This is the title of a report produced by Amnesty International concerning the use of torture in China. It was only last month that China’s president received a red carpet treatment on his visit to Britain with smiles all round. The subject of human rights was taboo and was not to be mentioned during the course of his visit. The aim was to boost trade and to secure deals such as the nuclear power plant investment.
Human rights infringements are a major issue for China and there is always the hope that there will be a steady improvement over time. Indeed, it is a favourite argument by politicians that engagement – whether through trade, culture, sport or otherwise – is the best way to effect improvements in countries still practising torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments.
Only it doesn’t seem to be working in places like Saudi Arabia or China despite the huge effort put into engagement with their leaders. Amnesty has just published No End in Sight which shows that if anything, it is getting worse. Despite having signed up to UN Charter against torture, it is still widely practised in all its medieval brutality.
Tiger bench
The rot seems to start in police stations and the system of securing confessions acts as an incentive to extract one, by force if necessary. The methods are extremely unpleasant and the least graphic (though no lest brutal) is the ‘tiger bench’ illustrated left.
The report explains the weak nature of the justice system which means no meaningful enquiries are made and that lawyers are themselves coerced or threatened if they try too hard to stop it.
It is alarming that this major nation, which is a member of the Security Council and is thus in a position to influence a lot of what happens in the world, should be steadily getting worse not better as far as human rights are concerned. It is disappointing that the opportunity to express our concerns was apparently not taken during President Xi’s visit.
The revised Regulatory Powers bill has now been published and has been debated in parliament. It is better known as the ‘snoopers’ charter’ and tries to put the interception activities of the security services on a sound legal footing. The previous act, RIPA, was clearly inadequate and revelations by Edward Snowden revealed that it was being widely circumvented and ignored.
It has to noted that the public at large is mostly relaxed about the degree of intrusion into their electronic activity. The wholesale interception of emails, phone calls, Skype, Facebook and the like arouses no great passions. The general view can be summed up as ‘I’ve got nothing to hide so they’re welcome to look at my emails if they want to.’
The line put across by politicians is that these powers are needed to defeat the activities of terrorists; international criminals; people smugglers and the like is widely accepted and seen as a price worth paying if we are to remain safe and such people are to be put behind bars. The paradox however is that if you ask people the question ‘do you trust politicians?’ you are likely – indeed almost certain – to receive a very dusty or robust answer. They are seen – often unfairly – as untrustworthy, interested in their own careers, acting as lobby fodder or simply being out of touch. So allowing these individuals additional powers does seem to be something of a contradiction.
So what are the arguments about the Regulatory Powers Bill and why does it all matter? First is the issue of trust to which we have already alluded. Before Snowden, many of the same politicians were telling us that matters were under control and that warrants and searches were only used when strictly necessary. It was then revealed that comprehensive snooping was underway and that the ministers concerned – including those on the select committee – had little or no idea of the scope of the activity. GCHQ was hoovering up large quantities of information seemingly without any oversight.
David Davis MP, 3rd from left
… and they still don’t. Only a very few individuals get to see the core information since most of it is presented in terms of briefings. This goes back to the war when the JIC was set up to look at all the information and then put it together to inform the cabinet committee. Very few MPs have any serious experience of intelligence matters and the nature and sensitivity of the information they receive makes it difficult for them to find out. David Davies MP says we have a ‘comforting illusion’ about our intelligence services which leads to complacency.
There is a natural tendency for all organisations to talk up the issues they deal with. By highlighting risks it enables them to win resources in Whitehall battles and in battles with sister agencies. This needs to be remembered when blood-curdling threat assessments are issued.
There is a belief that more is better. By simply amassing more and more information using ever more powerful computers it is argued this will enable the intelligence services to protect us better. The only problem is that time after time it has been found to be wanting. The 45 minute claim is the most famous but there are others. Only this week we read of the death of Ahmed Chalabi who misled the USA in many different ways over Iraq. So despite the massive scale of the American intelligence system, the billions of dollars spent on the CIA and NSA, one man comprehensively fooled the State Dept. over a period of several years.
A fundamental issue at stake is one of power. It was not so long ago, following the collapse of East Germany, that the scale of their intelligence activities by the Stasi were revealed. Miles and miles of underground corridors existed with hundreds of thousands of files on almost every citizen in the state. Children informed on their parents; brother informed on brother; neighbour on neighbour. All typewriter fonts were recorded so that any typed samizdat could be traced. It was a nightmare world of paranoia and poisoned a generation. People in the West were horrified when this was revealed. That was clumsy by comparison to what the agencies can do today in the internet era. Yet we seem relaxed, not horrified.
The issue of power and who has it is central to the debate. Our society is based on division of powers in part going back to Magna Carta. For one group to have too much power is recognised as dangerous. We have the Lords (however imperfect) and the Commons. We have a separate judiciary. We have a reasonably independent media. These divisions prevent despotism or at least make it exceedingly hard to achieve. In addition there are elections every 5 years.
By allowing the intelligence agencies, to pry into every communication, to intercept communications between lawyer and client; to intercept emails of human rights groups such as Amnesty and to tap into the phones of journalists, is extremely dangerous and alters the balance of power significantly. All these things have happened.
It is also dangerous because of the frailty of the people in power. Lord David Owen in his books has investigated the mental capacity of various leaders in times of stress particularly war. In both TheHubris Syndrome (Politico) and in In Sickness and In Power (Methuen) he shows that senior politicians can be unstable and suffer from hubris. This led for example, Tony Blair and George W Bush to ignore or manipulate intelligence to fit their beliefs and with disastrous results.
The thirst for power can itself be dangerous. Obtaining it, holding on to it, fighting off those who want to take it from them, and wielding it, can be the all consuming passion for a politician. It is for these very reasons we should be extremely wary of granting them the advantage of even more intrusion.
It might reasonably be asked however, what about terrorist activity and especially a group like ISIS (or whatever we agree to call them)? They are undoubtedly a cruel and dangerous organisation. But they are not an existential threat to the UK. Even if they manage to pull off some outrage in this country, it cannot be argued that they will change our way of life. Giving up our liberties and our right to privacy is a heavy price to pay on the uncertain promise of greater security.
Our freedoms and liberties have been acquired over many centuries and we should be extremely wary at giving them up. Vague promises of judicial oversight – which are empty since they will only oversee the process not the actual decision – should not blind us to the fundamental risk this bill will pose if it gets enacted. Combined with the intention of scrapping the Human Rights Act, this is something to be worried about.
Amnesty has been pursuing the ‘stop torture’ campaign for some time now and expressed concern a few months ago at the DSEI exhibition. Amnesty was barred from entering and there were concerns that torture equipment makers would be present.
Large numbers of people wrote to the Minister and we are pleased to note she has responded. A copy of her reply is below.
The Human Rights Act is under threat and we await the current government’s plans for its replacement which must be due very soon. Rights Info has produced a short video which is worth a look which you can access from their web site or from this link.
The situation in North Korea remains dire as far as human rights are concerned and a number of NGOs have written to the Security Council asking for action to be taken
It is reported today that the government’s use of drones to kill people overseas is to be reviewed by the Human Rights Committee. This is welcome news. Clearly, ISIS is an unpleasant organisation and is acting in a brutal and uncivilised way.
When it was revealed that a drone was used to kill two people in Raqqa in August, David Cameron said it was done as an act of ‘self defence’. Quite how someone in Syria was a threat to the UK was not explained and seemed very unlikely.
Earlier this week is was reported that the government was removing adherence to international treaties from the ministerial code. It is these treaties which prevent use of force without UN sanction or because there is a genuine need for purposes of self defence.
The Raqqa attack was the first case in the modern era that such an attack took place in a country with whom we were not at war. Caroline Lucas – the Green party MP – was reported as saying the use of a drone in this case was done ‘with a complete absence of parliamentary scrutiny or approval.’
We look forward to some serious questions being asked of ministers.
Plans by the Conservative Government to modify the Ministerial Code are ‘seriously concerning’ according to Rights Watch.
The ministerial code issued in 2010 says;
Overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice and to protect the integrity of public life
The plan is to omit from the new code including international law and treaty obligations. Phillippe Sands QC, a professor of law at University College London described the changes as ‘shocking’. The government claim that this is merely a matter of simplification.
Why it matters
It matters because of the promise by the Conservatives in their manifesto to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with the British Bill of Rights a draft of which has yet to see the light of day. Removing the international law will reduce the respect for judgements by international courts such as the European Court in Strasbourg.
Another aspect is that going to war and the use of things like drones are covered by international treaty and the UN Charter and not by UK laws. Removing the international element therefore leaves ministers free to use this kind of weaponry unfettered.
In 2014, the government – then in coalition – wanted to remove what was termed an ‘ambiguity’ in the rules. This has now been changed to simplification.
An observer of these events was Paul Jenkins who was a Treasury solicitor and he witnessed the intense irritation felt by the Prime Minister over our need to comply with foreign legal obligations. This was largely in connection with the arguments over prisoner voting but the prolonged tussle over Abu Qatada was also likely to have been an irritant as well.
In a letter to the Guardian, the former legal adviser to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Frank Berman QC said ‘it was impossible not to feel a sense of disbelief at what must have been the deliberate suppression of the reference to international law.’
What is troubling about these changes is that they have to be seen in context. We have restrictions on Freedom of Information; reductions in the ability of people to receive legal aid; court charges; and the threat to the Human Rights Act. We will soon have the ‘snooper’s charter’ which will enable the security services to eavesdrop communications however they wish.
All these changes add up to an assault on the ability of individuals to hold the executive to account. Ministers were quick to celebrate the anniversary of Magna Carta when it suited them but now seem keen to reduce freedoms wherever they can.
Sources: The Guardian; Rights Watch; the BBC; Financial Times; Daily Mail
Amnesty in Salisbury & South Wiltshire 