Credible evidence of prisoners killed during Covid-19 concerns
Around 36 prisoners in Iran are feared to have been killed by security forces after the use of lethal force to control protests over COVID-19 safety fears, Amnesty International has learned. The full story can be read on Amnesty’s site:
The situation in Iran is grave and the government has relaxed social distancing rules and travel restrictions in a move that could be disasterous. The country is reeling from the continued US sanctions.
Asking TripAdvisor to pull out of illegal settlements in Israel
We in the UK are naturally engaged and concerned with the coronavirus pandemic. The media is understandably full of news about it to the exclusion of much else. However, as we navigate this strange new reality, we must not forget about the tens of thousands of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation who find themselves at risk of the virus.
For years, Amnesty been working in the region to try to draw public and corporate attention to the human rights violations taking place there. Last year, 33,000 supporters in the UK – along with 353,000 supporters globally – signed our petition to urge TripAdvisor to pull out of illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land.
Settlements have a devastating impact on a wide range of human rights of the Palestinian people. This includes their rights to an adequate standard of living, housing and crucially in these times, to health. TripAdvisor is contributing to these human rights violations.
Amnesty is asking you to share the petition with your friends and family and help us reach 40,000 UK signatures before we hand them in to TripAdvisor later this month? In the midst of a pandemic, it is even more vital that we show solidarity with the most vulnerable communities around the world.
The ongoing occupation and oppression means that Palestinians often have little access to medical care. In Gaza, hospitals and clinics have been bombed and essential supplies are virtually non-existent. With a health system on its knees, Palestinians are at an increased risk of the coronavirus pandemic.
Meanwhile, tourism giants continue to boost the illegal settlements economy which has a hugely negative impact on the health of Palestinians. Together, we can let TripAdvisor know that now is the time to de-list all accommodation, activities and attractions in the illegal settlements.
Sir Keir Starmer, the new Leader of the Opposition is, famously, a barrister. He was also, famously, the Director of Public Prosecutions, a man who decided what charges should be brought and against whom. So what should we expect from a party led by someone deeply involved in human rights questions at a time when rights are under enormous pressure, not just globally but also in this country?
Once the coronavirus episode is over and normal(ish) political business returns, one of the first matters to be considered will be the increased power the government has accrued during the emergency, and what to do about it in the future. The Labour Party has supported the emergency powers for the next 6 months, but will clearly need to review this at an early opportunity. Starmer has not expressed a view as yet, but we know that much of his previous work has been in defence of persons threatened by an overweening state.
Starmer’s career was built on work in the human rights and civil liberties field, notably in cases like the McLibel affair (environmentalists sued by McDonald’s over claims made in a factsheet) and East African and Caribbean death penalty cases. He was named as QC of the Year in the field of human rights and public law in 2007 by the Chambers & Partners directory and in 2005 he won the Bar Council’s Sydney Elland Goldsmith award for his outstanding contribution to pro bono work in challenging the death penalty throughout the Caribbean and also in Uganda, Kenya and Malawi. From 2003 to 2008, Starmer was the human rights adviser to the Policing Board in Northern Ireland.
Now we have (more or less) left the EU, extremists within the government may well want to detach us from the European Convention on Human Rights (nothing to do with the EU, remember), as well as rescinding the Human Rights Act. Starmer has publicly defended the ECHR in debate (see The Lawyer 15/9/15). In his Blackstone Lecture of 2015, he refuted the arguments against the existing HRA in considerable detail. He has also written text books on the HRA, so is fully versed in the minutiae.
Martin Kettle has noted the change in outlook on human rights within the legal profession following the Act (see Prospect Magazine Feb 2020), and Starmer’s position at the forefront of this change. With a liberal judiciary under pressure at the moment, his support may be important in the coming period. Starmer will face attacks from left and right, but will be used to that.
It is notable that the Daily Mail is already leading the charge against the new man, tarring Starmer as a defender of IRA bombers (but then the Mail’s grasp of what lawyers actually do has always been rather tenuous). The tabloid press are, of course, hostile to Starmer anyway since his decision as DPP to prosecute them over phone-hacking.
From the left, he has been criticised for – during his time as DPP – not pursuing the prosecution of the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson (although in the latter case, he changed his mind in 2011 when new evidence came to light). Also, he announced that MI5 and MI6 agents would not face charges of torture and extraordinary rendition during the Iraq War, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, as James A Smith has pointed out in the Indy (9/1/20).
Sir Keir has given a clue as to his approach by appointing as his chief legal colleague on the front bench, David Lammy, while Lisa Nandy will be at foreign affairs, both of them with good records on human rights issues. Lammy has been leading in parliament on the Windrush scandal, while Nandy has been strongly supportive of making businesses report on the human rights impacts of their operations.
We have chosen to review the book Twilight of Human Rights Law by Prof. Eric Posner (OUP) as it appeared in an article by Britain’s new Attorney General, Suella Braverman. She refers to one of his arguments in a newspaper article. In addition, the many attacks on human rights and the desire to abolish the Human Rights Act is part of current government policy.
The first part of the book is a tour d’horizon of the many failings in human rights around the world. He instances massive violations in places like Rwanda, the appalling treatment of the Rohingya in Myanmar, the terrible events in Chechnya and many other places around the world. He rightly points out that although countries have signed up to treaties to abolish the use of torture, it is still widely practised. He points to bad police practice in countries like India, Brazil and Indonesia. Slavery is still the curse it ever was but organised in a different way.
International treaties have had little effect he says in improving behaviour. In a small number of cases it has he concedes. He discusses the imperialist criticism of western states seeking to impose their moral compass on other countries based on attitudes dating back to colonial days. He instances the use of torture by the Americans at Guantanomo Bay following 9/11. This was supported by a majority of Americans and thus challenges their claims of moral leadership.
The argument seized on by the Attorney General is that of a trade-off as far as the use of torture is concerned. The argument here is that many countries have limited resources. They have a choice between spending money on improving the police and stopping torture or, investing in health care or education. Since better health care and education is likely to be of greater benefit to more people, it is a preferred option.
THE book is flawed in many important respects. Although the arguments he provides and examples of failure and continuing violations and bad behaviour by many states around the world are true enough, it is not true to say that there have been no improvements in the human rights everywhere. One of the problems is that transgressions are news: steady improvements aren’t. So we read or see TV programmes about violations or genocide for example, but not small improvements in say, Russia.
The argument about torture assumes that there is an economic equivalence between improving police behaviour and education spend. The two are likely to be vastly different. Improving police behaviour and that of the judiciary would cost millions, education costs significantly more than that. Moreover, education is a continuing cost, sorting out the police is more likely to be a one-off cost. Getting rid of torture is likely to have benefits to society. The police are trusted then they will get more support from the public. He gives no credence to the fact that torture is ineffective. People will say anything to get it to stop.
Another unconsidered factor is the very cost of running a police state. To run a state like China where human rights are flouted on a massive scale, is immensely costly. The Chinese monitor movements of its people, they have a vast system of tracking the worldwide web to ensure its citizens do not read what the state doesn’t want them to, and they employ a huge army of police and informers. They have invested heavily in cameras and systems to watch its people’s movements. It is not true to assume therefore that improving human rights is somehow automatically more costly than the politics of repression.
As AC Grayling puts it in his book Ideas that Matter (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2009);
The ideas embodied in all these human rights instruments have a powerful influence on thinking and behaviour, even if violation of them continues: hope has to lie in the future as these ideas become more widespread and more influential still. (p179)
Although Posner gives a good summary of human rights, especially since the war, he does not discuss the longer history since Magna Carta. There has been a trend over centuries of citizens gradually acquiring more rights. The European Court has, slowly but surely, done a lot to raise standards as has the International Criminal Court. Nor does he credit the fact that the presence of treaties is an important support for people pressing for better rights in those countries where they are poor. The many human rights organisations are able to pursue their arguments and press for changes precisely because there is a corpus of treaties and law to base their actions on. The point overlooked by the professor is that the treaties enable action within the country itself.
He also makes great play of the numbers of treaties and long list of rights, which he says, renders them less effective. He lists them all in an appendix but upon examination, many are restating the same points. He seems to overlook the vast number of laws which govern most states. These are constantly added to as new problems emerge or old problems need solutions, the Children Act for example. The number of laws do not make improving society less effective – quite the opposite it could be argued.
Perhaps because Prof. Posner is a lawyer but he sees progress purely through the lens of law and treaties. He does not take into account that laws are just one part of the equation. A considerable amount is done by persuasion, human rights activists, diplomats and others (including Amnesty members) beyond pure legal action.
Overall, despite the long list of problems and failures, he does not convince that it is twilight for human rights.
We are posting this message from Amnesty HQ concerning the pandemic crisis and human rights:
[I] hope you’re well and coping with the changes to daily life the Covid-19 crisis has brought.
It’s more important than ever that we look out for our family, friends, neighbours in these difficult times, and that we show appreciation and stand up for the rights of those most at risk during this crisis. In this email there is a solidarity action to support the workers who are keeping the country going at this time of national crisis, which we hope the whole family can get involved in. We’ve called on the government to ensure that health workers haveappropriate protective equipmentand are looking at how best to support and advocate with and for groups most affected by the crisis over the coming weeks and months.
We are concerned about the likely increase in domestic violence during this period as people are required to stay in their homes. Migrant women are at particular risk, as they are often unable to access the safety and support they need. Together with the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, we have written an open letter to the Home Secretary calling for emergency support for migrant victims of domestic abuse, and there’s a template letter below on this issue that we hope you’ll be able to send to your local paper.
We are monitoring the international situation carefully – Syria recently officially confirmed its first case of the disease. In a country in which only 64% of hospitals and 52% of primary healthcare centres were fully functional at the end of last year, and with thousands in detention in appalling conditions, the impact of an outbreak there would be catastrophic. Meanwhile, in Colombia, we have called on the authorities to implement a strategy for the prevention of COVID-19 infection in its dangerously overcrowded prisons. Have a look at the website for more on how we’re responding to the crisis https://www.amnesty.org.uk/coronavirus
There are many reasons to be anxious right now, but recent weeks have also seen incredible acts of kindness and humanity in communities all over the world. Showing solidarity with those in difficult circumstances is what Amnesty has been doing since the beginning, and it’s needed now more than ever. By looking out for each other, coming together in our communities to support people most at risk, we can help each other to get through these difficult times, and continue to build a stronger movement for the future.
Action to protect and promote human rights is vital right now. Please do stay in touch with each other and continue to hold group meetings, via video call or telephone conference. Please see below for instructions on how to use Zoom for meetings. It’s a video conferencing app but you can also dial in as a phone call. If you would like to use our teleconferencing service, please let us know and we can send you the details.
We plan to send email updates every two weeks during this period – they will contain a variety of campaign or solidarity actions, links to online courses, suggestions of things to do to keep busy at home and more.
The Supreme Court in the UK has found against the government’s decision to provide information to the USA to facilitate prosecution for crimes carrying the death penalty
In a unanimous decision delivered yesterday, 25 March 2020, agreed that the British government acted unlawfully in providing, or agreeing to provide, information to the United States without seeking assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed. The USA is the only country in the Americas which retains the penalty and we have highlighted in many of our posts, the poor legal process, countless mistakes and lack of proper protection for suspects during interrogations.
This appeal concerned two individuals, Shafee El Sheik and Alexandra Kotey (nicknamed the ‘Beatles by parts of the UK press at the time) who were alleged to be a part of terrorists operating in Syria and who were involved in the murder of British and US citizens.
It has never been in dispute that Mr El Sheik and Mr Kotey should face trial for the serious crimes alleged against them, but any trial, if it is to take place, should be held in the UK. We intervened in this case because we believed the earlier actions of the UK government were contrary to its long-standing approach on the death penalty and could lead to a death sentence being imposed or carried out. The importance of this decision is wider than just this case. It has implication for any individual who may be facing the death penalty and concerns what assurance the UK government must seek before deciding what help or assistance it may give. there are fundamental issues concerning the right to life. Parvais Jabbar, Co-Executive Director
It is interesting that one of the motives for leaving the EU was to ‘take back control’ and to be free of he judgements of the European Court. Yet the government has shown itself all too craven when it comes to ceding power to the US justice system.
We had a short meeting this month because the meeting date coincided with the Evensong at the Cathedral. The minutes are attached with thanks to group member Lesley for preparing them.
Update: 14 March. Ben Rogers has kindly sent us the text of his talk which is attached at the bottom of this post.
The Salisbury group is grateful to the Cathedral for holding an Evensong once a year marking the work of Amnesty International and enabling us to nominate a speaker during the course of the service. About 60 attended last nights service. For many years the Cathedral has provided space for the group to display each month an appeal for a Prisoner of Conscience. This month it is Ahmed Mansoor a human rights defender and POC who is in prison in Abu Dhabi. The Cathedral has a window dedicated to the work of Amnesty.
We were delighted to invite Benedict Rogers (pictured) to speak who, among other things, has a particular interest
Ben Rogers at Salisbury Cathedral (picture, Salisbury Amnesty)
in North Korea. Ben is East Asia Team Leader of CSW, a Christian charity which promotes religious freedom around the world.
He said that the UN regards North Korea to be in a category all of its own as far as human rights are concerned. It violates every single human right. As a member of CSW, they were the first to call for a commission of enquiry and two years later in 2014, the UN did so.
The gravity, scale and nature of abuses has no parallel in the modern world he said. The report found that:
North Korea had committed crimes against humanity and manifestly failed to uphold its responsibility to protect. These crimes entail “extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation. Source, Wikipedia
In 2007, CSW produced a report A Case to Answer. A Call to Act which concluded that the human rights situation in North Korea was a crime against humanity. Although things seem bleak, he said there were some glimmers of light. In a recent report, Movies, Markets and Mass Surveillance, it was noted that North Koreans were getting more information about the outside world. They were beginning to realise that life south of the border was better. There was anecdotal evidence that prison guards did realise the world was watching.
The regime saw Christianity as a particular threat. Anyone caught practising it faced severe punishment or could be executed. If a carol was allowed it would only be ‘We three Kims of Orient are!’
Those who did manage to escape to China were sent back to face severe punishment in the prison camps. There were around 200,000 thousand people in the prison camps he said. He ended with the famous quotation mistakenly attributed to Edmund Burke:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
Amnesty in Salisbury & South Wiltshire 