Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change. Reply

By Jordan Michael Smith

Boston Globe

The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.

Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

READ MORE

 

Keith Preston: US police brutality is not about black people or homicide Reply

This headline is a bit goofy and misleading, but I actually cover a lot of important ground in the audio interview.

Press TV. Listen here: http://presstv.ir/Detail/2015/12/29/443626/us-police-brutality-black-lives-matter-gun-violence-racial-inequality/

Police brutality in the United States is not necessarily about “homicide” committed by American cops or even “racial disparity” but has deeper roots in the country, says a political activist based in Virginia.

Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of AttacktheSystem.com made the remarks to Press TV on Monday, while commenting on a Washington Post report on the number of those fatally shot by police in 2015.

According to the report, nearly 1,000 people died at the hands of police in 2015, of which 90 percent were unarmed.

Preston noted that there are more significant aspects to the issue than this.

“It’s a mistake to merely look at homicides that are carried out by police officers,” he said. “A much more serious or pervasive problem is police brutality that does not result in an actual homicide.”

Being subject to “assault” or “robbery” in the hands of police or evidence “planted” by them against innocent people are more “common than actual murders carried out by police.”

The issue is not even limited to that, Preston said, warning over police militarization in the country.

“For example, we have this paramilitary SWAT teams that conduct tens of thousands of raids on private homes on an annual basis” he said, asserting that police brutality particularly drew attention over racial disparity.

“The issues that are covered the most are not necessarily the main issues that need to be examined. The issue never started to get any attention until people started noticing the racial disparity involved.”

The brutality “cuts across” racial and other boundaries, the analyst argued, suggesting that conservatives and liberals in the US both approach the matter for their own benefit.

“The issue is framed in a way that is not entirely appropriate. On the one hand, we have the left that tries to make this into a race issue and on the other, we have the right that tries to make it into either support-your-local-police issues… or a pro-gun one,” Preston said.

The brutality has been “building up” since early 1980s but “started to get more attention in recent years in part because of racial disparity.”

ISIS Attacks are Excuses for Censorship and Disarmament Reply

Truth Axis

The Paris terrorist attacks and San Bernardino shootings have ushered in a new era of urban terror. The combined death toll of both attacks was 146 dead with hundreds wounded. The response from American politicians, law enforcement and intelligence departments has varied, but is unified in their calls for expansion of government power to fight a terrorist threat that the the US had a hand in creating. Together, mass shootings and the threat of terrorism have been the primary fears upon which the ruling elite has played upon to legitimize their mass surveillance programs, mass disarmament plans, and expansion of their wars for global hegemony. Here is how they are doing it.

Democrats want you to support expanded gun control.

An editorial in the New York Times said that rifles were “marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection” and said that politicians “reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing”. It is clear that the left wing of the global plutocracy wants us to fear and even hate armed civilians, though it remains entirely uncertain that gun ownership rates have anything to do with recent reductions in violent crime and homicide rates. Furthermore, mass shooting deaths accounted for only .09% of homicides from 1984 to 2014. Most recently, President Obama is pushing for an executive order to expand background checks and close the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows people to buy weapons without a background check at gun shows. Though, again, it is unclear if such measures would have prevented any recent terrorist attack or mass shooting. In fact, it is believed and almost assured that the Paris terrorist attacks were carried out with weapons smuggled in from the Balkans and other European nations with a thriving black market in firearms. How are measures designed to keep guns out of the hands of citizens supposed to stop terrorists? One can only conclude that they are not supposed to stop terrorists, only stop people with intentions of so called “macho vigilantism” and “insurrection,” also known as US citizens.
More…

John W. Whitehead to Appear on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal to Discuss Best-Selling Book ‘Battlefield America: The War on the American People’ Reply

In my judgment, this is the most serious domestic issue that the United States currently faces, and one that transcends the normal barriers of class, race, gender, and political ideology. The police state is the enemy of all Americans. John Whitehead is one of the very best writers on this issue out there.

Rutherford Institute.

WASHINGTON, DC — Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, will appear on a special broadcast of C-SPAN’S Washington Journal on Tuesday, Dec. 22, 2015, from 8:30-9:30 am EST to discuss his best-selling book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, which paints a terrifying portrait of a nation at war with itself and which is on the verge of undermining the basic freedoms guaranteed to the citizenry in the Constitution.

More…

Towards a New Civil Liberties Union 1

About a year ago, I published a piece calling for the creation of a coalition against consensual crime laws, which have long been a pet peeve of Libertarians. I was thinking of this earlier when a social media friend made the following observation concerning Libertarians:

No one will vote for open Libertarians who want open borders and unfettered capitalism, which is why they garner at best around 1% in national elections.

This is why people like Ron Paul, for instance, stick to talking about legalizing weed, ending the drug war, revoking the Patriot Act, and vague appeals to ‘freedom and liberty,’ but if he said, ‘my friends, we are going to remove all regulations from business, abolish the social safety net, cause you all need to be on your own, and get rid of minimum wage laws, support would plummet. I’ve seen Libertarian Party activists in action at fairs and other public events. They never talk about the economic aspects of their philosophy unless you confront them directly about it, and even then, they look mighty uncomfortable discussing the subject openly.

More…

ID Cards: Solving a Problem that Dare not Speak its Name 1

By Dr. Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

Writing in the Daily Telegraph on the 10th December 2015, two Members of Parliament – Frank Field and Nicholas Soames – regret the cancellation, in 2010, of the previous Labour Government’s identity card scheme. They argue that the threat of terrorism requires us to think again.

By all means, let us think again. However, since no material facts have changed, I see no reason for reaching any different opinion from the one I have always held. Identity cards are an astonishingly bad idea – so bad that it is hard to make a case for them with any semblance of good faith.

Undeniably, there are benefits to having a single and authoritative means of identification. We all need to identify ourselves several times a week, sometimes more often. There are times when the authorities have legitimate need to identify us. Fraud appears to be a growing problem – so too illegal immigration. A biometric identity card would simplify large parts of our lives. It would smooth many of our interactions with the authorities.

The problem is that these benefits are not as great as we are told. Those European countries that already have identity cards do not seem to have less crime than we have.

More…

Literature in a Locked Down Land 1

By William T. Hathaway

Prisons are one of the few growth industries in the USA today. They are becoming money-making institutions, and profits are rising. New ones are being built and old ones expanded to hold all the new slave laborers being captured. The prison-industrial complex is the epitome of capitalism.

The USA imprisons a far higher proportion of its population than any other country, 730 people per 100,000. As of 2011, our prison population was 2,266,832. (1)

As Glen Ford states:

More…

Ron Paul: Is Islam on the Verge of Engulfing Western Civilization? 3

In a better world, Paul would be POTUS.

(In an >even< better world, the concept of a POTUS – and other national equivalents – would remain just that.)

The Paris Atrocities: The Most Probable and Bankrupt Response of Our Own Government (2015), by Sean Gabb Reply

By Dr. Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

Because Keir Martland has already commented with great brilliance, and even a certain nobility of tone, I will make no comment directly on the Paris Atrocities or their probable causes. I will instead deal with our own Government’s most likely response to them. This will be a new Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill. It will require Internet and telephone companies to store all communication data for a year, and to make this available to the police and security agencies.

The stated reason for this will be that we are in danger, and in particular danger from Moslem terrorists. What happened yesterday in Paris was only the latest episode in a campaign of terror that began with the American Bombings in September 2001, and proceeded through the Madrid Bombings, and the London Bombings, and the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich, and the Charlie Hebdo killings. How long before a coordinated terror attack in planned again for London? We are at war, and war calls for a deviation from the normal course of government.

I will not deny that the latest atrocities are shocking, both in their effect and in the careful planning that they show. I will not deny that mass-immigration from the Third World into Europe was always at least a mistake, and that the latest wave of immigration inspired by Angela Merkel is an existential threat to the civilisation of which we are a part. I will not argue against the proposition that further immigration should be prevented, and even that some of the immigration we have so far experienced might usefully be reversed.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will also agree with the general proposition that there are times when what is undesirable becomes essential.

READ MORE

Halal & Hypocrisy XIII: Remove Kebab? 1

 

KEBAB_MENARD_ROBERT_INTERDIRE_BEZIERS_RACISME_TWEET_TWITTER

New from the Inferno: A tyrannical tale of kebabs and killjoys.


The south of France, and one man finds himself deeply disenchanted by the culinary delights on offer in his locale. So much so, in fact, that he took to the press, voicing his determination never to let another kebabish open in his town again.

Lushes and reprobates – I give you Robert Ménard: ex-secretary general of press freedom group Reporters Sans Frontières and currently disgruntled mayor of the supposedly shish-saturated town of Béziers. This blowhard first came to my attention a couple of weeks back, when I read about his distaste for döner at the Daily Sabah. Already something of a national celebrity for his animus towards Allahphiles—making a point of illegally collecting stats on Muslim schoolkids and personally declaring Syrian refugees in his town persona non grata—the somewhat megalomaniacal mayor now wants to obstruct the opening of any further lamb-spit houses in his locale.

Reading about this reminds me of one reason I kickstarted this series-within-a-series known as ‘Halal & Hypocrisy’: to shine a spotlight on those for whom fighting the Islamification of the Western world serves as a Trojan Horse for their own liberticidal bullshit. Whilst I may not be thrilled about the concept (and existence) of borders (at least not on a nation-state level), I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have some sympathy for those who view them as a means of preserving treasured cultural and civil liberties—not to mention life and limb—in their lands (a la the late Pim Fortuyn). That said, I find it tragicomic how fervently those of such a persuasion appeal to the very institutions responsible for their malaise to make everything alright, especially when the latter either double down with a “solution” that further feeds the beast or take it as an opportunity to play bait ‘n’ switch by adding their own encroachments.

More…

France’s False Choice Reply

lead_large

Atlantic article from January. Thoughtful overview of Dar al-Islam in the land of the Gauls.

Also, rather refreshing to see a mainstreamer who can tell the fucking difference between liberty and democracy!


The impressive and inspiring show of solidarity at France’s unity march on January 11—which brought together millions of people and more than 40 world leaders—was not necessarily a sign of good things to come. “We are all one” was indeed a powerful message, but what did it really mean, underneath the noble sentiment and the liberal faith that all people are essentially good and want the same things, regardless of religion or culture? Even if the scope is limited to Western liberals, the aftermath of the assaults in Paris on Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket has revealed a striking lack of consensus on a whole host of issues, including the limits of free speech, the treatment of religions versus racial groups, and the centrality of secularism to the liberal idea. Turns out, we are not all one.

French schoolteachers were reportedly dumbfounded that (some) Muslim students refused to stand up for a moment of silence after the attacks. But this is where confusion seeps into the debate. Within France, there is not a cultural divide on the attack that left 12 dead at the offices of a satirical magazine. To even suspect that a significant number of French Muslims might support the slaughter of innocents is troubling. But beyond the killings themselves, there is, in fact, a cultural divide—one that shines light on some of the most problematic aspects of how we in the West talk about Islam, values, and violence.

More…

Paris: Some political points to make 1

by Keir Martland

I disagree that it is crude to make a political point out of atrocities such as that in Paris yesterday. Bad politics causes these attacks and better politics can prevent them. Here are a few political points I’d like to make.

In the first place, most of us have imperfect information about the events of last night. I was flicking back and forth from Sky to BBC, who, in turn, were getting their most reliable information from BFM. Even as I write, the death toll is disputed as is the question of whether the terrorists definitely were Muslims.

Terrorism scares people in this country. It scares them to the point that they will lie back and think of the State as the anti-terror legislation is rammed through Parliament.

I imagine attitudes are similar in France. I don’t know the specifics of the anti-terror legislation in France, but I don’t think it would be unreasonable to assume that powers of the state have increased since January, though I understand they may presently have rather more rights to privacy and so forth than we have. Last night, I predicted that President Hollande would respond one of two ways: either he would argue that without the existing surveillance and police powers there would have been more deaths, and leave it at that; or he would demand more such powers. From his statement today, it seems he has opted for the latter.

paris isis

The “international community” has responded. Obama says this is an attack on “humanity”. Cameron has pledged his support. In France, 15000 military men are in Paris. The French border is closed. There is a “state of emergency.” With such a response, I think, rather like after 9/11, we can kiss goodbye to any open debates on the collection of metadata. All the usual “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” legislation will be passed. Furthermore, Britain’s intervention in Syria will once again be on the cards. If the Commons rejects it again, Cameron will use the royal prerogative powers this time. All-in-all, this is not good for freedom.

More…

Cody Wilson – 3D Printed Guns, PC Hacktivism & Cultural Terrorism Reply

An great interview of Cody Wilson by Lana Lokteff.

Radio 3Fourteen. Listen here.

Cody Rutledge Wilson, a student of law, political philosophy, and social theory, is a USA crypto and free-market anarchist. He is best known as a founder/director of Defense Distributed, a non-profit organization that develops and publishes open source gun designs, so-called “Wiki Weapons,” suitable for 3D printing. USA Carry named Wilson one of America’s “30 Influential Pro-Gun Rights Advocates,” and Wired Magazine’s “Danger Room” has named him one of “The 15 Most Dangerous People in the World.”

More…

The Real Issues You Won’t Hear from the 2016 Presidential Candidates This Election Year Reply

By John Whitehead

Rutherford Institute

“Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.”—Gore Vidal

The countdown has begun.

We now have less than one year until the 2016 presidential election, and you can expect to be treated to an earful of carefully crafted, expensive sound bites and political spin about climate change, education, immigration, taxes and war.

Despite the dire state of our nation, however, you can rest assured that none of the problems that continue to undermine our freedoms will be addressed in any credible, helpful way by any of the so-called viable presidential candidates and certainly not if doing so might jeopardize their standing with the unions, corporations or the moneyed elite bankrolling their campaigns.

The following are just a few of the issues that should be front and center in every presidential debate. That they are not is a reflection of our willingness as citizens to have our political elections reduced to little more than popularity contests that are, in the words of Shakespeare, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

The national debt. Why aren’t politicians talking about the whopping $18.1 trillion and rising that our government owes to foreign countries, private corporations and its retirement programs? Not only is the U.S. the largest debtor nation in the world, but according to Forbes, “the amount of interest on the national debt is estimated to be accumulating at a rate of over one million dollars per minute.” Shouldn’t the government being on the verge of bankruptcy be an issue worth talking about?

Black budget spending. It costs the American taxpayer $52.6 billion every year to be spied on by the sixteen or so intelligence agencies tasked with surveillance, data collection, counterintelligence and covert activities. The agencies operating with black budget (top secret) funds include the CIA, NSA and Justice Department. Clearly, our right to privacy seems to amount to nothing in the eyes of the government and those aspiring to office.

Government contractors. Despite all the talk about big and small government, what we have been saddled with is a government that is outsourcing much of its work to high-paid contractors at great expense to the taxpayer and with no competition, little transparency and dubious savings. According to the Washington Post, “By some estimates, there are twice as many people doing government work under contract than there are government workers.” These open-ended contracts, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, “now account for anywhere between one quarter and one half of all federal service contracting.” Moreover, any attempt to reform the system is “bitterly opposed by federal employee unions, who take it as their mission to prevent good employees from being rewarded and bad employees from being fired.”

Cost of war. Then there’s the detrimental impact the government’s endless wars (fueled by the profit-driven military industrial complex) is having on our communities, our budget and our police forces. In fact, the U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s largest employer, with more than 3.2 million employees. Since 9/11, we’ve spent more than $1.6 trillion to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When you add in our military efforts in Pakistan, as well as the lifetime price of health care for disabled veterans and interest on the national debt, that cost rises to $4.4 trillion.

Education. Despite the fact that the U.S. spends more on education than any other developed nation, our students continue to lag significantly behind other advanced industrial nations. Incredibly, teenagers in the U.S. ranked 36th in the world in math, reading and science.

More…

In Praise of David Cameron (& Co): A Libertarian Fatwa Reply

by Keir Martland

Not long ago, I wrote something nasty about Margaret Thatcher for the Libertarian Alliance. Yet even I will concede that in order to be so cruel about the old cow one must inevitably come across as sympathetic to some less than civilised people. In order to attack the Thatcher government and its record one must to some extent deny the existence of the many problems this country faced in 1979: the rampant inflation; the militant trade unionism; the lack of self-respect as a nation; the high rates of direct taxation; the low levels of home ownership. I will concede that even if one takes a dim view of the Thatcher government, there are many allowances that can, and indeed must, be made.

However, when considering the latest tax credits debacle, I am unable to make similar allowances for Mr Cameron and his government. This particular episode is a perfect example of economic illiteracy, legislative incompetence, and constitutional ignorance.

More…

In Praise of Margaret Thatcher Reply

By Keir Martland

Margaret Thatcher won the 1979 General Election after the vote of no confidence in Jim Callaghan’s government. Callaghan had not been particularly disastrous as Prime Minister until the winter of 1978/9, the so-called Winter of Discontent. Thatcher then proceeded to transform this country from a largely free one to a largely unfree one.

thatcher

Yes, we are told that Britain was the Sick Man of Europe in the 1970s and emerged into the 1990s a prosperous and libertarian country. Yes, the scandalously high tax rates were slashed, for example the top rate of income tax was cut during Thatcher’s time in office from 83% to 60%. Yes, union power was reduced. Yes, people were allowed to buy their own council homes. Yes, we went to beat up the Argies in the Atlantic.

However, was Thatcher a Good Thing for Britain? It’s my own opinion that the best thing about the woman was her rhetoric. She could talk about liberty and property with great passion and vigour, but when it came to the delivery of those two things, she failed. She spoke very well about rolling back the state, but under Thatcher, the state grew in both size and scope.

More…

The Perils of State Surveillance, by Sean Gabb 1

By Sean Gabb

Libertarian Alliance

Listen here.

Speech to the Traditional Britain Group
24th October 2015

Here is an audio recording made on my mobile telephone and then tarted up in Audacity. A better version will be available soon, but this will do for the moment.

I argue as follows:I was a techno-pessimist in the mid-1990s. I thought that, in spite of many collateral advantages, the IT revolution would enable states to gather and use vast amounts of information, and that this would be used to enslave us.

  • This fear seems to be confirmed by the Government’s current push to get access to all electronic data and to spy on us.
  • The push is excused by the need to protect us from the Moslems.
  • But the Moslems are not a problem at all as great as Sinn Fein/IRA used to be. Islamic terrorism in this country has produced a body count trifling set against the 3,500 killed in the Sin Fei/IRA insurrection. Every other difference is in favour of the Moslems – though there are other problems here that may need addressing in due course.
  • Nor will universal surveillance protect us from terrorism. That needs traditional policing.
  • The scale of surveillance currently demanded by the British State will carry us into a police state – this being better defined by the fact of control than any mode of enforcement.
  • To be watched is to be controlled. When people are watched in all they do, they will mostly obey without actual threat of punishment.
  • On the other hand, while there are dangers, the IT Revolution has given us powerful tools of resistance. We need to use these if we want to be free.
  • Also, the kind of police state we are getting is based on fear not of torture or death, but of disapproval and low-level persecution. If we want to be free, all we need is to find a collective backbone and stop behaving like girlie-men.

Questions About Gun Control After UCC Shooting 1

A gunman killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg Oregon before being killed by responding sheriff deputies. This is a sad, horrific incident, and my heart goes out to the families of the deceased.

President Obama was quick to say that “This is something that should be politicized” in reference to stricter gun control laws and has even gone on to cite Australia’s outright ban on guns and subsequent confiscation as an example of what might be done here in the US. Before I can entertain support for such policies, there are a series of issues and questions that I would like to have addressed.

  • Mother Jones cites 572 fatalities in 71 mass shootings from 1982 to July of 2015. Adding UCC that makes 72 mass shootings and 582 fatalities. From 1984 to 2014 there have been 608,478 homicides in the United States. Based on these numbers, mass shootings have accounted for .09% of homicides in the United States. Should we be crafting nationwide policy based on terrifying, spectacular, but extremely rare incidents such as mass shootings?
  • More…

Privatize the Borders! 3

From Liberty Chat.

__________

By Robert P. MurphyLibertyChat.com contributor

Bryan Caplan has become perhaps the leading libertarian spokesman for “open borders,” the term that many people are using to mean that national governments do not place restrictions on the movement of people across the outer boundary of a country. Although I agree with the economics of Bryan’s analysis, I strongly disagree with his rhetoric. In particular, I think the very term “open borders” is awful on two counts: It incorrectly states what the libertarian position actually is, and–perhaps more serious–it concedes the nationalist framing of the immigration question in a way that will hasten the transformation of the U.S. into a giant police state.

First let me deal with the question of the libertarian ideal. If politics weren’t an issue, and we could get the society we really want, I think both Bryan and I would want all real estate held in private hands. There would be no such thing as “immigration policy” or “border control,” except for what each landowner decided for his or her property boundary. If the current border between the U.S. and Mexico ended up being divided among 2,870 different people, owning contiguous plots of land that collectively reached from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, then those individuals would have the legal right to decide whether to build a fence to keep out Mexicans or whether to have a giant neon sign saying, “Hola Amigos!”

More…

Sylvanian Families being stalked by ISIS banned from art gallery Reply

 

Sylvanian Families being stalked by ISIS banned from art gallery

From The Metro. The tragicomedy writes itself!

Also, this is the most media coverage I’ve seen Sylvanian Families receive in decades.

________

An exhibition celebrating freedom of expression has become the unlikely victim of censorship – after an artwork which showed Sylvanian Families being terrorised by ISIS was banned from the display.

The Passion for Freedom exhibition is currently being held at London’s Mall galleries – and features work such as ‘The Great Wall of Vagina’ – an eight foot long wall cast from the genitals of 400 women.

But the ‘Isis Threat Sylvania’ piece was removed after police became concerned that it was ‘potentially inflammatory’ and told organisers that they would have to pay £36,000 for security if the piece was displayed.

More…

U.N., rights groups call on Saudi Arabia to spare man from beheading, crucifixion Reply

CNN.Com

A group of U.N. experts has joined rights groups in calling on Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of a Shiite man convicted of crimes reportedly committed as a teenager during protests inspired by the Arab Spring.

Ali al-Nimr, the nephew of firebrand Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, faces execution by beheading and an additional rare punishment of “crucifixion,” which means publicly displaying the body after death as a warning to others, according to Saudi state media.

“Any judgment imposing the death penalty upon persons who were children at the time of the offense, and their execution, are incompatible with Saudi Arabia’s international obligations,” the U.N. group said in a statement Tuesday, invoking the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Saudi Arabia is a party.

Arrested as a teenager

Ali al-Nimr was a 17-year-old high school student when he was arrested for taking part in Arab Spring-inspired protests in 2012 calling for social and political reforms in the country’s restive and predominantly Shiite province of Qatif.

A court later convicted him of charges including belonging to a terror cell, attacking police with Molotov cocktails, incitement, and stoking sectarianism, according to the state media report.

His final appeal was rejected when the Appeals Court and High Court ratified his verdict last week, the report said.

READ MORE