Hope and Justice for Abuse Survivors in UK Peoples Tribunal

Peoples Tribunal

It was June in Vancouver, 1998, when Kevin Annett made his grand entrance onto the world stage as the self proclaimed savior and spokesperson for the abused children of the world.  His presence at the IHRAAM Tribunal into abuses suffered by Indian Residential School students at the hands of the Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian churches was supposed to be one of healing and reconciliation.  He was invited, after all, by high profile Native activists like Harriet Nahanee, who believed in the value of natives and non-natives walking the Red Road together to achieve peace.  His presence was to be a salve on the still open wounds suffered by Native children at the hands of Priests, Nuns and administrators seeking to civilize the wild children abducted into their ‘care’.  What he achieved, however, was division and betrayal; played out behind the scenes and behind peoples backs…..engaging in the very same ‘bad-jacketing’ techniques he accused the participants at the tribunal of.  In a single weekend, he managed to insert himself as a legitimate ‘ally’ of Native people which gave him access to the testimonials of the survivors and a means of accessing groups like the Circle of Justice.

And when the Circle of Justice publicly denounced him and demanded he answer their concerns he maintained his image by slandering and libelling those Natives levelling allegations against him.  He effectively shut them up and shut them up good.

Time, however, has had a way of dealing with Kevin Annett and all his claims and his latest weak attempt at bringing the Natives and the Indian Residential Schools back into his repertoire has gone over like a lead balloon.  The Republic of Kanata has been dissolved and no Grand Jury was held on the 26th of January to hold Alfred Webre, Alex Hunter ‘and others’ accountable for their ‘crimes’.  Annett has gone strangely silent except for the few weak attempts at salvaging his reputation amongst the New Age and Ascension fanatics.  It seems that even a Galactic Connection cannot save him now.

And so it is wonderfully appropriate that a real Peoples Tribunal into child abuse was announced that is an answer to Kevin Annett and his phoney-baloney Tribunal of Conscience.  The UKSAPT promises much more than the ITCCS ever did: Transparency, Accountability, Remedy, and, um….actual legal counsel!!!!  Here are their terms of reference:

Terms of Reference

Introduction 

1. The UK Child Sex Abuse People’s Tribunal (UKCSAPT), established by survivors of child sex abuse, their supporters, and witnesses, will investigate institutional child sex abuse.

2. Institutional child sex abuse arises from the abuse of power by an individual or individuals over a child or children, resulting often from the misuse of that power to enable the child sex abuse to happen.

3. There are many objectives which the UKCSAPT seeks to accomplish. The UKCSAPT seeks to end the tolerance of impunity with regards to this issue. No individual who has sexually abused a child or children will be deemed to be above the law, however powerful their position in an institution or organisation is or was; or however powerful that individual is or was perceived to be.

4. Furthermore, where institutional child sex abuse has taken place and there is sufficient evidence that it has taken place, justice should be seen to be done.

5. In addition, institutions must be held to account where they have failed to prevent, covered-up or have facilitated institutional child sex abuse. Where institutions have failed in their duty to children, the UKCSAPT will seek to make recommendations about how these institutions should address the problems identified.

6. Against this backdrop, survivors of child sex abuse and their supporters establish the UKCSAPT to:

a. independently raise potential avenues of inquiry related to the context, nature, and depth of institutional child sex abuse

b. provide a safe space free from interference and scrutiny to allow survivors, supporters, and witnesses to speak freely regarding institutional child sex abuse

c. independently establish how institutional policies and judicial systems have failed survivors and failed to protect the best interests of the child

d. independently determine and discuss which constructive remedies could best address institutional child sexual abuse and the allegations brought forth

Definitions 

7. A ‘child’ is defined as any person under 18 years of age, as defined by Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

8. ‘Institution’ means any society, body or organisation with the responsibility for the care, health or welfare of children. ‘Institution’ under theseTerms also includes political parties, religious organisations, the Monarchy, Secret Services, the Government, the Police, Local Authorities, Armed Forces and the Civil Service.

Parameters

9. Currently the United Kingdom Crown Services has set up an Independent Panel Inquiry (Panel) into Child Sexual Abuse. The Panel seeks to consider the extent state and non-state institutions failed to protect children from child sexual abuse.

10. The UKCSAPT works independently from the Panel and is purely a grassroots, societal based mechanism to give survivors and witnesses to child sexual abuse access to justice, as well as a voice. The means and methods to create such a mechanism have been created solely by survivors of child sexual abuse and supporters who seek to end child sexual abuse in the UK. All members who are part of the UKCSAPT work in a voluntary capacity.

11. No one who participates in the Panel is excluded from participating in the UKCSAPT. Survivors may choose to give evidence to both the Panel and the UKCSAPT if they wish.

Remit

12. The UKCSAPT will focus on Members of Parliament (MP’s) and Police who have been complicit or perpetrated the sexual abuse of children either directly or indirectly through the suppression of evidence of allegations and investigations.

13. The UKCSAPT reserves the right to modify its parameters after the current submission process takes place.

Methodology

14. The UKCSAPT will take evidence from survivors and/or witnesses in person. Survivors identity will be kept private. Procedures will be implemented which allows for this to occur and safeguard survivor and/or witness testimony

15. Survivors may also elect to stop participating in the UKCSAPT proceedings at any time they choose.

16.  Once the evidence has been compiled by qualified members of the UKCSAPT, the Tribunal Panel of the UKCSAPT will be given the submissions to compile an independent report. This Report will be handed to the various offices of the United Kingdom Government and relevant institutions. The Tribunal Panel  will determine its methodology and how it will present these materials to the public on its own accord.

17. Any evidence taken from survivors that is deemed relevant to a possible prosecution will be handed to the Police (with the permission of the survivors). Survivors will be supported when giving evidence to UKCSAPT and subsequently will be supported in giving evidence to the police, and in the process of any subsequent prosecution of their abuser/s. UKCSAPT, survivors, and interested parties intend to provide additional support to survivors. Survivors will be referred to the various support networks and organisations available to support and counsel survivors.

What I really like and support about such a Tribunal is that evidence will be submitted to the police, and whether the ‘cops are pigs’ crowd like it or not this is the course of action that must be taken in order to come about some form of justice. While much of the judicial system is corrupt, it is not entirely so.  And, having a Tribunal where charges are potentially going to be made deserves the same (if not more) support from the kind of people supporting Kevin Annett.  No change in the system can happen when we don’t pressure the system to do it’s job.

So, I for one, will be keeping a close eye on this and will be supporting this effort for transparency and accountability that was sabotaged in a similar Tribunal by a snake-oil salesman in a one man show.

peoples tribunal video

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Hope and Justice for Abuse Survivors in UK Peoples Tribunal

  1. “While much of the judicial system is corrupt, it is not entirely so.”

    Wise words indeed. I noticed that you “liked” one of my comments on one of Sabine McNeill’s blogs. Thank you for that.

    I shared a platform with Alfred Labremont Webre (mentioned below) in Brussels at the Covert Harassment Conference in November, although Alfred didn’t actually attend, he just sent a video message to the conference. Webre is now backing Sabine McNeill, who I cannot in all good conscience support over the Christchurch Primary School Hampstead party line she takes, highly prejudiced against Ricky Dearman, who I concluded was innocent back in January 2015. I find myself out on a limb over this other matter. Even Brian Gerrish of UK Column, an ally of mine for years, and who publicised Philip Kerr’s case against MI5 in which I am involved up to my neck, is on Sabine’s Hampstead bandwagon now.

    It is dangerous to assume that because one disagrees with somebody about one matter, that commentator must therefore be wrong about every matter on which they speak out. If I took that attitude, I would have to conclude that because Webre was with Sabine about Hampstead, he must be wrong about Kevin Annett too (of whom I have only just heard, from you), and therefore you must be wrong about Kevin, and everything else on which you expressed an opinion! Yet that seems to be how many armchair activists think.

    Like

    1. I agree John and thanks for your reply. It is very hard to not paint everyone with the same brush based on their prior or current affiliations with certain people. I have made that mistake with supporters of Kevin and was fortunate enough to overcome that mistake and get to know many of them. Alfred is a nice enough man but lacks discernment in some areas. This poses a problem for him…He states he had suspicions about KA for a long time, yet continued (and still continues) to give KA a platform. Mel Ve (as late as September 2013 was vehemently defending KA because she was working on SWISSINDO and many of Peoples Trust 1776 and OPPT people were also supporting KA. How do you extract yourself when you have built your reputation on who you have promoted for years? Hampstead is a conundrum indeed… Belinda supported Kevin Annett (and likely does still)…Neelu supports Kevin Annett, Christine Sands, Ella and Sabine.. Christine Sands doesn’t support Ella or Abraham and is a loose cannon of sorts…This presents a problem for Belinda (and Sabine) because she risks losing support from Neelu and looking bad because of the bad press from Christine. How you don’t lump all these eggs in one basket is a tough question…. One I don’t necessarily have an answer to. I think we CAN look at the facts (as you have) and try to keep them at the forefront. You asked for due dilligence from Sabine…to be transparent and tell the whole story…. But we both know that is the fundamental problem with the ‘Truth’ movement…it has it’s own agenda and is very selective.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s