Man at the Helm versus The Monster

A year, almost to the day, after we recognized his courage and his determination with which he stood up for his beliefs in Court on Feb 8th, 2012, we mean to show again our full and unequivocal support to Mr Tony Bennett in his forthcoming Court Appearances on February 5th/6th, 2013.

The Adamastor, a mythical monster that allegedly sank all ships that tried to cross the African Cape that separates the Indian and Atlantic Oceans was feared by all XVth Century sailors or so did proclaim Portugal’s National Poet, Luis Vaz de Camoes, in his poetic odyssey “Os Lusiadas”.

That monster stood between mankind and what was to become today's global world.

Adamastor was the last obstacle to overcome in the conquest of the Maritime Route to India, the world’s first sea trading lane.

Bartolomeu Dias (Cape Town)

It was finally conquered in 1498 by Vasco da Gama but it was Bartolomeu Dias that crossed that feared line, in 1488, where supposedly Adamastor lurked waiting to ambush the next ship that dared enter “his” waters.

Adamastor’s magnificent powers proved to be that of a toothless, clawless tiger more becoming  a newborn kitten rather than the ruthless monster he was made out to be...

Adamastor didn't exist. A myth created out of bluff and fed on basic fears…

But that fact doesn’t take away a single ounce of the courage of those who dared indeed to face him.

Only AFTER these sailors courageously went to confront him did they see that they had nothing to face.

Today we can say that Adamastor doesn’t exist and even jest about it, but we owe that certainty to all those who courageously put their lives at risk to willingly face the monster.

Fernando Pessoa, arguably Portugal’s greatest poet, with whose opinion I tend to agree with, wrote this poem that although is about the Adamastor, is much more about the tremendous courage of the man at the helm of the ship that sailed to confront the monster:

For the last few years we’ve been living a similar situation, concerning the "Maddie Affair".

A myth has been created that there’s a “Libel Adamastor” that will have us all hanged and disemboweled after torture if we as so much dare sail into waters other than those set by the Establishment in its version of what happened to Maddie.

Somewhere out there, overlooking the forbidden waters waits the monster, the “Libel Adamastor”, for any foolhardy ship that he’ll ruthlessly sink as well as make any survivor suffer a fate worse than death.

Ships are only to sail on Establishment charted waters, irrelevant of logic, reason or LEGALITY.

The fact that the Establishment states, as it publicly has, that by having their “arguido” status lifted when the case was TEMPORARILY archived, the McCanns' innocence was PROVEN, it proves that the Establishment sees itself above Law when, on one hand, it intentionally overcomes it by stating as Law what Law doesn't say or even can be minimally interpreted as such, and on the other deems anything that goes against a complete and absolute legal misstatement as libel.

And it also proves that the Establishment knows that it’s unable to silence dissonant voices through reason so they must do that through a terror campaign.

Literally.

A terror campaign based on none other but the ruthless, feared as much as fearless, “Libel Adamastor” a horrific myth convolved in terrible tales brought in by Northern icy winds… it is even said that it has a hyphenated name, Carter-Ruck, to remind us all of a bi-forked tongue of the most venomous of snakes!

Run to your homes, protect your children!

Who isn't afraid of such a creature? Only the fools and even then it isn’t quite certain if they aren't...

Well, about 6 years ago, there was word that a the ship “TRUTH” was hiring a crew. The pay was nil and there would be no booty to claim afterwards.

It promised nothing but to sail on own charted waters, irrelevant whether or not if it was to encounter the “Libel Adamastor”.

One only needed to possess values and decency to become one of its sailors.

Many of us jumped on board knowing full well that by doing so we were assuming to possess these requirements: values and decency.

Today we know that many, many sailors neither possessed and because they possessed neither, they shamelessly lied about possessing both.

There was a peculiarity about this particular ship.

“TRUTH” had no Captain.

Many were those who tried to fill the “vacant” post. Unsuccessfully though because Truth has no master but is itself the master of all.

But as in any ship it had, and has, a “man at the helm”.

Many a sailor has held the helm from time to time, and, unfortunately as we're now finding out, most of them to try and steer the ship from its rightful course.

Fortunately for all, without success.

But there have been two sailors who deserve the highest commendation for having stood behind the helm when the seas were indeed very rough, Goncalo Amaral and Tony Bennett.

Both have proven their selflessness and courage "under fire" or in seas that only the brave and the resolute are able to stand behind the helm.

This January 2013 we had Goncalo Amaral at the helm. He kept the ship steadily on course without fault and because of it, the "duel" scheduled to take place at sundown didn’t take place because the CHALLENGER apparently “reported sick” and asked for a postponement.

This Tuesday, February 5th, 2007, it seems that it will be Mr Tony Bennett at “TRUTH’s” helm.

There is one major difference in the seas in which Amaral sailed and the one Mr Bennett is about to face.

Mr Bennett is sailing head on against the monster himself.

Mr Bennett is to face the “Libel Adamastor”. Carter-Ruck.

We can only express our utmost support to such show of bravery.

Mr. Bennett, history has shown time and time again that righteousness prevails over cowardice.

We sincerily hope that the outcome is the one we predict it to be: "TRUTH" will sail unscathed through such troubled seas and that there are greater bounties to be found than those with chests filled with jewels and gold.

Another Portuguese sailor, Fernao de Magalhaes, after who the Strait of Magellan is named, has also given the world a name that is pronounced a million times daily by those who haven't the faintest idea why it has such a name: the Pacific Ocean.

The name, Pacific, was given to this Ocean by Magalhaes as a comparison between its peaceful waters and the boisterous winds and waves that he had been able to sail through in the Straight, in 1520,  sailing under Spanish colours on the first circumnavigation of the world.

We, Mr. Bennett hope to welcome you on peaceful waters on the other side of your "Magellan Strait" after you've successfully overcome the Machiavellian waves and winds they've thrown against your, our, ship the "TRUTH".

Now, as absolute outsiders of the case, and speaking about it based only on hearsay, it seems that Mr Bennett's main defense, in our opinion, seems to rest on the fact that others can say things and he can't.

It seems to us that it's a very reasonable basis for one’s own defence.

I believe that in civilized nations it’s something that's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

It seems also that Mr Bennett’s flaw resides in the fact that he signed a document whereupon he agreed to abide to some sort of IMPOSED limitations to his rights to express himself.

We will not provide our personal opinion about if Mr Bennett breached or not such agreement, although it doesn't require much to understand to which side we tend to lean.

But we will give an opinion about whether there was, or wasn't, an agreement to be breached.

I’m not very familiar with British Law but I know that in ALL civilized nations one cannot sign a document limiting one’s rights.

And if one happens to sign such a document, then it has no legal value whatsoever.

That’s why there are many discussions about euthanasia, which, as far as I know, remains illegal in the UK.

Euthanasia is based on a document voluntarily and consciously signed by someone who voluntarily gives up his/her own right to live. Not stating my opinion about it, as this is neither the time nor the place, but describing the legality of the signed document, which is absolutely none.

It’s a document where one accepts, in WRITTEN form, what one is not allowed to accept, by LAW.

In the same manner, no one is allowed to accept limitations to his right to speak FREELY, irrelevant whether one signs, or has signed, a document to that effect or not.

And if others can say things that only one can't we’re definitely into FREEDOM OF SPEECH territory and far from libel one.

And, from what I've read, Mr Bennett hasn't said anything that official sources haven't also said, including those directly linked to the couple, namely Clarence Mitchell.

So IT IS a case where Mr Bennett is not allowed to express himself in the same way others are free to do so.

And we are talking about XXI’s Century Britain and not the one when it was absolutely legal to execute someone for poaching on a nobleman’s grounds, right?