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

1

83 Priory Gardens

London N6 5QU

England

8 April 2013

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 write as the director of 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 living in 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, after 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 39-45 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

2

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 229179022

Submitted by:

Declan Heavey

Suite 101, 254 Pentonville Road

London N1 9JY

United Kingdom

Mobile: +44 (0) 7880 437 681

Email: [email protected]

Date: 8 April 2013

3

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 8 April 2013 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 of the Covenant, relating to the Applicant’s right to

freedom of expression, and in particular his right to impart information on the Internet.

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, then Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone, wrote to the 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.

4

7. The Applicant informed the IPT that he and his wife were living at the time in the

same ‘safe house’ MI5 whistleblower David Shayler lived in for a couple of years (until

2007), where they were being repeatedly threatened and harassed by their live-in landlady,

human rights activist Belinda McKenzie (see paragraphs 22-25 below). According to BBC

Panorama, Mr Shayler “caused the biggest crisis of official secrecy since the spy catcher

affair”. It is unfortunate that Mr Shayler declared that he was the Messiah in 2007, became a

squatter, and was subsequently ridiculed in the press and media 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 had left the Applicant with

his first shortfall in rent to pay (see paragraph 23(1) 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 from a blog/diary

(titled “Network for Church Monitoring (N4CM) Blog”, this blog/diary has been vandalised

on several occasions, and even carries a screenshot of a Skype chat exposing the homophobic

abuse of a distinguished American scholar 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 confirmed that phone calls from the Applicant have been

cut off in mid-sentence, and emails sabotaged (see paragraphs 29-30 below).

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”. Seven 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.

5

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

that the Applicant successfully defended in person, and his subsequent move to the UK in

2003 to develop the then Network of those Abused by Church (or NAC). The four-day High

Court case was the first ever hearing of a ward of court action before a jury, at the request of

the Applicant. He 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 successfully argued 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.

6

A. Birmingham (29 September 2003 to 3 November 2006)

17. Soon after arriving in the UK from Ireland on 18 August 2003, the Applicant and his

wife settled in the city of Birmingham to work on the NAC website (29 September 2003 to 3

November 2006). From the outset of their first tenancy, they were subjected to an

orchestrated campaign of harassment and intimidation, which included difficulties with

Internet access in public libraries, the maladministration of bank, electricity, gas and council

tax accounts, and extensive damage caused by flooding from the flat above; all of which is

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 onto state benefits in July 2005.

18. On 27 September 2006, the Applicant’s joint claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance was

terminated by the Department for Work and Pensions because it was alleged by Erdington

Jobcentre in Birmingham that he did not sign on for Jobseeker’s Allowance earlier that day,

when in fact he was not scheduled to sign on until two days later (see Annex 8, Department

for Work and Pensions: Letter terminating benefits claim, p. 23). A simple check of the

Applicant’s and his wife’s previous signings would have established that they signed on at

different times 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 (3 November 2006 to 13 July 2009)

19. For more than two-and-a-half years (3 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 frequent 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 supporting

evidence in the N4CM (then NAC) blog, which was opened in November 2006. The N4CM

blog also contains crime reference numbers, police stop/search records and other evidence

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 to 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

Mike 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”);

7

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 Sisters of Mercy subsequently refused to release CCTV footage of the

robbery to the police (see Annex 7, Sisters of Mercy: Letter from the Apostolic Nuncio to

Great Britain, p. 22).

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, Home Office: Complaint to the Home

Secretary re interception, p. 24).

C. London (13 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 bailiff’s

warrant, the police would require him and his wife to move from where they had been

sleeping for almost a year (see Annex 10, City of London Police: Reply from Commissioner

Mike Bowron, pp. 25-26). Ms McKenzie, who previously had housed MI5 whistleblower

David Shayler for a couple of years (see paragraph 7 above), agreed that the Applicant and

his wife could live with her as tenants. On 24 July 2009, Ms McKenzie wrote to the same

associate in America stating that it was her expectation that her house will become an “in

house charity” for impoverished activists supported by “some kind of international fund” (see

Annex 13, Belinda McKenzie: Letter to the Prime Minister re Property Warrant, p. 31).

23. Three months after the tenancy began, on 9 October 2009, the Applicant had his

joint claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance reinstated. However, the Applicant and his wife

continued to be the targets of a well-orchestrated campaign of harassment and intimidation.

Here are just two illustrative examples of the sorts of tactics employed in this campaign and

come from the last year or so alone:

1) On 24 January 2012, High Court Judge Mitting ruled in the case of Heavey v London

Borough of Haringey that it was lawful for Haringey Council to leave the Applicant with a

shortfall of £76.92 in rent to pay each month because the Council covered his annual rent

liability (see Annex 11, Haringey Council: Order by High Court Judge Mitting, p. 27).

These shortfalls arose 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. The Applicant was only able to meet

these shortfalls throughout the rental year out of his Jobseeker’s Allowance (for both his

wife and himself) of £111.45 per week because he paid rent inclusive of all extraneous

charges save telephone line.

2) On 21 August 2012, Ms McKenzie signed an undertaking to the Court promising not

to harass the Applicant and his wife following her builder’s removal of the door to their

8

flat (see Annex 14, Belinda McKenzie: Undertaking to the Court promising not to harass,

pp. 32-33). Ms McKenzie explained to the Court: “I removed the interconnecting door that

makes the flat self-contained in order to signal to them that their tenancy was over, in my

mind anyway. They immediately called the police who said I had a right to remove my

own door.” Nonetheless, the Metropolitan Police have refused to charge Ms McKenzie

with a criminal offence, accepting her earlier contradictory and fabricated account of

events: “On arrival the officers have established that your landlady had arranged for a

builder to remove the front door which she stated, you had erected without her

permission”. This case is currently before the Independent Police Complaints Commission

(see Annex 15, Belinda McKenzie: Email from the IPCC re removal of flat door, pp. 34-

35).

24. On 17 October 2012, Deputy District Judge Peart issued an accelerated possession

order granting Ms McKenzie possession of the Applicant and his wife’s flat on 1 November

2012 (see Annex 16, Belinda McKenzie: Order by Deputy District Judge Peart, p. 36). At an

appeal hearing, District Judge Alderson acknowledged that there was a note in the file from

Peart J stating that he had not read the Applicant’s defence. Alderson J conceded that Ms

McKenzie’s claim for possession did not contain the right paperwork; however, because he

had the correct paperwork in the Applicant’s appeal bundle, he set aside Peart J’s order and

issued an ordinary possession order with the same effect (see Annex 17, Belinda McKenzie:

Order by District Judge Alderson, p. 37). On 11 March 2013, Circuit Judge Cryan refused the

Applicant permission to appeal to the Circuit Court against a decision by the District Court to

refuse him a stay of eviction. Cryan J had before him a statement from Ms McKenzie’s ex-

husband, Dr Nigel McKenzie, a consultant psychiatrist in Highgate Mental Health Centre,

stating that the Applicant’s flat was required for somebody. He dismissed the Applicant’s

request for permission to appeal on the grounds that it had no prospect of success (see Annex

19, Belinda McKenzie: Order by Circuit Judge Cryan, p. 43). The Applicant and his wife

were subsequently evicted from their flat by the bailiff on 14 March 2013.

25. In his Permission to Appeal application, the Applicant provided Cryan J with ample

evidence that he and his wife were being blocked from finding a flat in London, including,

inter alia, the interception and retention of emails, Internet cuts (41 recorded times in the

preceding two weeks) and that Haringey Council had refused him assistance (see Annex 18,

Belinda McKenzie: Skeleton Argument for Permission to Appeal, pp. 38-42). Following their

eviction on 14 March 2013, the Applicant and his wife were forced to re-locate to Brighton,

described by needaproperty.com as “an ideal location to find flats”. However, while staying

in temporary accommodation in Brighton, they ran into the same “accommodation blockade”

(see paragraph 26 below).

26. During the three weeks the Applicant and his wife stayed in Brighton, they made

contact with over 40 letting agents by email, telephone and in person but none came through

with a landlord that would accept DSS/Housing Benefit. The Applicant was also denied

assistance by Brighton and Hove City Council, and the Brighton Housing Trust could only

advise him and his wife to pack up and leave the city. On 26 March 2013, having secured a

commitment from a benefactor in America for an interest free loan to cover his first six

months’ rent (to be paid back through the Council’s Housing Benefit scheme), the Applicant

viewed a one bedroom flat advertised in the local newspaper. The landlord was willing to

accept six months’ rent up front with a credit reference; however, forty minutes after texting

the Applicant his email address for this reference, the landlord withdrew his offer of the flat

by text (see Annex 20, Brighton: Landlord’s text messages, p. 44). Thereafter, the Applicant

was unable to obtain a flat viewing, despite talking with a number of landlords over the

telephone who had advertised in the local newspaper and/or on Gumtree.

9

27. Now back in London, the Applicant and his wife are facing being forced back onto

the streets to live rough on or before 15 April 2013. Accordingly, they need to spend the little

money they have left on an accountant who can secure N4CM as a company for a year by

providing Companies House with a single alternative inspection location (SAIL) address.

Without this, Companies House might well strike N4CM off the Register of Companies. On

12 February 2013, the Applicant asked for his charge of maladministration against

Companies House to be reviewed by the Independent Adjudicators for Companies House (see

Annex 12, Companies House: Complaint to the Independent Adjudicators for Companies

House re maladministration, pp. 28-30). The Applicant and his wife believe that come 15

April their lives may very well be in danger (see paragraph 33 below).

D. Surveillance, free speech and the right to privacy

28. The Church and State website, an initiative of N4CM, has been removed from the

Internet on five distinct occasions. Most recently, in May 2012, Just Host, the domain’s then

registrar, changed the domain name server records without permission or authorisation and

disabled the Applicant’s wife’s facility to correct these records herself (see Annex 22, Just

Host: Email to the European Commission, pp. 47-52). No sooner had the Applicant’s wife

successfully transferred the domain name to SiteGround’s registrar on 8 June 2012, than, on

14 June, the site 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 23, WordPress:

Final exchange with theme designer, p. 53). The Chairman of N4CM, Dr Stephen Mumford

from North Carolina, US, has been funding the site since December 2010, and domain since

June 2012; nonetheless, the site continues to be frequently attacked. For example, the

Applicant’s wife has posted blogs showing that articles throughout the N4CM website are

routinely targeted, and on occasion Facebook share counts in every section of the site have

been reduced in number by anything up to 600 shares.

29. 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 three years of his petition to

the United Nations in support of embryonic stem cell research, notwithstanding that the

petition has been signed by no less than 29 Nobel Prize winners as well as hundreds of other

distinguished scholars from around the world. It has also resulted in the 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 Minister

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 most grateful for anything

you may be able to do by way of taking measures to correct this gross abuse.” Within the last

two months alone, the Applicant has accumulated evidence that unequivocally reveal that

several emails from associates in America have not been received by him and vice versa.

30. 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 irrefutable evidence relating to the sabotage of his and his wife’s

mail, including the non-delivery of registered items. In the case of Heavey v Haringey

Council (see paragraph 23(1) 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

10

sent to him. Subsequently, 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 Mitting J (see Annex 11, Haringey

Council: Order by High Court Judge Mitting, p. 27).

31. 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. In June 2012, the Applicant received a response

from the European Commission 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 EC Directorate-General for Justice, 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 24, Irish Passport Office in London: Letter from

the European Commission, p. 54). The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this reason

as to why it was 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.

32. The Applicant and his wife are deeply concerned about what lies in wait for them on

or before 15 April 2013, when they are likely to have to return to the rough sleeping pitch of

more than three-and-a-half years ago. In particular, the Applicant and his wife are living in

well-founded fear of the police. On 13 July 2009, Superintendent Lorraine Cussen wrote to

the Applicant on behalf of City of London Police Commissioner Mike Bowron, stating: “I do

need to reiterate though that should the Salters Hall wish to move you from their property and

call the City of London Police, we will respond in the same way and require you to move”

(see Annex 10, City of London Police: Reply from Commissioner Mike Bowron, pp. 25-26).

This stance runs contrary to a recent Daily Mail quote that said: “We asked the police to

move them on, but they said that because it was private land it was a civil matter.” The

situation has been exacerbated by Broadway Homelessness and Support, a major London-

based homeless charity that provides street outreach for rough sleepers and housing. Almost a

year ago to the day, on 20 April 2012, a Broadway outreach worker wrote the following to the

Applicant: “I am sorry to hear about the difficult circumstances you are currently in. We are

happy for you to use our address as a c/o address. I have also spoken to my manager to

discuss what services we may be able to offer you both, if you were to return to the streets.”

However, no more than a week ago, on 3 April 2013, not only did Broadway refuse to meet

with the Applicant and his wife, but informed them that they will not be getting a service

from the charity should they find themselves back on the street (see Annex 21, Complaint to

the CEO of Broadway Homelessness and Support re denial of services, p. 45).

33. Given all the above, the Applicant and his wife may be forced to seek safe haven in

another country on the grounds that they have been persecuted in the UK and have a well-

founded fear of further persecution because of their political opinion. They are particularly

deeply concerned about the threat to life, limb and liberty posed by their likely impending

homelessness as a result of having been blocked from finding accommodation both in

London and in Brighton through no fault of their own (see paragraphs 25-26 above).

IV. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE COVENANT

34. Article 19 of the Covenant provides, in pertinent part:

11

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.

35. 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

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.

36. 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).

37. 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.

38. 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.

12

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

39. 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.

40. 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

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.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. In a 1992 videotaped interview with Dr Mumford (available for public viewing for

the first time on N4CM’s Church and State 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

13

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 25, “WHO creates demand for

abortions” by Donald Collins, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review feature article, 28 January 2004, p.

55).

44. 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.

45. 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.

14

TABLE OF ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: MI5 whistleblower David Shayler 15

ANNEX 2: MI5/GCHQ: Investigatory Powers Tribunal Decision 16

ANNEX 3: MI5/GCHQ: European Court of Human Rights Decision 17

ANNEX 4: “Wards of court lose rights and liberties”, 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 from the Provincial of All Ireland 21

ANNEX 7: Sisters of Mercy: Letter from the Apostolic Nuncio to Great Britain 22

ANNEX 8: Department for Work and Pensions: Letter terminating benefits claim 23

ANNEX 9: Home Office: Complaint to the Home Secretary re interception 24

ANNEX 10: City of London Police: Reply from Commissioner Mike Bowron 25

ANNEX 11: Haringey Council: Order by High Court Judge Mitting 27

ANNEX 12: Companies House: Complaint to the Independent Ajudicators 28

ANNEX 13: Belinda McKenzie: Letter to the Prime Minister re Property Warrant 31

ANNEX 14: Belinda McKenzie: Undertaking to the Court promising not to harass 32

ANNEX 15: Belinda McKenzie: Email from the IPCC re removal of flat door 34

ANNEX 16: Belinda McKenzie: Order by Deputy District Judge Peart 36

ANNEX 17: Belinda McKenzie: Order by District Judge Alderson 37

ANNEX 18: Belinda McKenzie: Skeleton Argument for Permission to Appeal 38

ANNEX 19: Belinda McKenzie: Order by Circuit Judge Cryan 43

ANNEX 20: Brighton: Landlord’s text messages 44

ANNEX 21: Broadway Homelessness and Support: Complaint to the CEO 45

ANNEX 22: Just Host: Email to the European Commission 47

ANNEX 23: WordPress: Final exchange with theme designer 53

ANNEX 24: Irish Passport Office in London: Letter from the European Commission 54

ANNEX 25: “Who creates demand for abortions”, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article 55

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

26

27

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

53

54

55