Resolution 2361 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe urges member States and the EU to:

7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to be vaccinated if they do not wish to do so;
7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated;

However, in reality, the opposite is often happening.

Note also the words about “fair and equitable global allocation” (in 7.2.6). Thus, even if the vaccines are safe, efficient and essential against Covid-19, it is in-efficent to roll out vaccination to non-risk groups before all vulnerable groups in the world have been vaccinated. So why are many countries anyway vaccinating children (believed to be least at risk)? Is it a corrupt system we are seeing? The Council of Europe seems to be aware of the risk, because they also urge member States and the EU to “communicate transparently the contents of contracts with vaccine producers and make them publicly available for parliamentary and public scrutiny” (in 7.3.5).

Read in CovertAction Magazine about the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The journalist Patrik Paulov reminds us about Sweden’s dirty role in Syria. Read part 1 and part 2 in a series of two articles, published in Morning Star. Especially the case at end of part 2 is very revealing. We have written about this case before on Accoun. Interestingly, other articles about this case can be found in Swedish, but they often don’t seem to give the whole picture, If Swedish media prefers to cover up the role of the Swedish state than expose it, one can understand why the prospects for Sweden are probably not bright. Accountability is important for society to improve. Without accountability, we cannot expect a good development.

Read what Mads Andenæs and Eirik Vold wrote in Aftenposten recently (link to article in Norwegian):

One important distinction between democracies and authoritarian regimes is this: In democracies, those who expose crimes and abuses of power are protected from the authorities. The authorities are held accountable.

Many authoritarian regimes punish critics in their own country. So far, only the United States has prosecuted publishers from other countries in other states, and also stricter than its own citizens. Wikileaks is not an American organization. Assange is not a US citizen. He was also not in the US when the information was published or when he was arrested.

And remember, also Sweden, UK and (more recently) Ecuador are part of this worse than authoritarian scheme. Nils Melzer said: “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonize and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law”. But somehow, Swedish Radio forgot to mention the UN’s and Melzer’s criticism in their new documentary about Assange (link to radio documentary in Swedish). Just like UNA Sweden and many others.

Julian Assange, 2013. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Julian_Assange_-_9060712888_(cropped).jpg. Photo: Cancillería Ecuador (Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry). License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

France is taking the lead in making life unpleasant for the unvaccinated, which is described as a dictatorial drift. It would not be surprising if more countries follow. Now, large protests are reported from France, although information about the protests is in many cases apparently supressed. RT reports that a French hospital in Montelimar is on indefinite strike to protest against the new rules demanding they take a vaccine against Covid-19. It makes you wonder what’s next? Will the police now start shooting protesters in the eyes, as they have done with other protesters before (eye injuries during protests is actually a problem in many parts of the world)?

In Norway 10 years ago, Anders Behring Breivik detonated a bomb in central Oslo, killing 8 people, and after that murdered 69 young people on the island of Utøya. Some say that we didn’t learn anything from it (link to article in Swedish).

However, not many say anything about a possible reason why authorities were not watching Breivik better and why the police was so late to stop him: About 20 minutes into a BBC documentary from 1992, Oswald LeWinter says there was an amendment to the NATO protocol, including an agreement of the government not to prosecute right-wing activists.

Norway is a member of NATO.

LeWinter is on Wikipedia described as not a credible source, but especially in this case it should be worth looking into if a blind eye had been turned against right-wing extremists. That governments make secret agreements must also be questioned.

This month, Julian Assange turned 50 in solitary confinement in the UK, while accused by the US of violating the Espionage Act. Read about the latest revelations about reckless methods used against Assange and the controversial prosecutor at the heart of the case. Soon, the documentary Ithaka will have its world premiere at the Melbourne International Film Festival. The film offers insight into the efforts to save Assange. Earlier this year, Nils Melzer’s new book about the Assange case was published in English and German. A Swedish translation should be available this fall.

Recently, a judge in Equador decided to prosecute Ola Bini, accused of hacking into Ecuador’s national telecommunications company (link to article in Swedish). Bini, who was arrested already in 2019 only hours after Ecuador revoked immunity for Bini’s friend Assange, denies any wrongdoing. Bini’s Swedish legal representative Thomas Bodström says that Bini’s Ecuadorian defender Carlos Soria has been refused to submit evidence proving Bini’s innocence, and that what is happening is reminiscent of legal proceedings in Belarus and Russia.

See the interview in Democracy Now with Malalai Joya.

Two articles highlight the risk of increasing confrontation between states with nuclear weapons, which could become a nuclear holocaust:

David L. Phillips recently wrote: “Forget talk about ‘re-sets’ in relations; the US is on collision course with two implacable adversaries”. These adversaries are Russia and China. Note that he is currently director of the program on “Peacebuilding and Human Rights” at Columbia University and he served as a senior adviser and foreign affairs expert during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

Earlier this year, US admiral Charles Richard warned of a real possibility of nuclear war with Russia and China. He heads the US Strategic Command.

Iran is described sometimes as a sponsor of terrorism or sometimes as a victim of terrorism sponsored by other states, depending on who you listen to. As with so many other issues today, you can find sources that reinforce your own views, but do they give the whole picture? One-sided reporting seems to often go hand-in-hand with government-related crime.