Category: “Human rights”

Brexit and human rights


Human rights will be diminished if we leave Europe

Human rights have not directly figured much in the vexed debate about whether to remain or leave the European Union.  The arguments seem to have settled on immigration, which has become a toxic topic, with the Brexiters claiming that a leave vote will enable us to regain control of our borders.  The Conservative government has promised to repeal the Human Rights Act but progress has been slow so far.  Reporting on the many issues has been poor with the main focus on the scrapping between the Tory party factions rather than on a measured debate.

The crucial question on how our rights will be affected after a vote to leave – if that should happen on Friday – has received little coverage.  Partly this is because of the complexity of the subject and also detailed discussions of legal judgements does not make for racy copy.  As ever, Rights Info has done an excellent job of discussing the issues with a link through to the Independent newspaper (now only online) which has also done a detailed analysis.

Despite its faults, the European Convention, which in turn led to the Human Rights Act, has been of considerable benefit to ordinary people.  For many this will come as a surprise and for readers of the right wing press in the UK, a statement at variance to the facts as they know them.  And this has been a large part of the problem: a deliberate and sustained attack on the act which has included misreporting, non-reporting and the running of scare stories many of which have no foundation in fact.  For readers of the Daily Mail in particular but also the Sun, the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express, they are treated to lurid stories of terrorists going free, criminals living the high-life in prison and murderers demanding pornography as their ‘human right’ (they didn’t).

Why the right wing media should be so hostile to the act (as opposed to airing proper criticism of it) is discussed by Francesca Klug in her book A Magna Carta for all Humanity (Routledge, 2015).

As the late, great former Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham put it: there is ‘inherent in the whole of the ECHR … a search for balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the wider society.’  For the press to mention this inherent approach would not only spoil a good story, it could draw attention to an inconvenient truth: that Article 10 ECHR, the right to free expression, explicitly states that free speech comes with ‘duties and responsibilities’.  This is not a very popular statement with many journalists.  But, I suppose – with notable exceptions – the press is hardly alone in thinking that responsibilities apply to everyone but themselves.  (p265)

She goes on to explain that there was little legal remedy against press intrusion before the act was passed.  Common law provided no real protection.  An example was Gordon Kaye, the star of the TV series Allo, Allo who was recovering in hospital after a car accident.  Two Sunday Sport journalists entered his hospital room and interviewed and photographed him.  In view of his medical state it is unlikely he knew what was happening.  Under existing English law he had no redress.

Brexiters like to portray English law as some kind of noble construct which has been diminished by Europe and that by leaving, we will be able to get rid of all this interference by ‘unelected European judges’ and get back to the way we were.  Europe is presented in purely negative terms and acting to diminish our rights.  British law is indeed a fine system in many respects, but without the HRA we would never have had the investigation into the activities of the press and phone hacking; no Leveson enquiry and the Murdochs (father and son) being asked to come before a select committee.

The benefits of the act to ordinary people in their struggles for justice against the police or public authorities are seldom mentioned.  The use by the media themselves to defend their sources or to prevent unjust interference by the police or security services is likewise rarely mentioned.  The rights ordinary people enjoy have almost in every case been achieved after a struggle and the current government is keen to erode these rights still further.  Access to the courts and the availability of legal aid has been seriously curtailed; further legislation to diminish the – already limited – rights of trades unions is planned, and the Snooper’s Charter is well on its way to becoming law.

The idea therefore that we will be better protected if we leave is not supported by the evidence.  If we leave Europe and the process begins to abolish the Human Rights Act (which our MP, Mr John Glen is keen to do) and other treaties, it will only result in diminished rights for the ordinary people of this country.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

 

 

 

0

F1 in Azerbaijan


F1 to take place in Azerbaijan this weekend where human rights are seriously restricted
Baku F1 circuit.  Picture: racerviews.com

It’s called ‘sportswash’ and it is the present day attempt by tyrannical regimes to get themselves some positive publicity by hosting a sporting event, in this case, motor racing.  And they do not seem to have any difficulty in persuading sponsors, drivers and others involved to come to their country and lend support to the host however poorly they behave.

Bernie Ecclestone, when questioned about the dismal human rights record in Azerbaijan said:

The moment someone tells me that human rights are, then we can have a look at it, and see when and where it applies.  (Source – Daily Mail)

One could mention the UN Declaration or the European Convention on Human Rights as a starting point but one gets the impression there wouldn’t be much interest.

But Kerry Moscogiuri, director of campaigns at Amnesty International UK, said:

The arrival of Formula One in Baku must not steer attention away from the Azerbaijani authorities’ human rights crackdown.

Behind the glitz the authorities are locking up their critics, have shut down NGOs and arrested or harassed their leaders.  The recent release of some of those jailed on trumped-up charges should not fool anyone into thinking that the wind in Baku is blowing in a different direction.

Azerbaijan has courted big international sports events to improve its image abroad and the Grand Prix is no different.  While the world’s fastest drivers take to the streets of Baku in this spectacle of speed, there are many who will not be able to enjoy the show.

F1 is in pole position to influence positive change in Azerbaijan.  We would like to see them publicly urge President Aliyev to end this crackdown and free all prisoners of conscience.

Rebecca Vincent of Sport for Rights commented:

Bernie Ecclestone’s attitude to human rights is an embarrassment for Formula One.  The Sport For Rights coalition has repeatedly raised the cases of political prisoners in Azerbaijan with those in the F1 world, without anything resembling a sufficient response. The sport and its sponsors should be ashamed to allow themselves to be used as a propaganda tool for repressive governments such as President Aliyev’s.

They also claim that media outlets critical of Aliyev’s government have been harassed and intimidated and subsequently forced to close, while four journalists have also died in custody since 2005, according to Sport for Rights.

It all seems a long way from the Greek idea which informed their philosophy behind the idea of athletics and sporting prowess.  This philosophy was that the success of a democratic government depended on the moral character of the citizenry and sport was part of that philosophy.  This was a large part of the motivation for the combined athletic/moral training.  Now that sport is a business it only seems to matter who can pay the most.  Sport is now part of the apparatus of repression rather that something which uplifts the soul.  Thus any regime which oppresses its citizens and ignores human rights can host a football tournament, motor racing event or some other sporting attraction at will.  The people who take part in these events seem unconcerned at the misery which surrounds them and they are guaranteed uncritical coverage of their exploits in the media.

 

 

 

1

UK government soft-pedalling over the death penalty


Amnesty sets out facts of government’s reluctance to press for an end to the death penalty in some countries

The Government has been accused of “soft-pedalling” over the death penalty and seeming to make trade more important than human rights.  The charge by Amnesty International UK’s director Kate Allen (pictured in Salisbury Cathedral last year) comes as the human rights organisation released figures showing that at least 1,634 people were executed in 2015, a rise of 54% on the year before.  Despite being the highest number Amnesty has recorded since 1989, this total does not include China, where thousands were likely to have been executed but where the death penalty is a state secret.

The figures – contained in the report Death Sentences and Executions in 2015 – show that the top five executioners in the world in 2015 were China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the USA.

Related Articles

This “profoundly disturbing” surge in executions was largely fuelled by big increases in Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Amnesty International reported.  Amnesty International’s fears have been raised just hours after MPs on the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee said there is “plainly a perception” the Government is prioritising trade and security with China, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain above human rights.

Ms Allen said:

Like the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, we’re worried that the Government has started soft-pedalling over foreign countries’ use of the death penalty, preferring to prioritise trade with countries like China, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Until recently the UK’s policy of seeking global abolition of capital punishment had a clear focus and strategy.  Now the death penalty’s been thrown into the pot with other concerns and it’s much harder to tell whether the Government is prioritising this life-and-death matter.

If governments in Beijing, Tehran, Islamabad and Riyadh aren’t hearing about our outrage at executions after torture and unfair trials, then the executioners are going to think they’ve got a green light to carry on killing.

We want to see the Foreign Office publishing a clear strategy for its anti-death penalty work at the earliest opportunity.”

Amnesty International’s secretary general Salil Shetty said: “Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have all put people to death at unprecedented levels, often after grossly unfair trials.”

Last year, the Foreign and Commonweatth Office’s most senior civil servant made a frank admission to MPs that human rights “is not one of our top priorities” and that the “prosperity agenda is further up the list”.

Ministers deny the issue has been downgraded but a string of trade-focused, red carpet visits to the UK by the leaders of countries with some of the worst records of rights abuses has reinforced the perception of a shift of diplomatic emphasis.  Readers of this blog will know we have been following the twists and turns of this story for some months.  We wrote to our local MP Mr John Glen last year on Saudi Arabia and the rising toll of executions by beheading or crucifixion and we received a bland reply from the FCO minister Tobias Ellwood.  Since that time more evidence has emerged of policy changes designed it seems to scale down the human rights aspects.  We noted that when George Osborne visited China to the surprise of his hosts he failed to raise the question of human rights and executions at all.  Tobias Ellwood was reported by local media as congratulating the Saudis on the progress they were making with human rights.

Human rights minister Baroness Anelay said:

I am deeply troubled by the increase in the number of reported executions in 2015, which was driven by concerning increases in Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and we make our opposition well known at the highest levels to countries which continue to apply it. Our message to them is clear, the death penalty is unjust, outdated and ineffective. It also risks fuelling extremism.

Despite these concerning figures there has been progress in many countries.  It is welcome that in 2015 Fiji, the Republic of Congo, Madagascar and Suriname all abolished the death penalty.

The Foreign Office will continue to use its diplomatic network to push for progress towards the global abolition of the death penalty.

Maya Foa, of Reprieve, described the rise in executions as “extremely troubling” adding: “It is all the more disturbing, therefore, to see what the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this week described as an ‘apparent deprioritisation’ of human rights by the UK government.

Now more than ever, Britain needs to be speaking out against the grave abuses – including mass trials, torture and death sentences handed down to juveniles and political protesters – being committed by its allies.

It is hard not to come to the conclusion that the primary aim of the government is trade and business with human rights coming a poor second if at all.  This overlooks the nature of ‘soft power’ and the fact that as a nation, we could be influential in humanising world affairs.  Instead, we chose to push out the red carpet for the most frightful regimes and, as the Panama papers are revealing, allow dubious individuals to buy up large parts of London using off shore tax havens.

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑