FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Extracts from the website to Support Antoine Deltour

LuxLeaks is the disclosure of hundreds of tax agreements between Luxembourg authorities and multinational companies, bringing to light a large-scale tax avoidance planning. LuxLeaks is also the name of the investigation conducted by the l’International Consortium of Investigative Journalism (ICIJ) on the disclosed documents.

Me Philippe Penning, Antoine Deltour, and Me William Bourdon © Comité de soutien à Antoine Deltour – CC BY-SA 4.0
Click on the image to enlarge

LuxLeaks “dropped the bomb” and provoked many indignant reactions all over the world. By bringing the tax rulings issue to the worldwide governing authorities –notably the G20 Brisbane Summit and the European Commission– it fostered democratic discussions that will progressively lead to reinforce fiscal justice.

Antoine Deltour, [along with Raphaël Halet] is one of the whistleblowers behind the disclosure of many of the LuxLeaks documents. Today Antoine is on trial in Luxembourg. He needs your support!

Read more on Wikipedia.

LuxLeaks Appeal trial: Fifth and last hearing

The LuxLeaks appeal trial ended on January 9th. On the agenda of the day: the replies from all sides to prosecutor indictment and to the defendants’ lawyers’ pleadings.

Some forty supporters came from France and a few others from Germany, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

Prosecutor’s reply

Prosecutor Mr. John Petry begins his reply by recognising Antoine Deltour and Raphaël Halet as whistleblowers: according to him, “the public interest is not subject to interpretation”. However, apprently trying by all manner of means to justify the conviction of Antoine, he considers that they “can’t benefit from full protection” because they do not meet all the criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights’s jurisprudence. Petry particularly blames Antoine for not being “animated with the intention of a whistleblower” at the time he copied the documents.

Considering the prejudice caused, the prosecutor asserts that “the end doesn’t justify the means”: the “LuxLeaks operation” would have “named and shamed the professionals and clients” and would therefore be considered disproportionate in the light of its public interest.

Only the massive and public feature of the revelations seems to cause problem to John Petry, who even asserts that “if the documents had been used only for the ‘Cash Investigation’ broadcast, acquittal could be a serious option”.

Concerning Raphael Halet, Prosecutor Petry simply considers that the documents he copied would be “irrelevant”, and that their disclosure was “not a necessity”. The acquittal would therefore not be justified.

Finally, in the case of the journalist Édouard Perrin, Prosecutor Petry says he is “very embarrassed” by an appeal that he does not consider “justified”. He recognizes that “the indictment of a journalist in a democratic society should be an exception”, he asks –unsurpringly– for the acquittal of Édouard Perrin.

Plaintiff’s reply [Editor’s note: The plaintiff, PwC, is PricewaterhouseCoopers, the second largest professional services firm and one of the four largest accounting firms in the world.)

Mr. Hansen, plaintiff PwC’s lawyer, maintains his position: “The defense wants to make us believe that an individual conception of morality can be a justification for violating the law”. Then he tries to challenge Antoine’s defense in relation to the European Court of Human Rights’s jurisprudence and reaffirms that Antoine had “no whistleblowing intention at the time he robbed the documents”. Furthermore, Hansen believes that Antoine “gave no consideration to the interests of his employer”. Hansen considers that the damage caused to his client represents “several thousand hours of work lost”, and that, if PwC’s turnover has increased, it is “in spite of the theft of documents, not because of theft”.

Considering Raphaël Halet case, the plaintiff’s lawyer reproaches Halet –as the prosecutor– of having “brought nothing to the public debate”.

In concluding, Hansen gave a rather vindictive reply. He called on the Court of Appeal to uphold the civil judgment and to recognize PwC as a “victim”.

(Article continued in the right column.)

(Click here for the French version of this article.)

Free flow of information, How is it important for a culture of peace?

The courage of Mordecai Vanunu and other whistle-blowers, How can we emulate it in our lives?

(Article continued from left column)

Reply of Antoine Deltour’s lawyers

Mr. Philippe Penning, Antoine’s Luxemburgish lawyer, begins by recalling the almost daily progress on tax transparency, which are “the consequences of the LuxLeaks affair”. He then asks, bewildered: “Deltour’s hesitation and the efficiency of the LuxLeaks revelations would lead him to his loss? There is a serious problem!”. The Luxemburgish lawyer also calls on his compatriots to avoid any “self-protection reflex”; He asserts that “Luxembourg survived the war and the oil shock and will survive the end of mass tax rulings”. The audience applauds.

Mr. William Bourdon then takes the floor. He welcomes the fact that the appeal process has brought “better legal questions than at the first instance” and denounces an “intellectual kidnapping” used as a last resort to “take the judicial scalp of Antoine Deltour”. He strongly contests the need to add a “criterion of determination” to justify whistleblower’s good faith, even considering that such jurisprudence would have “damaging, terrible, irrational, perverse, and toxic consequences!”. He recalled that several months before the documents were copied, Antoine already proved his intention by signing a blog comment with the signature “Insider, maybe future whistleblower”.

Mr. Bourdon denounces the plaintiff that has difficulty in justifying itself, he ironizes on the so-called prejudice by questioning: “What is this mute assembly of hurt clients? Not even one document can prove a prejudice!”.

Mr. Bourdon concludes by stating that “in order to be consistent with the European Court of Human Rights’s jurisprudence, the Court must acquit Antoine Deltour”. New round of applause.

Reply of Raphaël Halet’s lawyers

After a short break, the hearing resumes with the reply of Mr. Bernard Colin, for the defense of Raphaël Halet. Colin comes back widely on his denunciation of the illegality of tax rulings’ practice in Luxembourg before 2014. Returning in detail to the “legislative loophole” governing Marius Kohl’s work at the famous Bureau #6, Mr Colin believes that, “by giving the keys to PwC”, the rule of law has been flouted. He calls for the acquittal of his client.

Ms. May Nalepa, second lawyer of Raphael Halet, emphasizes the irony of the reproaches made to Deltour on the massive nature of his revelations, and on the opposite, the reproaches made to Halet on the lack of substance of his leaks: “the next whistleblower will have to be a real tightrope walker to find out the right balance!”.

Reply of Édouard Perrin’s lawyers

Unsurprisingly, Édouard Perrin’s lawyers greet the prosecutor who said he was “embarrassed” by the appeal on their client. Ms. Christel Hénon and Mr. Olivier Chappuis affirm that it would even be “unthinkable” that Perrin be convicted of common law offenses. They naturally call “a last time” for the journalist’s acquittal.

The final words to the defendants

Antoine Deltour speaks first. He begins with confirming his declaration done during the first instance: “I followed a citizen’s approach”. Antoine recognizes that he “did not anticipate the repercussions of the LuxLeaks affair” –no one could– but he insists that he had “obviously intended to draw attention to these practices”. Fearing for his employability or possible legal consequences, Antoine says he could “not act hastily”. As to the proportionality of the damage caused, he recalls that the options for disclosure devised by the prosecution would doubtlessly not have resulted in such a clear public interest.

Antoine then concludes: “I wouldn’t understand a condemnation for having acted as a citizen concerned about the general European interest”. Sustained applause in the room.

Raphaël Halet then speaks up, very incisive: “This trial should be that of tax evasion and the people who covered it!”. Halet insists on Marius Kohl’s administration as a “black hole”. He finally concludes: “Condemning the messenger has never brought victory to a war. On the contrary, it should be the war against tax evasion!”.

Édouard Perrin finally speaks briefly, humbly presenting his apologies to Halet and Deltour “for having brought them in this judicial adventure”. The journalist wishes to thank the two whistleblowers, who have “acted in the general interest”.

Verdict on March 15th

Today’s very dense hearing ends the appeal LuxLeaks trial. Mr. Michel Reiffers, President of the Appeal Court, announces that he defers decision of the verdict. The judgment will be delivered on March 15th, 2017.

Let’s hope for the acquittal of the three defendants!

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from the United Nations News Centre

A United Nations-supported conference on Cyprus opened in Geneva today [12 January], bringing together the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot leaders in a dialogue chaired by Secretary-General António Guterres.. .

Secretary-General António Guterres with Nicos Anastasiades, President of the Republic of Cyprus (left) and Mustafa Akinci, Leader of the Turkish Cypriot Community (right) in Geneva. UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré
Click on photo to enlarge

A United Nations-supported conference on Cyprus opened in Geneva today [12 January], bringing together the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot leaders in a dialogue chaired by Secretary-General António Guterres.

Speaking at a press conference during a recess, the UN chief said “it is my hope that there will be a breakthrough” that the people of Cyprus deserve and the world needs.

(Article continued in the right column)

(Click here for this article in French or click here for the article in Spanish.)

Can Cyprus be reunited in peace?

(Article continued from the left column)

“We are facing so many situations of disasters. We badly need a symbol of hope. I strongly believe Cyprus can be the symbol of hope at the beginning of 2017,” he added.

The conference brought together not only the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders, but also the so-called guarantor powers – Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom for the first time.

Mr. Guterres paid tribute to the statesmanship displayed by Greek Cypriot leader Nicos Anastasiades and Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci for about 20 months of negotiations toward a united Cyprus.

The Secretary-General described the opening session of today’s talks as “extremely constructive,” adding that during lunchtime, the participants had open debate and brainstorming, in which “it was possible to identify, not only the very important progress that was made in the negotiations, as taken in the last few days on the first five chapters, but also to identify the complexity of the problems related to security and guarantees that need to be addressed and resolved.”

In that lunch, he continued, “it was possible to clearly come to the conclusion that we need to find instruments, instruments that allow for the implementation of the settlement that would be achieved in a way that guarantees simultaneously the response to the security concerns of the Turkish Cypriot community and the security concerns of the Greek Cypriot community.”

Mr. Guterres said the goal is neither a calendar nor a vanity fair, but to get the necessary results.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by Brian Terrell in World Without War (abbreviated)

[In October] I was in Moscow, Russia, as part of a small delegation representing Voices for Creative Nonviolence from the United States and United Kingdom. Over the next 10 days in Moscow and St. Petersburg, we saw nothing of the massive preparations for war there that are being reported in the Western media. We saw no sign of and no one we spoke to knew anything about the widely reported evacuation of 40 million Russians in a civil defense drill. “Is Putin preparing for WW3?” asked one U.K. tabloid on October 14: “Following a breakdown in communication between the USA and Russia, the Kremlin organized the huge emergency practice drill – either as a show of force or something more sinister.” This drill turned out to be an annual review that firefighters, hospital workers and police routinely conduct to evaluate their capacities to manage potential natural and manmade disasters.

Over the past years I have visited many of the world’s major cities and Moscow and St. Petersburg are the least militarized of any I’ve seen. Visiting the White House in Washington, DC, for example, one cannot miss seeing uniformed Secret Service agents with automatic weapons patrolling the fence line and the silhouettes of snipers on the roof. In contrast, even at Red Square and the Kremlin, the seat of the Russian government, only a few lightly armed police officers are visible. They seemed mainly occupied with giving directions to tourists.

Traveling on the cheap, lodging in hostels, eating in cafeterias and taking public transportation is a great way to visit any region and it gave us opportunities to meet people we would not otherwise have met. We followed up on contacts made by friends who had visited Russia earlier and we found ourselves in a number of Russian homes. We did take in some of the sights, museums, cathedrals, a boat ride on the Neva, etc., but we also visited a homeless shelter and offices of human rights groups and attended a Quaker meeting. On one occasion we were invited to address students in a language school in a formal setting, but most of our encounters were small and personal and we did more listening than talking.

I am not sure that the term “Citizen Diplomacy” can be accurately applied to what we did and experienced in Russia. Certainly the four of us, me from Iowa, Erica Brock from New York, David Smith-Ferri from California and Susan Clarkson from England, hoped that by meeting Russian citizens we could help foster better relations between our nations. On the other hand, as much as the term suggests that we were acting even informally to defend or explain our governments’ actions, interests and policies, we were not diplomats. We did not go to Russia with the intention of putting a human face on or in any way justifying our countries’ policies toward Russia. There is a sense, though, that the only genuine diplomatic efforts being made between the U.S. and NATO countries at this time are citizen initiatives like our own little delegation. What the U.S. State Department calls “diplomacy” is actually aggression by another name and it is questionable whether the U.S. is capable of true diplomacy while it surrounds Russia with military bases and “missile defense” systems and carries out massive military maneuvers near its borders.

(Article continued in the right column.)

Solidarity across national borders, What are some good examples?

(Article continued from left column)

I am conscious of the need to be humble and not to overstate or claim any expertise. Our visit was less than two weeks long and we saw little of a vast country. Our hosts reminded us continually that the lifestyles and views of Russians outside their country’s largest cities might be different from theirs. Still, there is so little knowledge of what is going on in Russia today that we need to speak the little we have to offer.

While we heard a wide variety of views on many crucial issues, there seems to be a consensus among those we met about the impossibility of a war between Russia and U.S./NATO. The war that many of our politicians and pundits see clearly on the horizon as inevitable is not only unlikely, it is unthinkable, to the Russian people we talked with. None of them thinks that our countries’ leaders would be so crazy as to allow the tensions between them to bring us to a nuclear war.

In the United States, Presidents Bush and Obama are often credited for “fighting the war over there so we don’t have to fight it here.” In St. Petersburg we visited the Piskaya Memorial Park, where hundreds of thousands of the one million victims of the German’s siege of Leningrad are buried in mass graves. In World War II, more than 22 million Russians were killed, most of these civilians. Russians, more than Americans, know that the next world war will not be fought on a faraway battlefield.

Russian students laughed at the joke, “If the Russians are not trying to provoke a war, why did they put their country in the middle of all these U.S. military bases?” But I ruefully told them that due to our nation’s professed exceptionalism, many Americans would not see the humor in it. Rather, a double standard is considered normal. When Russia responds to military maneuvers by the U.S. and its NATO allies on its borders by increasing its defense readiness inside its borders, this is perceived as a dangerous sign of aggression. This summer in Poland, for example, thousands of U.S. troops participated in NATO military maneuvers, “Operation Anakonda” (even spelled with a “k,” an anaconda is a snake that kills its victim by surrounding and squeezing it to death) and when Russia responded by augmenting its own troops inside Russia, this response was regarded a threat. The hyped up proposition that Russia might be conducting civil defense drills raises suspicion that Russia is preparing to launch World War III. Yet, a practice run, dropping mock nuclear bombs in Nevada, is not viewed in the West “as a show of force or something more sinister,” but only as an indication of a “commitment to ensure all weapon systems are safe, secure, and effective.”

The life extension of our planet needs to be a universal goal. To speak of, let alone pour a nation’s wealth into a program of “life extension programs for weapon systems” is nothing short of madness. Our Russian friends’ confidence in our collective sanity and the steadiness of our leadership, especially in the wake of the recent election, is a great challenge. I am grateful to new friends for the warmth and generosity of their welcome and I hope to visit Russia again before long. As important and satisfying as these “citizen diplomatic” encounters are, however, we must honor these friendships through active resistance to the arrogance and exceptionalism that might lead the U.S. to a war that could destroy us all.