Complaint against the UK in re: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

83 Priory Gardens London N6 5QU England 20 July 2012 Dr Navanethem Pillay United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland

Dear High Commissioner Pillay I am writing to you, as the director of the Network for Church Monitoring (N4CM), to ask you to urge the United Kingdom to accede to the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the multilateral treaty that commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to freedom of speech.

The first Optional Protocol sets out a system by which the UN’s Human Rights Committee can receive and consider complaints from individuals who allege a violation of the ICCPR. But since the UK Government has not ratified the Protocol, individuals from the UK are not currently permitted to submit written communications to the Committee. Indeed, the UK is the only European Union member state and one of only three members of the Council of Europe not to have acceded to the Optional Protocol.

My wife and I complain of an orchestrated campaign of harassment and intimidation by the Security Service (MI5) and/or Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) over a period dating back to September 2003, having exhausted all available domestic remedies and after having my application declared inadmissible by the European Court of Human Rights.

Please see my Communication enclosed herewith. Paragraphs 37-43 outline why the Vatican and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church should be monitored.

We note the UK Government’s response in the sixth periodic report under the ICCPR that it does not see “a compelling need to accept individual petition to the UN”, in particular its claim that “[t]he practical value to the individual citizen is unclear”. However, we believe that the Government should be urged to reconsider, as a priority, accession to the first Optional Protocol in order to guarantee effective and consistent protection of the full range of ICCPR rights.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey Director Network for Church Monitoring

1

DECLAN HEAVEY V. THE UNITED KINGDOM COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THE FIRST OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Before: The United Nations Human Rights Committee c/o Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Fax: + 41 22 9179022 Submitted by: Declan Heavey 83 Priory Gardens London N6 5QU United Kingdom Mobile: + 44 77 92843167 Email: dheavey@gmail.com Date: 20 July 2012

2

I. APPLICANT/STATE CONCERNED A. Information Concerning the Applicant of the Communication

1. The Applicant in this Communication is Declan Heavey, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and resident of the city of London in the United Kingdom. He was born on 4 September 1960. His wife, a naturalized Irish citizen born in Madrid in Spain, resides with the Applicant in London. They have no children. The Applicant is the director of the Network for Church Monitoring (N4CM).

B. State Party Concerned

2. The State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant or ICCPR) against which this Communication is directed is the United Kingdom.

3. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland formally acceded to the ICCPR on 20 May 1976, but has yet to accede to the first Optional Protocol (see cover letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 20 July 2012 above).

II. ARTICLES VIOLATED/EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES/OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROCEDURES A. Articles of the ICCPR Violated

4. This case arises in relation to the harassment, directed surveillance and interception of communications by the Security Service (MI5) and/or Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) over a period dating back to September 2003. It is submitted that this case involves the violation of Article 19, relating to the Applicant’s right to freedom of expression (in particular, his right to impart information on the Internet), taken together with Article 2, which requires the State Party to take proactive measures to “respect and ensure” the rights recognized in the Covenant.

B. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

5. Since 2003, the Applicant has sought repeatedly to put a stop to the harassment in its various forms without success. On 16 June 2010, the Applicant’s parliamentary representative, Home Office Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, wrote to Home Secretary Theresa May laying out the Applicant’s concerns regarding the interception of his and his wife’s emails. In a letter dated 12 November 2010, Security Minister Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones recommended the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) to investigate.

The IPT is the only Tribunal to whom complaints about the Intelligence Services can be directed, and under section 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, there is no appeal from a decision of the IPT. The Applicant therefore exhausted all possible domestic remedies by bringing a claim before the IPT. 6. The Applicant lodged his claim with the IPT on 10 August 2011 in respect of ongoing interception by MI5 and/or GCHQ over a period dating back to September 2003. The Applicant also alleged harassment, directed surveillance, the disabling of Internet access at home and in public libraries, interference with a website, blog and emails and interception of privileged communications by one or both agencies.

3

7. The Applicant informed the IPT that he and his wife currently live in the same house MI5 whistleblower David Shayler lived in for a couple of years (until 2007), where they are being repeatedly threatened and harassed by their live-in landlady, human rights activist Belinda McKenzie (see paragraph 23 below). It is unfortunate that Mr Shayler declared that he was the Messiah in 2007, became a squatter, and was subsequently ridiculed in the press for changing his name to Delores Kane. A New Statesman article published in September 2006 featuring Mr Shayler and Ms McKenzie gives no indication that Mr Shayler believed he was the Messiah at that time; whilst a Daily Mail interview with Mr Shayler explicitly shows he believed himself to be Jesus by June 2007 (see Annex 1, p. 15). He has never regained his normal self.

8. Within two weeks of the Applicant’s complaint to the IPT, Facebook had disabled his wife’s account; their web host SiteGround had to twice block their IP address due to a large number of simultaneous connections towards their server; Ms McKenzie had served them with a backdated notice to vacate their flat; and Haringey Council left the Applicant with his first shortfall of £76.92 in rent to pay (see paragraph 23(4) below). Nonetheless, the Tribunal dismissed the claim within three weeks, on 1 September 2011, stating (see Annex 2, p. 16): The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has carefully considered your complaint and Human Rights Act claim, and has concluded that it is obviously unsustainable, and thus falls within the provisions of Rule 13(3)(a) of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000, such that, pursuant to s67(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Tribunal has resolved to dismiss the claim.

9. The Applicant remains aggrieved by the decision of the IPT to dismiss his claim without calling upon information or evidence in addition to that provided by him, which he had informed the Tribunal was “wide-ranging”, including, but not limited to, papers correspondence, memoranda, contracts, agreements, and other records contained in a blog/diary. The “N4CM blog”, which has been vandalised on several occasions, even carries a screenshot of a Skype chat exposing the homophobic abuse of a distinguished American professor by an anonymous perpetrator. It was also made known to the Tribunal that the Applicant could adduce evidence other than his own. For example, third parties could have been contacted to confirm that several phone calls from the Applicant were cut off in midsentence.

10. According to the UK human rights group Justice, the IPT has only ever upheld 10 complaints out of 1,100 considered over the past decade. They observe that “[e]ither public bodies get their surveillance decisions miraculously right in 99.1% of cases, or the IPT is simply inadequate as a mechanism for investigating claims of abuse”. Liberty, one of the UK’s leading civil liberties and human rights organisations, asks: “How can the public have any confidence in a process which is held in secret, gives little or no reasons for its decisions and whose judgment cannot be brought into question in any court of law?”

11. In this regard, it is important to underscore that the discriminatory surveillance suffered by the Applicant and his wife is not an isolated event. Rather, it is emblematic of a larger pattern of surveillance and discriminatory practices by law enforcement officials in the UK that has been well-documented by international and domestic human rights bodies. In May 2012, Liberty expressed concern that “state sanctioned surveillance against specific individuals takes place on a massive scale”. Six years ago, in July 2006, Norman Baker MP accused the British Government of “hoarding information about people who pose no danger to this country”, after it emerged that MI5 was holding secret files on 272,000 individuals – equivalent to one in 160 adults.

4

C. Other International Procedures

12. The Applicant complained to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 19 October 2011. He invoked Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and 13 (right to effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He submitted that the interference with his rights under Article 8 was not prescribed by the law, that it did not pursue any of the legitimate aims in Article 8(2), and that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society. He also submitted that there was no effective remedy available in respect of the interference, in violation of Article 13.

13. The ECHR, sitting in a single-judge formation (VA De Gaetano assisted by a rapporteur), dismissed the claim within 14 weeks, on 24 January 2012, stating (see Annex 3, p. 17): In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court found that they did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

14. The ECHR letter of dismissal dated 31 January 2012 refers to the Applicant’s “application lodged on 5 September 2011”. In fact, the Applicant’s application was lodged with the Court on 19 October 2011. On 5 September 2011, the Applicant merely expressed his intention to lodge an application with the Court.

III. BACKGROUND FACTS 15. The Applicant believes that the activities complained of are directly linked to a 1997 High Court case in Ireland involving the Roman Catholic Hospitaller Order of St John of God which the Applicant successfully defended in person, and his subsequent move to the United Kingdom in 2003 to develop the then Network of those Abused by Church (NAC). The fourday High Court case was the first ever hearing of a ward of court action before a jury. The Applicant also applied to have the case heard publicly and – in another first in the history of the State – the ward of court process was opened to public scrutiny (see Annex 4, “Wards of court lose rights and liberties”, The Irish Times opinion article, 6 March 1997, p. 18). The Applicant alleged that the action, arising out of a dispute over his father’s will, was no more than an attempt to cover up wrongdoing by the Hospitaller Order of St John of God in the mid-1980s (see Annex 5 and 6 for details, pp. 19-21).

16. The St John of God Order is a Spanish Catholic congregation with over 300 hospitals and centres in 53 countries throughout the world. The Order provides mental health services, care for older people and services for children and adults with disabilities. It is one of 18 religious orders that signed up to the 2002 redress agreement between the congregations and the Irish Government which indemnified the orders from claims made by abuse victims in exchange for payments and property capped at €127 million. According to The Irish Times, unpublished estimates compiled by senior Department of Education officials put the final bill for the redress scheme at €1.47 billion, up from the €1.36 billion that had been quoted. There are 138 religious congregations in Ireland, including the 18 held accountable by the State for abusing children in their institutions.

5

A. Birmingham (September 2003 to November 2006)

17. Upon arriving in the United Kingdom from Ireland in 2003, the Applicant and his wife first settled in the city of Birmingham to work on the NAC website. From the outset they were subjected to an orchestrated campaign of harassment and intimidation, including difficulties with the administration of bank, electricity and gas accounts, and extensive damage caused by flooding from a flat above, all well documented in the Applicant’s personal website (now offline), with photographs of the damage done to their flat. For two years the Applicant and his wife survived off their savings until they were forced to go on state benefits in July 2005.

18. On 27 September 2006, the Applicant’s joint claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) was terminated by the Department for Work and Pensions because it was alleged by Erdington Jobcentre in Birmingham that he did not sign for JSA earlier that day, when in fact he was not due to sign on until two days later (see Annex 7, Erdington Jobcentre: Letter terminating benefits claim, p. 22). A simple check of the Applicant’s and his wife’s previous signings would have established that they signed on every second Friday, not every second Wednesday. However, subsequent letters from the Applicant to the Jobcentre and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions went unanswered, in clear violation of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996.

B. Sleeping rough in London (November 2006 to July 2009)

19. For more than 2 ½ years, from 4 November 2006 to 13 July 2009, the Applicant and his wife were forced to live rough on the streets of London, where the Applicant’s case regarding the termination of his joint benefits claim was dismissed by the High Court (Judicial Review), the Court of Appeal and the ECHR. Neither the Applicant nor his wife could be referred to a hostel due to not being on benefits and had to resort to day centres for the homeless where they experienced harassment and violence at the hands of homeless people, all well documented with crime reference numbers and other evidence in the N4CM (then NAC) blog. The N4CM blog also contains video evidence, crime reference numbers and police tickets that show that at night the Applicant and his wife were attacked on several occasions, hosed, urinated on, and were regularly harassed by the police. The Applicant complained in open correspondence with senior church leaders, police officers and politicians, but without effect on any front (see, for example, Annex 10, City of London Police: Reply from Commissioner Michael Bowron, pp. 25-26).

20. The Applicant submits that the following three examples – by no means exhaustive – from his and his wife’s time on the street bear all the hallmarks of directed surveillance (i.e. surveillance that is covert but not intrusive): 1) On 22 September 2007, at a time when the Applicant was answering questions on the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum to raise money to help him and his wife survive on the street, his wife was severely assaulted while sleeping (crime reference no.

CR/007884/07); 2) On 8 March 2008, three days after an email from the Home Office stating that it was unlikely the Applicant’s emails were being intercepted, the then NAC website was removed from the Internet (see N4CM blog of 14 March 2008 “SpamCop reports Declan as a spammer”);

6

3) On 18 June 2008, the same morning the Applicant was due to post his second Request for Priority to the ECHR, all their money and documents were stolen in a day centre for the homeless run by the Roman Catholic Sisters of Mercy (crime reference no.

4215697/08). The nuns subsequently refused to release CCTV footage of the robbery to the police (see Annex 8, Sisters of Mercy: Letter signed by the Apostolic Nuncio, p. 23).

21. The Applicant’s Internet activity was monitored and restricted throughout the time he and his wife were confined to living on the street. In October 2007, he began an online petition to the United Nations in support of embryonic stem cell research. This petition had been signed by 22 Nobel Prize winners by the time the NAC website was removed from the Internet (see paragraph 20(2) above). In an email of 29 February 2008 to then Home Secretary Jacqueline Smith, the Applicant not only complained of interception but pointed out that all emails sent to him after 12 August 2007 had been moved to Trash and over 300 draft documents deleted, including the names and email addresses of more than 2,500 scientists from around the world (see Annex 9, Complaint to the Home Secretary regarding interception, p. 24).

C. London (July 2009 to the present day)

22. On 13 July 2009, through an associate in America, the Applicant and his wife were put in contact with human rights activist Belinda McKenzie after the Applicant received an email earlier in the day from the City of London Police confirming that without a court order the police would physically remove him and his wife from where they had been sleeping for almost a year (see Annex 10, City of London Police: Reply from Commissioner Michael Bowron, pp. 25-26). Ms McKenzie, who is known for having housed MI5 whistleblower David Shayler for a couple of years (see paragraph 7 above), agreed that the Applicant and his wife could be tenants in her house. Their first four tenancy agreements were for threemonth periods notwithstanding Ms McKenzie’s assurances that they could stay in the flat for as long as they needed.

23. Three months after the tenancy began, on 9 October 2009, the Applicant had his joint claim JSA reinstated. However, the Applicant and his wife continued to be the targets of a well-orchestrated campaign of harassment and intimidation. The following are illustrative examples of the sorts of tactics employed in this campaign and come from the last year alone: 1) On 22 November 2011, Mr Justice Mitting, sitting at London’s High Court, ruled that the Applicant’s claim of 3 December 2010 for Judicial Review against Highgate Jobcentre for violation of the Jobseeker’s Act 1995 was “not totally without merit” (see Annex 11, Highgate Jobcentre: Transcript of Judgment, Mitting J, pp. 27-29).

2) On 6 January 2012, Ms McKenzie threatened the Applicant and his wife in writing with physical removal from their flat (crime reference no. 2800668/12). On 13 January 2012, Ms McKenzie wrote (see Annex 12, Appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, pp. 30-31): Re. the criminal charges, the police on examining some of the recent emails including the one with what you construed as a threat have already concluded that I am a generous and friendly rather than in any way violent person and so when I said I would remove you with the help of my builder it was highly unlikely to mean I am going to have you beaten up, simply that he might start to dismantle the kitchen or bathroom and help you pack up your possessions, etc. (In fact the easiest way I now realise is for me to cut off the internet

7

altogether!!!!) They indicated you don’t have much of a case against me frankly, even on the civil front (i.e. landlord-tenant dispute).

3) Since 6 January 2012, the Applicant and his wife have had to take measures such as requesting from Jobcentre Plus (of the Department for Work and Pensions) separate times to sign for JSA so that one of them is always in the flat to prevent the dismantling of their kitchen and/or bathroom, etc. Jobcentre Plus has only agreed to allocate them separate signing times if possible, meaning the Applicant’s wife’s JSA has been and remains under constant threat of termination (see Annex 13, Jobcentre Plus: Reply regarding signing, pp. 32-33).

4) On 24 January 2012, Mr Justice Mitting ruled that it was lawful for Haringey Council to have left the Applicant with a shortfall of £76.92 in rent to pay each month during the preceding six months because the Council intended covering his annual rent liability (see Annex 14, Haringey Council: Order by Mitting J, p. 34). The shortfalls arise from the difference between the Applicant’s housing benefit payments of £230.77 per week, paid fortnightly at the rate of £461.54 (£923.08 per four week period) and his monthly rent liability of £1000. Despite Mr Justice Mitting’s ruling, the Applicant submits that the Council is knowingly discriminating against him in the manner they are paying his rent by effectively reimbursing shortfalls at the end of the rental year with a second sum to the amount of £461.54 scheduled for payment to him on 23 July 2012.

The Applicant and his wife have only been able to meet these shortfalls throughout the rental year out of their JSA (for them both) of £105.95 per week because they pay rent inclusive of all extraneous charges save telephone line.

5) On 19 April 2012, Ms McKenzie was forced to withdraw her claim for the accelerated possession of the Applicant and his wife’s flat due to “wrong information” she provided the Court, to quote from an email of hers later that day (see Annex 15, Eviction Proceedings: Rebuttal to the Claimant’s Note to the Court, pp. 35-36). She immediately served them with notice to vacate the flat on 26 July 2012.

6) On 29 June 2012, the Metropolitan Police Service refused in writing to investigate Ms McKenzie’s written threat of 26 June to remove all services from the Applicant and his wife as of 26 July because the Independent Police Complaints Commission had ordered them on 26 June to re-open their investigation into Ms McKenzie’s written threat of the previous January to have the Applicant and his wife removed with the help of her builder (see Annex 16 containing MPS’s refusal to investigate, pp. 37-39).

24. Despite Ms McKenzie’s harassment, intentional infliction of distress (including disrepair to property) and denial of appropriate services – all substantiated in documents the Applicant filed with the court in defence of Ms McKenzie’s previous application for an accelerated possession order – the Applicant and his wife have at all times remained friendly and polite, not just with Ms McKenzie (seldom reciprocated), but with other people in the house. Moreover, since the incorporation of Network for Church Monitoring as a company limited by guarantee in January 2011, they have repeatedly tried to raise the money they need to move accommodation.

25. Firstly, in September 2011, the Applicant and his wife created an N4CM Survival Appeal Pledge Scheme. However, lack of home Internet access devastated this scheme and they were forced to abandon their efforts (see Annex 15, Eviction Proceedings: Rebuttal to the Claimant’s Note to the Court, pp. 35-36). Secondly, from 27 February to 8 May 2012, they ran a funding campaign for N4CM on Indiegogo at www.indiegogo.com/N4CM (the 8

promotional video can still be viewed there). The Applicant had sought to open an account for N4CM with the National Westminster Bank (of Royal Bank of Scotland Group) on 21 February 2012 in order to be able to promote this campaign, but the account was not opened until 14 May, six days after the campaign had expired; on 16 March, RBS CEO Stephen Hester’s Office requested “a full briefing” from NatWest. Thirdly, since 19 April 2012, the day Ms McKenzie had to withdraw her claim for possession of their flat due to false statements of truth in court documents, the Applicant and his wife have been cut off the Internet an unprecedented total of 79 recorded times, and have otherwise had exceptionally slow and irregular Internet connection speed (see Annex 17, Internet records, pp. 40-41).

26. In May 2012, the N4CM website was removed from the Internet for the fifth recorded time after Just Host, the domain’s then registrar, changed the domain name server (DNS) records without permission or authorization and disabled the Applicant’s wife’s facility to correct these records herself (see Annex 18, Just Host: Email to the European Commission, pp. 42-47). No sooner had the Applicant’s wife successfully transferred the domain name churchandstate.org.uk to SiteGround’s registrar on 8 June, than, on 14 June, the N4CM website was vandalised to such an extent that the Applicant’s wife was advised by the wordpress theme designers that she had no option but to scratch the theme she had been working with for over two years and start over with a new theme (see Annex 19, WordPress: Final exchange with theme designer, p. 48). The Chairman of N4CM, Dr Stephen Mumford from North Carolina, US, has been funding the N4CM website with SiteGround since December 2010 after the website was removed from the Internet by Just Host notwithstanding that the Applicant’s wife had paid them for web hosting and domain through to August 2015. Dr Mumford is now also funding the domain with SiteGround.

27. The Applicant further complains that the extent of the manipulation and control of his and his wife’s emails has resulted in the shelving for almost two years of his petition to the United Nations in support of embryonic stem cell research, which more than two years ago had been signed by no less than 28 Nobel Prize winners as well as hundreds of other distinguished scholars. It has also resulted in the almost immediate shelving of the Applicant’s statement to President Barack Obama and members of the US Congress regarding forest conservation, published in April 2011, which within 48 hours had been signed by a recipient of the Blue Plant Prize, widely considered the environmental equivalent of a Nobel award. In April 2010, an associate of the Applicant’s in America wrote to Home Office Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, stating: I am truly appalled by the unlawful violation of the Heavey’s basic right to send and receive email without interference. I would be grateful for anything you may be able to do by way of taking measures to correct this gross abuse.

28. Despite Minister Featherstone’s letter to the Home Secretary in June 2010 regarding interception (see paragraph 5 above), there has been no response from the Home Office into why the Applicant and his wife continue to encounter problems with their email. The Applicant has also amassed evidence relating to the sabotage of his and his wife’s mail. For example, in the case of Heavey v Haringey Council (see paragraph 23(4) above), the Applicant was denied an oral hearing which he otherwise would have been entitled to had he received an order from the Court when it was sent to him. The Applicant’s application for an order extending time for renewing his application for permission to apply for judicial review to an oral hearing and for the file of his claim to be re-opened was refused by Mr Justice Mitting (see Annex 14, Haringey Council: Order by Mitting J, p. 34). Most recently, on 7 July 2012, the Applicant’s wife sent the following message by email to Ms McKenzie (to which she did not receive an acknowledgement of any description): 9

Hi Belinda, I just went downstairs to give you a letter but neither you nor your daughter Tizzy was around. When I looked inside the letter addressed to me that was "opened in error" this afternoon, I found a folded unopened letter addressed to you! I will leave the unopened letter that is addressed to you on the table in the hall (please see attachment), and you have this email by way of explanation as to what it's doing there. Best, Lola

29. The Applicant submits that the harassment, intimidation and discrimination he and his wife continue to experience is politically motivated, that it is the product of directed surveillance, and that it is certain to continue. On 13 July 2012, the Applicant received a letter from the Independent Case Examiner stating that they are unable to start the investigation into his complaint for maladministration against Jobcentre Plus, made on 8 August 2011, due to shortage of staff (see Annex 20, Independent Case Examiner: Letter regarding Jobcentre Plus, p. 49). A complaint of the Applicant’s that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) acted maladministratively in June 2011 has yet to be investigated by the Parliamentary Ombudsman despite a third referral by Minister Featherstone in December 2011 (see Annex 21, Parliamentary Ombudsman: Letter regarding HMCTS, p. 50).

30. On 7 June 2012, the Applicant received a response from the President of the European Commission via the EC Directorate-General for Justice concerning the problems his wife encountered when seeking to renew her passport at the Irish Passport Office in London. She had been told by a passport officer that her application could not be processed unless she surrendered the originals of all her proof documents. This is something the Applicant was not asked to do when he renewed his passport in December 2011. According to the Acting Head of European Union Citizenship and Free Movement, given that Irish law provides for passports to be issued and renewed, Ireland complies with its obligations under EU law regardless of how “burdensome or unwarranted” the requirements of the Irish authorities might be (see Annex 22, Irish Passport Office in London: Letter from European Commission, p. 51). The key conclusion to be drawn from this reason as to why it is not open for the European Commission to pursue the Applicant’s wife’s case further is that under EU law there is no remedy for discrimination.

31. The Applicant and his wife are deeply concerned about what lies in wait for them in their next accommodation when they have to reconnect and maintain utilities such as telephone, Internet, gas, electricity, and related services.

IV. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE COVENANT 32.

Article 19 of the Covenant provides, in pertinent part:

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, whether orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: a) For the respect of the rights or reputations of others; b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.

33. The Applicant and his wife are indisputably targeted because they are imparting information through the N4CM website which is often critical of church authorities, in 10

particular the Vatican and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The types of action taken by States to limit the dissemination of content online not only include measures to prevent information from reaching the end-user, but also direct targeting of those who seek, receive and impart politically sensitive information via the Internet. Physically silencing criticism or dissent through harassment and intimidation is an old phenomenon, and also applies to Internet users. This issue has been explored in the Special Rapporteur’s report to the General Assembly under the section on “protection of citizen journalists” (A/65/284). Such actions are often aimed not only to silence legitimate expression, but also to intimidate a population to push its members towards self-censorship.

34. Freedom of expression, as protected under Article 19 of the Covenant, has been recognised by international tribunals, national courts and commentators as vital not only to the development of the individual, but to the securing and protecting of democracy itself. As the Committee has explained: “It is in the essence of [free and democratic] societies that its citizens must be allowed to inform themselves about alternatives to the political system/parties in power, and that they may criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their Governments … within the limits set by Article 19, paragraph 3” (see Aduayom et al. v.

Togo, Communication Nos. 422-24/1990 (1996), § 7.4).

35. According to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/66/290): … restrictions must be formulated in a way that makes clear that its sole purpose is to protect individuals from hostility, discrimination or violence, rather than to protect belief systems, religions or institutions from criticism. The right to freedom of expression implies that it should be possible to scrutinize, openly debate and criticize, even harshly and unreasonably, ideas, opinions, belief systems and institutions, including religious ones, as long as this does not advocate hatred that incites hostility, discrimination or violence against an individual or a group of individuals.

36. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur stresses that, as stipulated in Human Rights Council resolution 12/16 (para. 5(p)(i)), the following types of expression should never be subject to restrictions: discussion of government policies and political debate; reporting on human rights, government activities and corruption in government; engaging in election campaigns, peaceful demonstrations or political activities, including for peace or democracy; and expression of opinion and dissent, religion or belief, including by persons belonging to minorities or vulnerable groups.

Why the Vatican and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church should be monitored

37. If the Special Rapporteur was concerned that the restrictions just referred to created problems under Article 19, the Committee will surely find the harassment and intimidation that the Applicant and his wife endure to be troubling. Sadly, the institution of the Roman Catholic Church appears to have become a political one above all else. To survive and expand for so many centuries it was compelled to become a political power, and it has become a financial power as well. Sometimes the Church undertakes activities that are political or economic under the guise of religion. But the image of the Catholic Church presented by the mainstream media does not reflect these realities.

38. N4CM Chairman Dr Stephen Mumford, the founder and President of the Center for Research on Population and Security in North Carolina, US, has written extensively about the Vatican’s grave threat to the future of humankind and the democratic institutions of the 11

United States posed by the Catholic Church. He has revealed that the Church has exerted great influence on US policy in population matters as a result of its intimidation of elected officials and the built-in reverence most Americans have for an ecclesiastical hierarchy. The teachings of the Church and its hierarchy’s insistence that these teachings be followed have resulted in an unintentional suppression of the substantial knowledge about the consequences of overpopulation. The main source of energy, organization, and direction of the anti-abortion movement in the United States and the movement to frustrate enforcement of US immigration laws is the Roman Catholic Church.

39. In his book American Democracy and The Vatican, Dr Mumford reveals that the Catholic Church, in effect, controls most governments in Latin America and many in Africa and the Philippines. Authorities in these countries live under constant intimidation by the Church, which can threaten to bring about the downfall of a regime by arousing its citizens through pastoral letters and other means should the government refuse to conform to the Church’s agenda. This ultimate step is ordinarily avoided through manipulation – by weeding out “troublemakers” before they rise to power. On the other hand, those who are loyal are well rewarded in their search for positions of power; they are assisted by the Church in their ascension to high positions in government. Government leaders who owe their first loyalty to the Vatican represent different proportions of office holders in different countries.

40. Dr Mumford cites an example in Chile. In 1979, with approval from the minister of health of Chile, Dr Ben Viel began setting up a female sterilization program with $1 million worth of sterilization equipment provided by the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London. When the equipment arrived in Chile, a Father Ibanes Langlois, serving as a messenger for the Vatican, met with the president of Chile. There was then and continues to be a disagreement between Chile and Argentina, almost bringing the two countries to war over the Beagle Channel at the tip of South America, that may prove to be rich in oil. Chile and Argentina had agreed to let the pope mediate the dispute. Langlois informed the president that, if this sterilization equipment was not removed from Chile, the pope would favour Argentina in the settling of the Beagle Channel dispute. The president called in the minister of health and ordered him to get the sterilization equipment out of the country. Dr Viel was so notified by the minister of health, and it was shipped out.

41. In a videotaped interview with Dr Mumford available on the N4CM website, Prof Milton Siegel details how the Vatican seized control of World Health Organization (WHO) family-planning/contraception-related policy-making right from its earliest stages. Prof Siegel was the assistant director-general of WHO for its first 24 years, and considered among the world’s foremost authorities on the development of WHO policy. During the third World Health Assembly (1950), the Vatican threatened to kill WHO and start their own organization if the director general did not stand up before the Assembly and specifically state that WHO would not get involved with family planning, which he duly did. WHO did not get involved at all for more than a decade. In its 64-year history, WHO has had a deplorable record in family planning. Its commitment has been minuscule, and even today family planning accounts for only a tiny fraction of its budget. The Vatican continues to have considerable influence at WHO. For example, in the mid-1990s it succeeded in having appointed as director of WHO’s Human Reproduction Program a professor from a Catholic University in Rome, Dr Giuseppe Benagiano, the son of Pope Paul VI’s dentist. Dr Benagiano promptly set out to kill any further clinical studies of a non-surgical method of female sterilization called quinacrine sterilization, or QS. At that time, it had been accepted voluntarily by more than 50,000 Vietnamese women with no reported deaths or life-threatening complications (see Annex 23, “WHO creates demand for abortions” by Donald Collins, Pittsburgh TribuneReview feature article, 28 January 2004, p. 52).

12

42. The Vatican has, according to Paul Blanshard in American Freedom and Catholic Power, a full civil government with a flag, a police force, courts and postage stamps. It issues currency and passports to its citizens, and has a large and active diplomatic corps, headed by a Secretary of State with ambassadors called nuncios. The government is completely autocratic with all legislative powers vested in the pope. This means that there is no separation of church and state. It also means that the Vatican claims jurisdiction “everywhere where there are Catholics”. It claims representation in the United Nations and functions like a nation-state in international gatherings at the same time that it functions like a church. Yet, politicians would never investigate the Vatican’s numerous attempts to influence or control nation states’ foreign or domestic policy because, like a chameleon, it would claim it was merely functioning as a church, not as a state. In fact, it is already so powerful that anyone who tried to investigate it would find such an endeavour a political liability.

43. The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from these observations is that the Catholic Church is skilfully manipulating governments and influencing international bodies of a purely secular nature. The Vatican uses its position not only to protect its autonomy from outside intervention, but to impose its view on the rest of the world. Numerous observers over the years, including scholar Paul Blanchard, have correctly described the Catholic Church as a political institution cloaked in religion.

13

TABLE OF ANNEXES ANNEX 1:

MI5 whistleblower David Shayler

15

ANNEX 2:

Investigatory Powers Tribunal Decision

16

ANNEX 3:

European Court of Human Rights Decision

17

ANNEX 4:

Irish Times opinion article

18

ANNEX 5:

St John of God Order: Complaint by Elliott Duffy Garrett Solicitors

19

ANNEX 6:

St John of God Order: Letter signed by the Provincial of All Ireland

21

ANNEX 7:

Erdington Jobcentre: Letter terminating benefits claim

22

ANNEX 8:

Sisters of Mercy: Letter signed by the Apostolic Nuncio

23

ANNEX 9:

Complaint to the Home Secretary regarding interception

24

ANNEX 10: City of London Police: Reply from Commissioner Michael Bowron

25

ANNEX 11: Highgate Jobcentre: Transcript of Judgment, Mitting J

27

ANNEX 12: Appeal to Independent Police Complaints Commission

30

ANNEX 13: Jobcentre Plus: Reply regarding signing

32

ANNEX 14: Haringey Council: Order by Mitting J

34

ANNEX 15: Eviction Proceedings: Rebuttal to Claimant’s Note to Court

35

ANNEX 16: Complaint to Independent Police Complaints Commission

37

ANNEX 17: Internet records

40

ANNEX 18: Just Host: Email to European Commission

42

ANNEX 19: WordPress: Final exchange with theme designer

48

ANNEX 20: Independent Case Examiner: Letter regarding Jobcentre Plus

49

ANNEX 21: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Letter regarding HMCTS

50

ANNEX 22: Irish Passport Office in London: Letter from European Commission

51

ANNEX 23: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article

52

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52