I think what's needed here is for A/I to go the ECHR.
A state failing to prevent foreign sanctions from restricting the freedom of association of its citizens is certainly a breach of article 11. It doesn't matter whether it's caused by a foreign state, the duty of Italy is clearly to ensure freedom of association in practice.
It _looks_ like A/I was providing services to the PKK.
A/I intentionally selects politically aligned groups, provides them with encrypted communications, hosting, anonymity and other infrastructure, and among the groups receiving those services was the PKK.
"Autistici/Inventati is a Tuscan collective that develops independent IT services and provides email addresses, websites, blogs, and newsletters to other activists and collectives."
> an Italian bank maintaining relationships with an OFAC-listed entity could be subject to "secondary sanctions" that would involve the cessation of all services provided by US intermediaries. This would mean that all Banca Etica customers would be unable to use credit and debit cards (which currently rely on a substantial monopoly by US operators)
«A substantial monopoly by US operators»: very strong words, very important words: those "US operators" are the part that is responsible for having destroyed monetics in the eu - the part that forced NFC on bank cards.
Of course the problem should have been solved immediately. now we have banks with crippled services here.
Ok I agree that de-banking is not a good thing overall from a political perspective.
But in this case, it seems fairly clear that A/I was providing services to organizations listed as Terrorist Organizations by the US, UK, and Canada. Seems like the best way around this is... don't do business with terrorists? I'd understand more if these were ONLY deemed by the US, but this is an international group.
> The Italian bank says A/I’s account showed no previous anti-money-laundering concerns—but fears U.S. secondary sanctions could endanger services for 130,000 customers and members.
> Banca Etica strongly condemns the use of counterterrorism tools to target political opponents. Evaluations are underway to prevent the closure of the bank account following A/I's inclusion on the US list of terrorist organizations.
This isn't the usual debanking as a political statement, but rather the bank trying not to be sanctioned by the US, a country already bleeding all its soft power and veering heavily into hard power and coercion.
The sanctioning of the ICC prosecutor already showed beyond any doubt the level of moral bankruptcy. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
The ICC has tools for countering this kind of thing though.
They can order anyone who impedes them seized and handed over for judgement to the ICC, including bank CEOs and the like participating in retaliatory measures against them. They haven't done this, presumably for political reasons, but they can.
It would be good if they could, but the U.S. never consented to the court's authority, and the U.S. government maintains that the ICC has no jurisdiction over American citizens or personnel. We are living a multi-tier world, where there are entities that can be held accountable, and others not so.
Sources? When I look at the law and their mandate, it sure looks like they can't. That's not part of their soft powers. They can excusively go after a very narrow band of criminal acts.
"Article 70 - Offences against the administration of justice
Offences against the administration of justice
[...]
(c) Corruptly influencing a witness, obstructing or interfering with the attendance or testimony of a witness, retaliating against a witness for giving testimony or destroying, tampering with or interfering with the collection of evidence;
(d) Impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties;
(e) Retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official;"
So I'd say 70 (e) covers the sanctions imposed on those court officials. They are clearly officials of the court, and the sanctions are clearly part of retaliation against them. Consequently it stands to reason that anyone who participates in their enforcement or drafting or really in any way can in principle be prosecuted.
> The ICC has tools for countering this kind of thing though.
That's irrelevant and unrealistic in this case. None of this factored into the US reaching for the sanctions hammer with more and more despicable intentions, like supporting war crimes even of other countries.
Established in 1998, Banca Etica has a long history of ethical stewardship in their finance. It is a differentiator and selling point for their account holders. For more (in Italian) https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banca_Popolare_Etica
The ground works for debanking were laid when all of the mainstream press cheered on the debanking of Canadian truckers.
Now their opponents use it and it gets very little press coverage.
It needs to stop. I would not do well in this autistici.org group and they'd probably kick me out on some CoC grounds with their draconian rules and social pressure, but I still cannot get over the fact that you can just destroy a service provider with very little evidence.
Maybe we have different ideas of what the mainstream press is? These all seem pretty normal articles, most note what critics are saying of the measures.
Why do you think the "mainstream press" and "A/I" are in the same side? Because I don't see two parties here, but rather governments using the financial system to suppress opposition.
It may be apparent to some that some of us browse lots of news: we can say that the more powerful ones are not the most visible. You have to check carefully, to find the "historic milestones" ones.
> they'd probably kick me out
Many of us know they would not accepted given some possible inerpretation of their rules, but we really do not know - who tried?
> you can just destroy a service provider with very little evidence
The whole banking system of a State, and a State itself, some say.
I think what's needed here is for A/I to go the ECHR.
A state failing to prevent foreign sanctions from restricting the freedom of association of its citizens is certainly a breach of article 11. It doesn't matter whether it's caused by a foreign state, the duty of Italy is clearly to ensure freedom of association in practice.
It _looks_ like A/I was providing services to the PKK.
A/I intentionally selects politically aligned groups, provides them with encrypted communications, hosting, anonymity and other infrastructure, and among the groups receiving those services was the PKK.
"A/I" = "Austistici/Inventati" Collective
"Autistici/Inventati is a Tuscan collective that develops independent IT services and provides email addresses, websites, blogs, and newsletters to other activists and collectives."
> an Italian bank maintaining relationships with an OFAC-listed entity could be subject to "secondary sanctions" that would involve the cessation of all services provided by US intermediaries. This would mean that all Banca Etica customers would be unable to use credit and debit cards (which currently rely on a substantial monopoly by US operators)
«A substantial monopoly by US operators»: very strong words, very important words: those "US operators" are the part that is responsible for having destroyed monetics in the eu - the part that forced NFC on bank cards.
Of course the problem should have been solved immediately. now we have banks with crippled services here.
Ok I agree that de-banking is not a good thing overall from a political perspective.
But in this case, it seems fairly clear that A/I was providing services to organizations listed as Terrorist Organizations by the US, UK, and Canada. Seems like the best way around this is... don't do business with terrorists? I'd understand more if these were ONLY deemed by the US, but this is an international group.
> The Italian bank says A/I’s account showed no previous anti-money-laundering concerns—but fears U.S. secondary sanctions could endanger services for 130,000 customers and members.
> Banca Etica strongly condemns the use of counterterrorism tools to target political opponents. Evaluations are underway to prevent the closure of the bank account following A/I's inclusion on the US list of terrorist organizations.
This isn't the usual debanking as a political statement, but rather the bank trying not to be sanctioned by the US, a country already bleeding all its soft power and veering heavily into hard power and coercion.
The sanctioning of the ICC prosecutor already showed beyond any doubt the level of moral bankruptcy. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
The ICC has tools for countering this kind of thing though.
They can order anyone who impedes them seized and handed over for judgement to the ICC, including bank CEOs and the like participating in retaliatory measures against them. They haven't done this, presumably for political reasons, but they can.
It would be good if they could, but the U.S. never consented to the court's authority, and the U.S. government maintains that the ICC has no jurisdiction over American citizens or personnel. We are living a multi-tier world, where there are entities that can be held accountable, and others not so.
They haven't done it because their power would collapse if they try to do something and be ineffective at it.
Sources? When I look at the law and their mandate, it sure looks like they can't. That's not part of their soft powers. They can excusively go after a very narrow band of criminal acts.
"Article 70 - Offences against the administration of justice
Offences against the administration of justice
[...]
(c) Corruptly influencing a witness, obstructing or interfering with the attendance or testimony of a witness, retaliating against a witness for giving testimony or destroying, tampering with or interfering with the collection of evidence;
(d) Impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties;
(e) Retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official;"
So I'd say 70 (e) covers the sanctions imposed on those court officials. They are clearly officials of the court, and the sanctions are clearly part of retaliation against them. Consequently it stands to reason that anyone who participates in their enforcement or drafting or really in any way can in principle be prosecuted.
> The ICC has tools for countering this kind of thing though.
That's irrelevant and unrealistic in this case. None of this factored into the US reaching for the sanctions hammer with more and more despicable intentions, like supporting war crimes even of other countries.
> The sanctioning of the
An informative note: Banca Etica did protest against that.
Ethical Bank? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Established in 1998, Banca Etica has a long history of ethical stewardship in their finance. It is a differentiator and selling point for their account holders. For more (in Italian) https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banca_Popolare_Etica
This ironically is a place where the EU needs to make draconian rules.
The ground works for debanking were laid when all of the mainstream press cheered on the debanking of Canadian truckers.
Now their opponents use it and it gets very little press coverage.
It needs to stop. I would not do well in this autistici.org group and they'd probably kick me out on some CoC grounds with their draconian rules and social pressure, but I still cannot get over the fact that you can just destroy a service provider with very little evidence.
All parties need to stop this.
I often read things like this, and then I go look and don't quite see the cheering:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-banks-ottaw... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.businessinsider.com/trudeau-canada-freeze-bank-a... https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-pro...
Maybe we have different ideas of what the mainstream press is? These all seem pretty normal articles, most note what critics are saying of the measures.
Why do you think the "mainstream press" and "A/I" are in the same side? Because I don't see two parties here, but rather governments using the financial system to suppress opposition.
> very little press coverage
It may be apparent to some that some of us browse lots of news: we can say that the more powerful ones are not the most visible. You have to check carefully, to find the "historic milestones" ones.
> they'd probably kick me out
Many of us know they would not accepted given some possible inerpretation of their rules, but we really do not know - who tried?
> you can just destroy a service provider with very little evidence
The whole banking system of a State, and a State itself, some say.
The supposed "land of the free" is suppressing political speech at home and abroad.