The Translators’ Network for Linguistic Diversity

SOUTH OF THE BORDER  (Latin America and the Caribbean)
IMPERIUM  (Global Issues)
THE LAND OF CANAAN  (Palestine, Israel)
UMMA  (Arab World, Islam)
IN THE BELLY OF THE WHALE  (Activism in the Imperialist Metropolis)
THE MOTHER CONTINENT  (Africa, Indian Ocean)

TYPHOON ZONE  (Asia, Pacific Basin)
WITH A K AS IN KALVELLIDO (Diary of a Proletarian Cartoonist)
STORMING BRAINS  (Culture, Communication)
TLAXCALA'S REFERENCE ZONE  (Glossaries, Dictionaries, Maps)

Español Français English Deutsch Português Italiano Català
عربي Svenska فارسی Ελληνικά русски TAMAZIGHT OTHER LANGUAGES

Eurocracy reintroduces the death penalty. Secretly.


Translated by  Mary Rizzo

A serious threat is hanging over our heads: the European Charter, without anyone being aware of it, allows capital punishment “in case of war, disorder, insurrection.” A thin dividing line separates citizens from terrorists who ‘deserve to be hanged’. The Lisbon Treaty is being forcefully imposed also in Ireland, which only allows it to pass through a referendum, but it looks like everything’s already been prepared.

The death penalty is not used in any European nation. But now, each one of them is about to introduce it without knowing – or without saying anything about it – simply due to the fact of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the so-called European Constitution. This information was indicated by Helga Zepp-Larouche (Lyndon’s wife), who herself was informed by a well-known group of German and Austrian law experts (1).

One of them, Professor Albrecht Schachtschneider, one of the four experts who wrote a famous exposé against the Maastricht Treaty, explained how the death penalty will be reintroduced silently. It is not cited in the text of the treaty, but in a footnote. 

Yes, that’s right, those who accept the Lisbon Treaty will also accept the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights with it. The Charter proclaims that the death penalty is abolished, but then it directs one to a specific footnote in which it is written: “Except in case of war, riots, upheaval”. This phrase exposes an extremely serious legal matter.



Tom Sachs
Chanel Guillotine (Breakfast Nook)

mixed media


An entire special penal maximum right is affirmed in a footnote, without any definition of the crimes that shall be persecuted with capital punishment. Who will decide what possible “riots” are of such an intensity to suspend the abrogation of the death penalty? Which courts will pass this judgment? Will they be special course that are set up precisely for the emergency? And when will a series of mass protests start to be judged as an “upheaval” worthy of being punished by death?
And even the mention of the cause of war, that might seem acceptable (many countries maintain the death penalty in their laws of war), instead assumes a terrible ambiguity in the context of the Lisbon Treaty.
Indeed, according to the Solidarity Clause, every European nation is expected to participate in military actions when they are considered to be fighting against “terrorist actions” in any other nation. Obviously, Helga Zepp notes, the concept of “terrorist action” is very indefinite, and it can be filled arbitrarily by the most convenient meanings. Who has the power to define an act as “terrorist”?
This much we know: Israel. The chosen people have the power to define as “terrorist” the acts of self-defence of the Palestinian people, as well as those of the Lebanese Shias (Hezbollah) or to even designate entire States (Syria, Iraq, Iran) as “terrorists”, and we, the European servants, immediately adopt the definition that Israel gives.
As is well-known, Zion continuously widens the latitudes of the criminal types: the proclamations of the Imam of Carmagnola are “association in terrorism” for the various Secretaries of State, and have cost this pathetic character the expulsion from Europe with an extra-judiciary police decree: and for him things could have been much worse, with the Lisbon Treaty, it was his life that was at risk But the rest of us, under the rule of the Treaty, can’t be expelled.
Criticism of Israel for the atrocities they commit against the Palestinians is – as dictated by the respectable law export of the doctored expenses bills, President Napolitano – is pure and simple “anti-Semitism”. Therefore it is already almost “association in terrorism”. With just a slight push (from the “great friend of Israel”) and we all run the risk of being hanged: just like the footnotes say. Would it happen in some dark hall of a Ministry or from the European Court? No one knows.

The text of the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified secretly by the national parliaments, without any public discussion or open debate. In Germany the text has not even been published (and hopefully I will not be mistaken here, but neither has it been in Italy). At any rate, as it stands now, it is all but gibberish for those who are not experts in the field.
To understand it, one has to integrate it bit by bit with the outdated European Constitution – the one that was rejected by referendum by France and Holland in 2005 – because it is this document that the Lisbon Treaty refers to. And in what way?
With the legalistic-parliamentary trick that is notorious in Italy: insertion. The Lisbon Treaty is nothing but a list of expressions like: “Article 5, comma 9, sub-section 2 – word A is substituted by word B”. And on like this for 400 times. Only after a Law student of Leipzig had taken the burden of deciphering it, and had placed it on some web sites, did the German government circulate the text.
Some law experts, among whom the above-mentioned Schachtschneider, and professor Hans Klecatsky, who has worked on the modification of the Austrian constitution, have therefore examined the bureaucratic copy and paste work. They found the death penalty for “riots” in the footnotes and much more besides.
Especially, the definitive deprivation of power of the parliaments: of the European one, the only elective body of the EU, and even moreso the national parliaments, called upon only to for the ratification of whatever the Council of the European Commission should decide, without being able to discuss it. Even and especially in case of “war, riots, upheavals” and “terrorist acts”: it is sufficient that one State, any Secretary of State at all (2), proclaims that a “terrorist act” is underway (which we also know can be provoked as “false flag” operations), and all the countries will be in war, without the right to exempt themselves or a veto.
It is meaningful in comical way that the omnipotent Commission reserves for itself the decisions on everything, except for issues of “foreign affairs and security”: to decide on these matters will be the task of the NATO. In other words, US-rael. We know how they decide and define “terrorist” acts: tomorrow we won’t be able to ever again refuse to participate in the next invasion, for the well-being of Zion.
We repeat: all of this is happening in secret, hidden from the European citizens. Silently, on tip-toes. The proof of this comes from a scoop of the Irish Daily Mail (3).
Ireland is the only, the last country, in which the Lisbon Treaty will be voted on by popular referendum, because this is what the Irish Constitution foresees (and it will soon be abolished). The newspaper had obtained a memorandum to the British government, in which the British diplomat Elizabeth Green makes known the outcome of her behind the scenes meeting with Dan Mulhall (General Director of the Irish Foreign Affairs Ministry for the EU): he had reassured the British representative that the Irish government was committed to an active disinformation campaign towards his citizens, “concentrating the information on the general benefits of joining with the EU more than on the Lisbon Treaty itself.”
No publication, deaf to the “free” press (that “freely” accepts to keep silent). The Irish government has even asked the Bruxelles Commission to “moderate the tone or to delay any announcement” hat could be “counterproductive”, in the sense of revealing the reality to the voters. The Irish government has even decided the date of the referendum, 29 May, “but it will delay the announcement in such a way as to keep the ‘No’ camp in the dark” until the very last moment, so that they will not have time to prepare an effective information campaign.
I don’t believe that this behaviour has ever had a precedent: never in the history has an elected government, that exercises the sovereignty over its people by the delegation of the people, sold its sovereignty to a trans-national and irresponsible bureaucracy in such a surreptitious way. It is clearly a situation that could justify “riots” and “upheavals” by the betrayed peoples. But as we have seen, Eurocracy has protected itself with the force of footnotes.

The revolt against the unelected oligarchy has become a crime against the State, those who oppose this sell-out will be enemies of the State, the only ones against whom capital punishment can be applied. High Treason of the Cold Beast. The Cold Beast is now sure to get the upper hand.
The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is still incomplete, but already the unelected oligarchs of Bruxelles have decided how to fit the future president of the EU (that’s already been decided too: it has to be Tony Blair) with the “status symbols” that are due to him (4). Barroso has given an “official residence like the White House”, a personal staff of 22 persons, and he will have a private presidential jet like Air Force One.

Author's Notes

1) Helga Zepp Larouche, «Demand a referendum on EU Lisbon Treaty», EIR 7 March 2008. See also: «Death penalty in Europe: only for enemies of the state», Brussels Journal, 13 April 2008. http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2008/3510referendum_lisbon.html
2) Yrsa Stenius, ombudsman for the press in Sweden, is already trying to incriminate the blogs that in her view “go too far” on Internet, and the lady has lamented, “anyone can write whatever runs through their minds and I think that this tendency could contaminate the big media.”
 3) «The Treaty Con - Leaked e-mail reveals government plans to hoodwink voters», Irish Daily Mail, 14 April 2008.
4) Bruno Waterfield, «Palace, jet and staff of 22 for the next European president», Telegraph, 14 April 2008.

Tlaxcala's Note
Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights
Source : Official Journal of the European Communities, 14 December 2007
(2007/C 303/02)

These explanations were originally prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They have been updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention, in the light of the drafting adjustments made to the text of the Charter by that Convention (notably to Articles 51 and 52) and of further developments of Union law. Although they do not as such have the status of law, they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter.



Explanation on Article 2 — Right to life

1.   Paragraph 1 of this Article is based on the first sentence of Article 2(1) of the ECHR, which reads as follows:


‘1.   Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law …’.

2.   The second sentence of the provision, which referred to the death penalty, was superseded by the entry into force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR, which reads as follows:


‘The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.’

Article 2(2) of the Charter is based on that provision.

3.   The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

(a)   Article 2(2) of the ECHR:

(b)   Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:


‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’.

Source : http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/32007X1214/htm/C2007303EN.01001701.htm

Source: http://www.effedieffe.com/content/view/2870/165/

Original article published on 16 April 2008

About the author

Mary Rizzo is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author and translator are cited.

URL of this article on Tlaxcala: