3 February 2010

Anhydrous pentahydrate (blue) pencil

Article 19
(Freedom of expression and of information)


Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.





by Adelina Barradas de Oliveira, Appeals Court Judge

Only a few days ago, I was telling you here, concerning the European Parliament's meeting about the subject, that freedom of expression will only be possible in an enlightened democracy.

Look what happened almost simultaneously with Saramago and his new book. Look at the injunction that was requested against a book that used to circulate around.

But criticism or the will not to hear, or read, or know what does not meet our will, and especially our knowledge, is not new, and, probably for the worse, it will never be old.

Salazar used to say very well:- "Men, groups, classes, they see, they observe things, they study events under the light of their own interest." But if he said it well, he thought it even better, and right away, from the top of his power chair he understood that: - "There is only one entity that, out of power and position, has to see everything under the light of everyone's interest".

Decree 22 469 is explicit as it establishes previous censorship in regular publications, "flyers, leaflets, posters and other publications, whenever they focus on matters of political or social nature".

However, Salazar is not a useful example. Censorship, or the blue pencil, does not appear only in Salazar's time and is not exclusive to our history.

Censorship is as old as Man's fear of being confronted with an opinion that does not match his own, or writings, or speech that positions itself between him and his goals.

I leave you some clippings from history that are, or not, according to your own understanding, limitations on true freedom of expression.

These are a few examples, if you happen to have some more... Gather them with these ones.

It is a joint exercise of thought and a search for enlightenment, for us to stop to think how far we are prepared to hear or understand, to discuss or to argue (but to let be), that opinion that is not ours and that may be the majority, and because it is different, it always makes us grow richer in the way that it prompts us to think, to question, to create, to change and to move forward in personal or global growth, in a life that we wish to be enlightened and therefore serene.

The blue tone of a pencil that is made out of crystals of fear, has to be dissolved by the courage of seeing ourselves in the eyes of others, and in the courage of thinking out loud.

Neither fear of reading, nor fear of writing, or fear of creating, help us grow as a culture or make us richer as a civilisation, any democracy or any future.
_______________________________________
In 1989, ayatollah Khomeini condemned Salman Rushdie to death, following the publication of his book Satanic Versicles
"Caim" is José Saramago's new romance, and God is one of the main characters
PSP [police] seizes books because a cover with a painting by Courbet is considered pornographic

The Gospel According To Jesus Christ (1991 ) is a romance by José Saramago that tells the life of Jesus in a modern and anti-religious way.

The first books that can be remembered as being censored in Portugal by regal power were the works by John Wycliffe and Jan Hus, which were forbidden and ordered to be burned through a Decree dated August 18, 1451, by king D. Afonso V .

Later on, there is news about the repression of the divulgation of Lutheran texts by king D. Manuel, which led pope Leon X to thank him officially on the 20th of August of 1521.

In 1486, a book titled Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches) that was written by two Dominican monks, Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, was published. Malleus Maleficarum is a kind of manual that teaches inquisitors to recognise witches and their disguises, to identify their supposed malefices, and to investigate and condemn them legally. The Decree dated March 31, 1821 leads to the abolition of the Inquisition Tribunal, due to it being "incompatible with the principles that were adopted at the bases of the Constitution", with "spiritual and merely ecclesiastic causes" given back to the "Episcopal Jurisdiction". The Constitution of 1822 establishes freedom of the press ("the free communication of thoughts"), without the need for previous censorship, although it is pointed out that any abuse may be sanctioned "in the cases and in the shape that law determines".

With the First World War, censorship is put into place on the 12th of March, 1916, following the declaration of War by Germany. The seizing of all documents whose publication could put national defence at stake, or made of propaganda against the war, was ordered.

The Portuguese Constitution of 1933, published on the 11th of April, is out at the same time as Decree 22 469. While article 8 of the Constitution, in number 4, establishes "freedom of thought in any shape or form".

During the Estado Novo, the Superior Inspection of Libraries and Archives prohibited the reading of certain documents - one could not read anything that was related to Portuguese India that was after the War of Baçaim (1732 /1739) and the National Library included a list of books that could not be read.

Luís de Camões had to submit the text of "Os Lusíadas" to the Inquisition's censors, at Mosteiro de S. Domingos, discussing it verse after verse. That which today is considered to be the greatest poem of the Portuguese language and culture, even went through a period when it was forgotten, ignored and despised, which can also be considered as a subtle form of censorship.

On the 25th of July, 1567, Damião de Góis saw the fourth part of his Crónica do Felicíssimo Rei D. Manuel going into print. Nonetheless, more than five years later, it was not on sale yet, because allegedly Bishop D. António Pinheiro had to correct an error on a page. Thus previous censorship prompted abuse of power by the censors, whenever they had an argument with the authors.

Even Padre António Vieira was arrested by the Inquisition, from 1665 until 1667, because in his writings he openly defended the cristãos-novos and criticised the actions from the Inquisition's Dominicans.

Playwright António José da Silva, who was known by the nickname "O Judeu" ["The Jew"], was arrested and tortured in 1726, along with his mother. In 1737 he was arrested again, also with his mother, his wife and his daughter, and was decapitated and burned during an auto-de-fé at the Terreiro do Trigo in Lisbon. His wife and his mother were also burned alive.

Estado Novo, Maria Velho da Costa, Maria Teresa Horta and Maria Isabel Barreno saw themselves involved in a judicial process that became famous due to the publication of their joint book "Novas cartas portuguesas", that allegedly included pornographic and immoral parts - nowadays there is consensus that the book merely criticises the Portuguese patriarchalism and the condition of women in Portugal.

Many authors saw their books apprehended, or were arrested, like Soeiro Pereira Gomes, Aquilino Ribeiro, José Régio, Maria Lamas, Rodrigues Lapa, Urbano Tavares Rodrigues, Alves Redol, Alexandre Cabral, Orlando da Costa, Alexandre O´Neil, Alberto Ferreira, António Borges Coelho, Virgílio Martinho, António José Forte, Alfredo Margarido, Carlos Coutinho, Carlos Loures, Amadeu Lopes Sabino, Fátima Maldonado, Hélia Correia, Raul Malaquias Marques, among many others.

Aquilino Ribeiro, for example, saw his book Quando os lobos uivam, published in 1958, the year that I was born, seized.

The court has decided, albeit in a provisory manner given the fact that it is an injunction, to forbid editors of selling Gonçalo Amaral's books and videos "that are still left in shops or in other deposits or warehouses and the obligation to collect them and to deliver them to a depositary".*

More about this subject here

____written on the 29.10.2009________

(post revisited) - published at 22:53 Tuesday, February 2, 2010, in Expresso


*Note from JM: Gonçalo Amaral's book was handed over to the McCanns' lawyer in Portugal; recently, the media published that the McCann couple requests the complete and irreversible destruction of all copies of the book 'Maddie, The Truth of The Lie', as well as the documentary based on the book. The destruction of books in a society that considers itself a democracy, is unacceptable.


56 comments:

  1. Excellent article.
    Hopefully the judge will and imo MUST overturn this anti democratic temporary injunction.
    IF she does not then....the future of the next portuguese generations will be seriously damaged in terms of REPRESSION involving violation freedom of expression and freedom of access to information.
    I hope she has some common sense and will act democratically
    On her decision rest the portuguese human rights and justice for Madeleine

    ReplyDelete
  2. " Books are like prisoners sitting on shelves when they are picked up and read they become free . "

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for the translation, Astro. What an enormeous lot of work is this blog having, fighting for Madeleine,for the PJ and for Amaral in particular.
    I hope judge Maria Gabriela has gotten assistents who saw this article on Expresso and warned her about it.
    Very well written. The pain that dictatorship caused in Portugal is enormeous too,people still feel it.
    I think judge Maria Gabriela must realise that freedom of expression in your country, something that the UK has not gotten, is very important to reopen the process, in order to acheave justice for a little innocent girl, who lost her right to live and who has no right to be dead.
    Can judge Maria Gabriela give a sentence liberating Amaral's book and also officilally asking to reopen the process?
    Alegging that too many statements in Lisbon are too serious not to be investigated?
    It would be an ideal solution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I’m joining my previous speaker and would like to say thank you to all persons doing this tremendous work here !

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon 3

    Yes,I agree with your post with a slight difference: Madeleine is dead but MANY Portuguese children"s and future generation are at stake.The rights and the democratic rights of a whole nation are at stake because of a pair of BRITISH sociopaths.It has gone much much beyond that we could possibly think.
    THIS is what the judge MUST see and appreciate.
    Outruling the injunction will preserve the PORTUGUES children"s rights and hopefully lead to make Madeleine"s voice FULLY heard.If she does not act in a democratic way,she will fail HER OWN country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the word is unacceptable rather than inadmissable.

    In any event, I am searching for an English translation of the judge's order for the temporary injunction. Or, the reasons for the judge deciding to grant the temporary injunction.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jailhouselaywer: my dictionary tells me that inadmissable and unacceptable are synonyms. Nonetheless, if unacceptable is more appropriate, then unacceptable it is - I've amended the text accordingly.
    As for the translation that you seek, please email me if you still need it. I might be able to help.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To Astro,another great post,well done! The more I look at this present Temporary Injunction the more alarmed and angry I become. Its demands even if partially granted are not only gross, but a suppression of speech,writing and reading and even of vision----e.g.Video disc. Such Draconian demands by the McCanns are not only outrageous but dangerous for all our freedoms! Each country's history has been shaped by the struggles of its people over centuries of strife and bloodshed in many cases. Freedom has not been given to us,we and our forebears have had to fight for it. Portugal and its people have only concluded their struggle in recent years,thats why the attempts by the McCanns for their narrow self interest,to usurp and curtail Portuguese Democracy must not be allowed ! These are the people whom at one point were threatening to sue Snr.Amaral and the P.J. for not recovering their child-----is there nothing that they wont stoop to ? Quite apart from their disgraceful behaviour towards Portugal and its people,if we let them get away with this, how long will it be before like Adolf Hitler, they take their campaign into Europe ?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Viking, thank you, it is indeed a great post - but it is not mine. This is an article by Adelina Barradas de Oliveira, an Appeals Court Judge. I have merely translated it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Inadmissible has a different meaning to unacceptable. Something may be acceptable (in its character) but not be allowed according a rule (for example a rule of law in allowing or not allowing evidence).

    In other words the character of something might be morally unacceptable, but it presentation might be procedurally admissible.

    Heres a more 'colourful' way of explaining, McCann's whining is unacceptable to my sensibilities, but his words are admissible to me (i.e. I want to hear his words - as they may be used against him!).

    Does that help?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don't forget that an injunction had to be applied - to prevent a continuing wrong (it wouldn't be very good if, after the trial, the judge decided the book should be banned - as it would have been in circulation for the entire period of the trial).

    It is not a pre-judgment - its to maintain the status quo whilst the arguments are presented.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is actually a qualified right, see paragraph 2 below. In short, sometimes the needs of the state to keep matters confidential whilst they are under investigation override that right. If the police tell Kate and Gerry McCann everything there is to know about the investigation against them they may find that very helpful! Hence they went to court in UK seeking to demand the file on them, that got refused, was Mrs Justice Hogg abusing their human rights in siding with the police against them, I do not think so!

    Article 10: Right to freedom of expression
    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema.

    2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for the maintaining of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Where are the academics in this affair?(both Portugese and European) Surely the freedom to discuss, to print and to publish is essential for any researches to continue, in any subject.
    Do they not realise that their professional life will also be affected by this attempt to close down access to distributing ideas and theories?
    If one example of blatant censorship like this is allowed in a viable democracy, how soon will it spread to other countries in the European Union?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Astro, if you would have been Gerry, you would have said:
    _ "Thank you, Viking, I am very great and I diserve your compliment".

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Astro,it is to your credit that you point out that you are not the Author of this piece but simply the Translator,however,without your work I could'nt read it! So thanks for that! I had noted the name of the Judge and wrote it down for future reference, she is clearly a wise person.Best wishes to you and Joana.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon13 - The 'academics' are busy sticking their proverbial boots into the pope for voicing his concerns over Britain's so-called 'equality legislation'. Some 'Professors' are planning demonstrations to coincide with his planned UK visit. Freedom of speech, eh? Rock On UK!

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'for the protection of the reputation or rights of others' - that's the crucial bit you all miss.
    No country on earth has completely free speech, and probably never will.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I would sooner GA lose in portugal and then go on to win in europe It would give more publicity to the case and the media would be more obliged to full reporting

    ReplyDelete
  19. @13

    How soon? As soon as the spread of neo nazi groups working together in Europe gain pace.

    Remove the cencorship which protects the McCanns (as responsible cencorship to protect equally rightous human rights) and you have the basis to legally demomnise groups of people, race of people, colour of people because the golden gate to nazi propaganda is total, un cencored, iresponsible free speech.

    It seems ironic that a facsist state moves the moutain too far and takes it back where it started.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If I understood it well(I have read millions news about this case)the McCanns are prepared to prove Maddie's abduction only after Amaral proves her death.
    Am I right or not, - is Amaral prepared to prove her death?
    Who can answer me?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks very much for this translation, Astro! It is a thought-provoking article.

    Regarding the subtleties between "inadmissible" and "unacceptable" - "inadmissible" has a legal connotation and is usually used to describe the status of evidence in court - admissible or inadmissible. Technically the same as "acceptable by the court" or "unacceptable by the court", but in a specific context.

    "Unacceptable" has a wider connotation, and is used in more contexts. E.g., "your behaviour is unacceptable", "these numbers are unacceptable", "the constant lying and spinning is unacceptable", "banning books is an unacceptable thing in a democratic society"... etc.

    At any rate, my Portuguese language skills are unacceptable; whereas your English skills are quite acceptable. :)

    Hope this nit-picking helps...

    Trismegistus

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous 13.

    You have hit the nail on the head.

    Enter the 'Lisbon Treaty' which is a self amending treaty, and when ratified, all European Union member states constituions will be subserviant to it.

    In the interests of 'Justice' judge Maria Gabriela should give back to Snr. Amaral his banned book.

    If she finds in favour of the McCanns, this action would be proof IMO the EU and treacherous politicians at home and abroad, have done what Hitler and the SS failed to do. Bring in a New World Order DICTATORSHIP

    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  23. 8-} Appeals' Court Judge Adelina Barradas de Oliveira admonishion, or was it a premonition? could not have been more explicit.

    The question now is, will the McCann's spinning truck be allowed to run over local and European laws and get away with an heist of a million plus? The complete appropriation of Dr. Amaral's assets - past, present and future? This is what this case is now about: extortion. The other (involuntary murder or criminal neglect) the Mc's have already got away with on the benefit of a doubt - even if Eddie&Keela had no doubts. Where was the RSPCA to protect their interests? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you so much Astro, for bringing that piece from Judge Adelina Oliveira.
    Many of us, no matter what age, are still traumatized by those Inquisition Index of Prohibited Books, and more close to our times, by the BLUE PENCIL that erased our (or our parents) chances of knowing the truth, not only about our own country but also about the world - I recall my grandparents telling me that during the WWII they had to hear the BBC or Radio Argelia in order to know what was going on.
    I praise Judge Oliveira for bringing that memory back to us and pity that the BBC, that once was the symbol of freedom of information, is now doing such a bad job.

    Thank you very much Astro

    LUZ

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am a lawyer, trained at Louvain University albeit in criminal forensics instead of intelleactual property and human rights, following this closely.

    Why do we, on the internet, continuing to work under Joana's umbrella, not split up in working groups, each one covering his field of special interest a.s legal, moral, political, 'looking at the evicence', i.e. combing the PJ files. We could then coordinate more easily and draw up some conclusions in our own fields.

    Have you all noticed that this is the first trial-by-internet, a groundbreaking event?

    Oh, and by the way, familiar with the ban on dr Amarals book, when I chanced on a copy recently in Bonny Belgium, of course I went out and bought me a second one, just to support GA. Re-reading it for the second time, and having been immersed in the real stuff on the internet, it struck me how poetic, vague and sub rosa the contents of the book really are. In fact, they are quite soft on the MC's. So it really is probably not the contents of the book, but the income et al of the author they are after.

    A nice and happy day to everyone!

    Portia

    ReplyDelete
  26. If they get the injunction, it won't matter what the size of the damages are. If they go on to sell their story to newspapers, TV stations and Hollywood, they will earn much, much more

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hello anon #22

    Please read the Treaty.
    http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm

    It's nothing to do with SS under your bed.
    LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hello anon #26

    Too right.
    If the greedy ghastly duo were so upset at the contents of the book, they would have slapped an injunction straight away, not a year later.
    They wouldn't have waited until hundreds of thousands copies were sold in several languages and there was a 1 million+ euros pot of money.

    ReplyDelete
  29. anon @26 i too am from belgium and i share your thoughts..IMO when this case is finished it will be one of (if not the greatest) significant occurances in the history of justice when at last a government has to bow down and no longer think it can control the minds of people by control of the press through the likes of clarence mitchel carter-ruck and the general establishment, a situation which has existed for far too long (i should add that anyway thats what im hoping)

    ReplyDelete
  30. PORTIA, glad to see you have read the book and will realise there is nothing in there that has not already been in the news.

    However, I have noticed something that may interest you. A Petition to re open the Madeleine case...Now, everyone has signed and many have put reasons why they would like this re-opened.

    Kate not answering questions

    Not returning for the reconstruction

    They suspect the McCanns

    They believe Maddie is dead.

    All chuggiing along nicely ,,then suddenly I spotted that someone dare to put their toe in the water and mention the Gaspar statement ..The Petition is closed.

    My thoughts and they are only mine if GA had not mentioned this in his book the Mccanns would not be going after him.

    There are other books one in particular where the author also ex PJ believes Madeleines body was thrown out to sea...McCann are not sueing him.

    Imagine the reaction...a friend who is not also a Doctor but a friend of McCanns and the Paynes gives a witness statement to police and her concerns about an event that happened between McCann and Payne involving Madeleine.

    A child is missing ....and a Doctor friend is susopicious of Payne...she even mentions she thinks he may be interested in looking at pictures of children.

    Bad enough but then add to this that the statement from this Doctor was held back by Leicestershire Police....How damning would that be?

    This statement may have had an innocent explanation....But now it looks from where I am sitting very suspect.

    NEGLECT would be the last thing on anyones mind.

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://www.champnews.com/html/newsstory.asp?id=8060

    letters@champnews.com

    Tell them what you think!

    I did, I said...

    'This article is not very cleverly written - to give a very one sided view, very amateurish spin!

    Many people believe that the McCann’s are running the scam of the century and there are plans to sue them for fraud, as the fund is being misused and there has been misrepresentation – abduction has not been confirmed by the investigating officers – in either Portugal or the UK.

    Just how many lanterns were launched and how many people were there – the way this is written it?'

    ReplyDelete
  32. http://www.southportreporter.com/432/432-12.shtml

    Here are the photos from the Formby event. I do not think it is true to say there were hundreds...Looks like they huddled together to get a few good shots.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks Astro and Joana for bringing us the interesting article and for your tireless work.
    Something mentioned made me wonder, as the McCanns have been able to freeze Sr Amarals assets for posssible damages, why has he not been able to do likewise as he may be compensated if he wins. Here in the UK you can put a charge on someones property so that they can not sell it without legal permission, it is a way of freezing someones assets. I have personal knowledge of this being done, not to me but to others. When i bought my last house there was a charge on it which had to be legally sorted before it could be sold to me and this had been over a watch worth £5,000 !! However if Sr Amaral loses the injunction and it continues to the ECHR, even more info will be brought out and hopefully twittered and live on Sky, surely the Mcs aren't stupid enough to think they will come out of this smelling of roses, it will be 100 times worse than what they experienced in January. Also with the libel trial ahead tons more info will come out. Are the Mcs truly mad, it would seem so. As for the case against the book i would think the ECHR would lift the ban as the info is out in the public domain and has been so for ages. I dont think this is about wanting Sr Amarals money, they could have got that from the OPRAH interview and done many more magazine deals or books themselves. I believe it is for two reasons 1) only Sr Amarals book mentions the Gaspars statements and 2) Gerry sees Amaral as his nemesis, he cant stand the fact that Amaral is far cleverer than he is. I can just see McTwat jumping up and down and stamping his feet like the Tiny Tears spoilt brat he is.
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  34. :)]Message to Anon 26

    A very good suggestion indeed. It is up to Joana and her team to create these sections. I understand the "department" concerning the investigation is already alive and well at: http://themaddiecasefiles.com/forum3.html

    This site features some of Joana's expert contributors such as "Kazlux", "xclamation", "Astro" et al. To my knowledge this is the most serious and pragmatic site available on the subject. Well worth a visit and a contribution.

    Perhaps what we would need would be a new site or a section in Joana's or the "maddiecasefiles" entitled: "The McCann's Public Trial" (or words to that effect) where there would be a moderator ("Judge") and "defense" and "prosecutor" threads. This of course would have to be organized, step-by-step, in terms of the evidence contained in the process. An expert moderator would be necessary. Dr. Amaral himself? ;)

    This way, the McCann's who have evaded a court trial by The System thanks to the influential strings they hold, would have a fair public trial in which a very public "jury" would eventually pass their sentence on the World Wide Web. Guilty or not guilty. This would be a first in the history of the Internet. Think about it... ;))

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mrs. Martin must know now why she recognised David Payne.
    She must have checked on files, at her work.
    She uses to visit Algarve every year. I hope she got more information about him.

    Possily the Gaspars met more people who know about Payne and Gerry.
    I hope they wrote about it to the PJ in Portugal.
    It is no use telling the British police. They are also gagged.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Stupid here - with a childish question, (which probably should not be answered in public).
    Is the rumoured million euros of Sr Amaral sitting neatly in a Portugese bank, all ready to be pounced on?
    What if he has spent it all, or given it away, or lost it in bad investments or otherwise whooshclunked it?
    Will he have to sell his house and go and work down the salt-mines for the next couple of hundred years to pay the 'debt'?
    Why are the McCanns so certain that the million exists just waiting for them?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anon 37...What ever happens win or lose one thing AG has said the McCanns will not get one single penny from him. He can drag this through the courts for years ...and everytime he does out will come more information from the files.

    ReplyDelete
  38. For me a perfect opportunity was missed, one of GAs witnesses said information was kept back from us. This would have been perfect timing for GAs lawyer to have asked what kind of information..The Gaspar statement...The press would have then been able to report this information. Instead of everytime someone dares to mention it they are gagged.

    ReplyDelete
  39. http://www.ukcolumn.org/2010/02/02/child-rapists-protected-by-the-state/


    BBC help cover child abuse...I suggest you read the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anon @17, Amaral has only said that he thinks Madeleine died in the apartment and her body was removed, so how does that harm the reputation of the McCanns or take away their rights? He doesn't accuse the McCanns of doing the deed!

    Apart from that his book is just an account of the investigation, something he knows about as he was in charge of it for the first several months. If the McCanns' reputation is bad it's nobody's fault but their own. They ruined it by leaving their children alone every night of the holiday, then by trying to lead the investigation in one direction only and now by trying to stop people giving their own opinion, by trying to force people into agreeing Madeleine was abducted even though they're no proof of that at all. No evidence to support an abduction, but indications that a death occurred.

    As for taking away their rights, it's other people's rights they're trying to take away, such as the right to say what they think. Don't forget Gerry McCann's rather threatening words when he warned people about 'stepping over the line'. How dare this idiot of a man threaten other people or tell them what they can say and what they can't, a man who didn't even have the sense to know that a 3-year-old couldn't look after herself and her younger siblings night after night? This despicable couple need to be reined in before their inflated sense of entitlement turns to something even more menacing. If the judge in this case has any sense she'll realise this for herself. She won't allow Portugal's hard-fought-for democracy to be stamped on by two narcissistic people who put their own wishes above the needs of their very young children, but who now think they have the right to dictate to everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 31, Thanks for your interesting post where you point out that as soon as the GASPAR statement got mentioned, the Petition got closed.

    Aside from the very obvious one that the McCanns want the money, I think you have really hit the nail on the head.

    If the McCanns just want to defend themselves and have apparently so publically sought to do so, why is it that they can take head on the death claims, but never once mentioned the sexual abuse claims?

    I would be the first one to admit that the conduct of Goncalo in writing this book has really troubled me. At first blush, it looks like cashing in. And on another level, my legal training would tell me no police officer should behave in this way in writing about an unsolved case.

    But when you read the book it has a softness and honesty about it. It is gentle towards the McCanns, accusing them of no more than the most innocuous crime they may have committed, gross negligence manslaughter and disposal of her body.

    I think Goncalo is deeply wounded by what he sees as a travesty of justice and the personalised nature of some really insidious attacks against him. I also think that he simply wanted to raise the evidence against the McCanns from their own doctor friends without offering any conclusions on it, because it is an even more serious allegation. I am happy to be proved wrong and I am really not sure about his motivations but I have the feeling that he knows there is far more to it than this, but he wanted to get the issues properly dealt with and he does have a very deep concern for Madeleine and all little children.

    Unfortunately I think from a stricly legal point of view, he may well lose the injunction because he ultimately proceeded to go further and say the little girl is dead and I can prove in the documentary. I think those comments were motivated by his determination to draw the McCanns in and make them face some sort of justice and a recognition by the public of all the horrors this case actually does involve.

    There are no simple answers to this, from a strictly legal point of view he was wrong, but from a moral point of view and that is what should really count I think he was absolutely right. He has called Mr Menezes as a witness and he has told us the McCanns could have been charged with kidnapping and trafficking Madeleine. That is exactly what sex offenders do. Goncalo has always made plain there are things he knows he will not discuss but he had nevertheless brought them into the public domain. I believe he is an honest and decent man and has done what he felt was right.

    If he loses the injunction we should see this as a strict application of the law, not a loss in the overall fight for getting to the truth and for Justice for Madeleine.

    I have a feeling that having won the injunction we will get some statement from the McCanns, well the money does not matter now, we won the principle. Thus, they will seek to turn this "victory" to their advantage, knowing full well that if this Portuguese Judge came to hear their case on damages, she would have to find they are simply not entitled to any!

    This is what we have to be ready for!

    ReplyDelete
  42. :)] to Anon 37

    The book was selling well (with on-going translations, etc.) but after the injunction is lifted, it will sell like wild fire (English-speaking world). Also bear in mind the Mc's are not just one-night stand criminals. They are also advised extortionists. They are not counting on just a few hundred thousand "bananas" from Dr. Amaral. Aquila non capit muscas... There is also a TV station and publisher involved... do you follow? If they manage to pull it out it will be the "(double) crime of the century" so far. This is just my speculative opinion. No animosity whatsoever is implied towards the Mc's... :p

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ironside, But the press in UK know they are gagged from ever mentioning an investigation into child sexual abuse because it could identify the child and damage the investigation. Portugal would respect UK laws. I think the prosecutor Mr Menezes went just as far as he could by saying the McCanns could have been charged with kidnapping and child trafficking, i.e. what sex offenders do.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It was reported last year that Sr Amaral, when asked about the McLyers suing him he basically said "bring it on" so if that is true it looks like he knows exactly what he's doing. He is far cleverer than Tiny Tears.
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  45. Besides the money of course, this does not appear to be about what Dr Amaral has written, so much as a need to stop the information about the Gaspars' statements becoming public in the UK.

    After all, Dr Amaral's book is based on the Files. He is not saying anything that is not public anyway.

    But if the Gaspars' statements hit the headlines in UK, that could be the trigger that would reopen the case if there are other witnesses who come forward with similar accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  46. After The McCanns case, I've started to read other abduction cases and for toddlers most of them are fake abdustion. If it's happened in the country of citizenship, then it's easy for the police to investigate the case and sooner rather than later the case resolved - usually parents (mostly mothers) or stepparents are guilty.
    In the Maddie case the main difficulty is that Maddie as well as her parents are British and the toddler was missing in Portugal. The McCanns manipulate that hiring high-paid advisers for money given for Madeleine search.

    I fully agree that bad reputation MC complain about, it's the result their own efforts. People can see that they focus on donations flowing and trials as soon as they can see money making opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Zodiac says....


    Astro thanks for translating the above it is an excellent read.

    Anon #40 I read the link you posted it is horrific! The Red Riding Trilogy sprung to mind whilst I was reading the article.

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/red-riding

    Is anyone else having problems logging in via Google Account?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Amazing to see how global Maddie case is. I too, I read Amaral book. And I did not find any news, Everything was already spread by the media. The injunction have nothing to do with the book. It is a matter of money and a temptation to silence and make pressures in to Amaral. A Coward excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anon @ 32

    I too wrote to the Southport & Mersey Reporter:
    ..................

    Dear Editor

    I read with interest your article about the launching of the Chinese Lanterns. I'd be interested to know how many of the 250 lanterns were launched?

    I don't know if you are aware of the article in the Northern Times (http://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/7069/Madeleine__1000_days__lanterns_spark_alert.html):

    [content of the article inserted here]

    This was followed by an article on the BBC, I heard it first on Radio 4 News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8490524.stm):

    [content of the article inserted here]

    So it seems that whilst you report the event was a sucess from the McCanns point of view it was far from a sucess for the emergency services and for farmers. I am sure, to provide a balanced view of the event, you will also report on these aspects in your next issue.

    Best regards
    .....................

    I recieved a prety swift response:

    Thank you for your email. We are only reporting what happened at that event, but we can say that we know that the lanterns set off on Merseyside where not able to fly that far. All the land around the area is agricultural no animals on the land. No one has reported or filed any problems to us from any of the emergency services. They had been informed that this was taking place as well. The ones set off in Merseyside were not set off near the beach and the wind was not in the direction that would have coursed any problems. The ones used on Merseyside are made of paper and are fully biodegradable and have very light brown string. The problems in Wales are not related. The area (Sutherland) in the report you sent us is not the area we cover. We have not had any information about it, so cannot comment about it.

    So there you go!

    Mr B

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nuevamente , desde muy lejos les escribo .
    Escuche un video y pude leer la informacion dada por la direccion que brindo Anon 40. Realmente es horroroso!! Tiene una similitud increible con lo que dice David Icke ,excelente comunicador ingles, sobre el tema.
    Tambien,agradezco a Joana Morais por el espacio cedido para comunicarnos y resalto el nivel de los bloggers.

    ReplyDelete
  51. If Mr Amaral were to lose his assets, what would then prevent him from telling ALL that he knows, including what was said in the suspicious phone calls and who the phone numbers under investigation related to? The triangulations of certain calls are very interesting and may provide information that will eventually lead to a significant discovery.

    ReplyDelete
  52. anon@ 50 the southport and mersey reporter who spells caused as coursed (or was that your typo)

    ReplyDelete
  53. They dont need money to search for Maddie, they only have to demand a re opening of the case, but then that does not pay their mortgage or their trips and self publicity, or their pursuence of more money. Even if they are innocent this is no way to carry on if your distraught about your child. Money and Fame is what they enjoy, forget dear Maddie. What parent would allow the case to be shelved if they truly believed their child was alive.I would fight to the end of the earth Kate to keep the police searching for my child, but you prefer to party and brush shoulders with the not so famous anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Annon 54

    IF, my child had been abducted I Too would demand the case be re-opened, but it's seems they are reluctant to do even this much for Madeleine, then again, as has been stated numerous times, they did not bother to look for their child that night !!! and i have not see much evidence of them doing so since.............Now I wonder why that is ????? !!!

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anon @ 53

    The italics are cut & paste so not my fault - all other typos are mind though!

    Mr B

    ReplyDelete