been around for 500 years and we are not going to shut up…The King of Spain is as much a head of state as I am, or as…Evo Morales is, with the difference that I have been elected 3 times and he has never been elected.” He added.

Chavez went on to say, “Mr. King, did you know about the coup d’etat against Venezuela? Against the democratic, legitimate government of Venezuela in 2002?…It’s very hard to imagine the Spanish ambassador would have been at the presidential palace supporting the coup plotters without authorization from his majesty.”

So, with the larger context in mind, we should ask ourselves who really insulted whom? And, why the media bias for the King of Spain?

 I am from London in England and I have lived in Canada since April 2005. I really love living in this great country. As Pierre Trudeau once said “Canada is a sociological experiment”. I have travelled to 21 countries in my life so far including Japan, Israel, Fiji, Cook Islands and French Polynesia, I usually travel on a shoestring. I have been known to sleep in various unsanitary places in order to prolong my adventures including a park bench in Auckland Park in New Zealand; also I once slept on a beach in Greece for 4 weeks. In London I was an active supporter of the anti war movement and a pressure group called “hands off Venezuela”. My favourite quote is by George Orwell “Capitalism is the disease, Socialism is the cure, Communism kills the patient”. My least favourite quote is by Karl Marx “religion is the opium of the masses”.  I am hoping to become a Social worker in order to have a career that is not fuelled by material incentives and perhaps I could use my privileged position (in regard to family and education) in order to improve some people’s lives. My mother lives here in Canada and my sister lives in England still. I first came to North America, 4 moths after my father’s death when I was 14 years old. I traveled to the Blackfoot Indian reservation in Montana and I started working on a ranch owned by a charity that breeds Mustang horses in order to benefit the impoverished people on the reservation. I returned every year and became immersed in the complex and civilized culture of the people with whom I was staying. I was just a kid from the city, but when I came to the reservation it was a new world. I slept in tipis, went to powwows and ceremonies, and lassoed horses! It was any teenagers dream.  Eventually we explored Southern Alberta and decided to settle here in Lethbridge.

 This book relates global issues historically and economically and does so without the American propaganda, nor the European which is tied up in US Hegemony and constraints. Fidel is a reader. I think that speaks for itself. I did my usual note taking when reading a book and this time around under what I call “quotes,” I have so many that I couldn’t possibly use all of them in this book review, there are just too many!

Fidel speaks of the American and global economy based on the U.S. dollar the US inflating the dollar no longer backed by gold, which then like the alchemists turns paper into gold. And when the trust is evaporated, which will happen one day, then we get the idea of the eschatological implications in a global economic crash far worse than the 1929 depression where only a small percentage invested in he stock market. Also the benefits of Europe’s currency needed for their survival. What I really enjoyed was Castro words on Cuba when she several times re-evaluated the currency there. It has proven a truth that I find outweighs and shows the falseness of the free market fundamentalists of capitalism - libertarians and conservatives alike. If Cuba has followed the WTO and IMF she would have lost many educators, doctors and closed down hospitals and schools, (Although something all together different are the libertarians who reject all government intervention in favor of a helmless free market).

Just a short review here: Some of the thoughts conveyed are the superficiality of mass media and TV over the reading of books; the destruction of culture from US hegemonic values based on consumerism, sex, violence and extravagant life styles; capitalism consumer created pollution and the destruction of our planet; the WTO and US interests - an example is the private ownership of two banana U.S. corps vote for the removal of the privileges of the small Caribbean nations that severely depend on this industry - the Lemone Act. Anotherwards the WTO and the IMF, they would like to privatize all the poor underdeveloped as owned private property, countries for “free trade,” This in turn would reduce all of Latin American to US large Corp. private property where persons, now mere commodities, would be reduced to cheap labor, including all the raw materials and so forth, all so to support the wealthy in the US so they can increase their automobiles and luxury items and so forth.

Also Cuba produces doctors that are sent out across the world in aid for the poorer people, all so under one of the most brutal blockades, now a double one since the demise of the Soviet Union.

Fidel speaks of the Cuban missile crises and the new declassified documents that Noam Chomsky also writes about in his book on US hegemony, of the U.S. scandalous lies and deceit against Cuba - the same they have recently employed against Iraq - but sadly for Iraq, they had no other superpower, the USSR, to back them for protection.

OK, there are thoughts on Bolivar, Marti, Marx, Freidman, Keynes, Hidalgo, Miranda, on Adam Smith and Lenin, on the author Garcia Marquez, on Roosevelt, Reagan and Carter, on the Serb and Yugoslavia - this man is a learned man and very informative- no beating around the bush, but straight forward and honestly open. He also speaks straight forward for Cuba, a country that has never tortured or murdered people for political gain, unlike the US record which is horrendous and then claims it fights for humanitarian purposes, using that as an accusation against other countries. The list of US abuses around the world are also brought out here.

Castro recognizes that world globalization is not only necessary but part of the historical process that must occur. The idea is not for the globalization based on imperialistic domination of a superpower which exploits poorer and weaker countries but rather a globalization that brings fraternal unity and peaceful relations in trade and economics and a balance of power and wealth. And the point is Cuba’s history supports this belief. What does the U.S. record show? It simply cannot be defended honestly apart from blind nationalism.

There is also the lawsuit of the U.S. suing Cuba - 3 persons at over 62 million a piece and if you read how they came to this number you can question the U.S. Judicial system and the judges we have appointed there. In turn, now that the embarrassing U.S. declassified documents are out (not all of course), which openly reveal CIA terrorist operations in Cuba. Cuba has subsequently made a lawsuit against the U.S. with far reasonable claims in damages - the comparison is so blatant here. And what patriotic nationalist, free market fundamentalist and Right Wing absolutist will admit to themselves without emotional discharge the actions being taken here.

Another example of western double standards in regard to foreign policy, was highlighted recently, when the unelected head of state of Canada and Britain welcomed the unelected Saudi Royal family to Britain. The Saudi Royal family, who are a family so corrupt that they put their own family name on their country, were received in a warm welcome by the British Royal family, who rolled out the red carpet for them.

The Kleptocray,  that is Saudi Arabia is so passionately against democracy that even an election for a tennis club is not allowed just in case democratic idea’s emerge. The Saudi Royal family are amongst those many dictators who Britain and the U.S, gloss over when it comes to exporting their alleged democratic principles mainly due to their complete obedience when it comes to the steady flow of oil and their cooperation with the U.S. military, who use Saudi Arabia as a base to wage their illegal wars.

It is a clear example that oil, not elections is the premise for U.S and Anglo foreign ventures. The Saudi Kleptocrats recently imprisoned a young rape victim for attempting to appeal the court decision which saw the men who raped her 14 times just be imprisoned for two years.  

Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

By Frances Harrison BBC News Saudi women are subject to strict sex segregation laws An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped. The victim was initially punished for violating laws on segregation of the sexes - she was in an unrelated man’s car at the time of the attack. When she appealed, the judges said she had been attempting to use the media to influence them. The attackers’ sentences - originally of up to five years - were doubled. Extra penalties According to the Arab News newspaper, the 19-year-old woman, who is from Saudi Arabia’s Shia minority, was gang-raped 14 times in an attack in the eastern province a year-and-a-half ago. Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years. But the victim was also punished for violating Saudi Arabia’s laws on segregation that forbid unrelated men and women from associating with each other. She was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for being in the car of a strange man. On appeal, the Arab News reported that the punishment was not reduced but increased to 200 lashes and a six-month prison sentence. The rapists also had their prison terms doubled. But the sentences are still low considering they could have faced the death penalty. The Arab News quoted an official as saying the judges had decided to punish the girl for trying to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media. The victim’s lawyer was suspended from the case, has had his licence to work confiscated, and faces a disciplinary session.