#SlutWalk #NOLA #OCAM

Save Markey Park Letter Presented at NORDC March 28 Meeting

Below is the letter presented to the NORDC Facilities Subcommittee at the March 28, 2013 meeting. Vic Richards was not in attendance. 

My name is Rhonda Findley and I would like to extend a thank you for your time today as I present a statement on behalf of the Save Markey Park group comprised of close to 500 residents in favor of an inclusive park design. A design which was originally agreed to through 18 months of neighborhood engagement –  that would include an area for children, an appropriate green space for leisure and a fenced off-leash dog area, of which the latter was pulled from the final design. In support of this statement, I am presenting to you an education packet that clearly demonstrates this process. To familiarize you with the Save Markey Park group – we are business owners, homeowners, parents with children, grandparents with grandchildren, lawyers, nurses, musicians, teachers, artists etc. Productive members of this city we represent a diverse overlay of the community. This has touched not only the immediate neighborhood but far beyond the Bywater proper, from all economic backgrounds young and old and. For example, at the sign-making event last month many of our children voiced their concern through drawings, that their companion animals will not be able to play and exercise in their park.
 As citizens it is fair to say we all agree that the mission for the redevelopment of a non-programmed NORD park such as Mickey Markey Park be formed around a design of an inclusive park reflecting the diversity of this area. It would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood, City, or the benefactors, in particular the Trust For Public Lands and their generosity that Mickey Markey Park fall into the same decay it experienced when City of New Orleans and NORD budget constraints left the park abandoned in disrepair.  It was in this state when many neighbors with dogs “reclaimed it”, unofficially, as a community dog park.
Immediately after Katrina members of this same group, under the guidance of NORD, officially formed as the Markey Park Booster Club and not only paid for the maintenance of the park but also wrote the grant that commissioned the Allstate Foundation to build the children’s play area that exists there now. Adding fencing that separated children from dogs and allowed a green space for relaxation.
 All of us agree that we want the park to consist of responsible park users.
Across the country research has identified dog owners to not only be the most responsible park user group but in addition, at 365 days a year, they are also the group who uses the park more than any other park user group.  Rain or shine, dog owners serve as a powerful neighbor watch group discouraging less than desirable elements. Dog park users also serve as steady patrons of the many local businesses that surround their park. We are all aware that designated off-leash dog areas are a national trend and have been so successful across the country that many cities now include fenced in dog areas in their park planning to guarantee a successful park. They serve as an asset both communally and financially to their neighborhoods. Last year, Mr Vic Richard, our NORD leader himself acknowledged that,“Society has changed and the way we do business and interact with one another, including pets, has changed. We need to get out in front. We understand we were behind the curve, and we also understand that we have the opportunity to get this right.”  As a point of interest, Philadelphia Parks and Recreation, where Mr. Vic Richard worked prior to returning to NORD, now has 15 successful off-leash dog parks. Twenty years ago NYC had the very same problem we face today and to offset cost the commissioner agreed to allow a first time fenced in designated off-leash area in a park in the East Village on the condition that the dog owners pay for its’ maintenance. That park became so successful that as of now there are 55 vibrant dog parks in that city because they make good business sense. Ironically incorporating a fenced in off-leash dog area provides and ensures more safe usable space for all non-dog responsible park users.
 Three surveys taken of the residents of the Bywater reflect that the majority of citizens in the neighborhood desired to include a portion of the park to be fenced in for an off-leash dog area.   We all engaged in the process of this issue respectfully and proactively. The people of this community showed up at all meetings and discussions, contributed input, and were happy to compromise for a small portion of the park believing there is room for everybody at Mickey Markey Park. As Mr. Vince Smith pointed out in the Times Picayune, when interviewed on the possibility of including a small carved out area for dogs in a park where there’s room, it is a “win-win process”. To reflect the desire of the community, Trust for Public Land drew up 3 plans that included a small fenced in off-leash dog area in each. Something the Trust for Public Lands has been doing all over the country. They even offered to draw up another plan that didn’t include said area but could easily incorporate one at the last minute. We were all excited about the possibility of this serving as a progressive and positive model for the other NORDC facilities facing similar problems.
 So what happened???? Is it really possible that a letter denouncing this inclusion of a fenced in area for off-leash dogs, influenced the final decision??A letter that was written by a small group of the BNA who were simply afraid of the $200,000 not going through if they pushed for what their neighborhood wanted and asked for and whose community they have now inflamed??   This is an issue that is not going to go away but simply become compounded as there are more and responsible dog owners who contribute to this vibrant community. Note the recent article in the Gambit “Pet Issue” reporting on the increase in doggie daycares and pet boutiques. In regards to the Riverfront dog area, we the “Save Markey Park” group, appreciate the intentions of this proposal however, as detailed in our education packet, this would not serve as a feasible solution. Among some of the serious concerns to this area are its physical challenges to the elderly and disabled dog owners in the neighborhood as well as its lack of visibility and its isolation from the street making it an obvious invitation to crime on the edge of the neighborhood. Additionally, as the neighborhood association, BNA, of which I am a member as well as many others from the Save Markey Park group, signed a MOU – memorandum of understanding to be fully financially and physically responsible for the continued maintenance of Mickey Markey Park – it is therefore imperative the park offer the most diversity in use as the City will contribute minimally to the fiscal obligations of park maintenance – shouldn’t it go without saying, “if we have to pay for it it should be overall an inclusive design that gives the neighborhood the best shot at raising money across the board by appealing to a diverse population?” Your constituents sincerely hope that as more information comes to light that you as leaders of this city might see that you were missing a piece of this puzzle. You engaged. We responded. But to then disregard the needs and input of the people you engaged seems a blow to the citizens of New Orleans making the process less than transparent. Save Markey Park is ready to meet immediately and re-engage to come to a quick solution through the leadership of this committee. Your leadership can easily avail a simple solution with a small amount of fencing. It’s not too late. Perhaps through an “Order of Change”-used by the city when additions or adjustments to projects become necessary, a few well placed fences can mend a whole lot of fences. We are ready to meet.With respect. 

Swedish Articles About Sweden's Espionage Laws

I am quoting two entire articles here because it is very important but is published in Swedish, and I know some people might not know how to translate it.Sweden's argument that Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the US for espionage charges demands attention. 

The article "War Journalism needs to be free" appeared on March 10 here: http://www.expressen.se/debatt/krigsjournalistik-maste-fa-vara-fri/

Should it be prohibited to disclose information about abuse and mistakes that occur in the context of international military operations in which Sweden participates? Should it be a crime to publish information about secret prisons, torture, and the consequences for the civilian population, for example in Afghanistan?

The questions appear on reading the Espionage and other illegal intelligence (SOU 2012:95).

Government investigators want to introduce two new offenses, foreign espionage and aggravated espionage abroad. As the specimen was Counsellor Ella Nystrom spent the provisions of espionage against Sweden. 

The provisions relating to foreign intelligence would be applicable in international military operations such as ISAF in Afghanistan and KFOR in Kosovo. It plays unlike spying not matter if we are formally at war or not. 

Just as in the case of espionage directed specifically against Sweden breaks the constitution regulated protection for whistleblowers in foreign espionage. But beyond the restriction of informant protection is also suggested that the so-called crimes directory of TF expression constitutions and YGL expanded.
It will be a crime to go to a foreign power or organization, as "warlords in Afghanistan", provided by publishing information the "revelation" can cause "serious harm" for a military operation in which Sweden participates. But even in cases where the purpose is to build opinion against or engage in news reporting about an operation shall be an offense to publish a statement "concerning any fact of a secret nature."

Obviously, it means a "serious but" if the information may risk soldiers' lives are in circulation, such as elective surgery and armament. Such data deserves strong protection but probably already covered by a qualified confidentiality.

But the publication of a task " means that the operation is weakened, for example by a participant ... can only attend to a lesser degree " is under investigation constitute a serious but. This also applies to things that are not directly related to the operation, such as " information of a more general and political nature, such as concerns national peer relationships or future cooperation " . However, it should be possible to publish information that leads to a "limited undermining" of the operation.But what is meant by "limited" is not clear.

Inquiry balance between the interest in protecting military operations and to critically examine the stakes are superficial. Any discussion of how the proposal would affect the news agency and public opinion are not made. The investigator is content frankly to explain that the proposal will have "negative impacts" of expression and freedom of information, but may be considered acceptable.
The investigation took lightly speech interest is also reflected in several other ways.

According to the report "it is difficult to assess the practical need" of new press and speech crimes. The need would usually be given a decisive role in the introduction of rules especially if they affect fundamental rights. The inquiry has not even made an attempt to estimate demand.

According to the report, it is "not unlikely that a foreign power or organization" could use constitutional protection to overcome the "information covered by the proposed criminalization". The reasoning is incomprehensible in terms of the introduction of new speech crimes.

The investigation has not nearly been considering whether it might be enough to expand and possibly tighten the confidentiality of certain information in order to achieve the same goals as the introduction of the crime of international espionage with their penalties.

The study appearing and seeking legitimacy for their proposals by writing that the "consultation with the Committee of Freedom of Speech." Any documented consultation in the sense that Freedom Committee had to give their views on the Committee's proposal has not happened.

The investigation does not affect the expansion of Sweden's obligation to provide legal assistance to other countries resulting from the proposal. With the new offenses, other countries have the right to expect that Swedish authorities including after graduate and holding interviews with informants in Sweden, which has provided information about the other country units and soldiers' conduct in an international military intervention.The question of what impact the proposal will have on the possibility of using coercive measures, such as phone tapping and covert raid against editors, are not affected. 
The Committee's proposals represent a danger to an Examining war and foreign reporting. Such journalism requires sometimes that even information that could constitute "serious harm" for the operation or future cooperation dragged into the light. 
NILS Funckeis a freelance journalist and press freedom expert. He is a former secretary of Yttrandefrihetskommitén-chief of the Riksdag & Departement.AD:

February 6, 2013

ENHANCED CRIMINAL LAW PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE http://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Nyhetsarkiv/2013/Februari/Forstarkt-straffrattsligt-skydd-mot-spioneri/

Two new offenses introduced in the Penal Code.The study on enhanced protection against foreign enemy intelligence surrender today February 6th report of espionage and other illegal activities (SOU 2012:95) to the Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask.The study, which had a Supreme Court Justice Ella Nystrom as special investigators, suggest two new offenses introduced in chapter 19 of the Penal Code. One can be described foreign espionage and involves a strengthened judicial protection of data about conditions of an international military operation in which Sweden participates. This is because Sweden increased participation in international security and defense cooperation.The second offense is classified illegal intelligence against Sweden and directed the activities aimed at overcoming data concerning conditions where it damages the Swedish security of a foreign power feel to them.The proposal is intended to increase the opportunities to intervene earlier to prevent damage.The report proposes certain amendments to the Freedom of Press Act and the Fundamental. This is justified by changes in the Penal Code which, among other things, that foreign spying will be a press offenses.The amendments will come into force on 1 July 2014 and the constitutional amendments on 1 January 2015.SOU 2012:95 

 

#NOLA #Bunarchy

#WayOfJustice March #NOLA #OCAM

#WayOfJustice March #NOLA #OCAM

#WayOfJustice March #NOLA #OCAM