Tag: FCO

Death penalty: annual summary


Fuller version of the death penalty summary

No to the death penaltyCampaigning against the Death Penalty has continued to be a major focus for the Salisbury Group.  Regrettably, there has been no national campaign coordinated by Amnesty International in London.  We hope this might change in 2016 as we have taken part in a Survey currently being carried out by HQ confirming that we would like this important aspect of Amnesty’s work to be taken up again – particularly in the light of the recent changes in the priorities of the Foreign and Colonial Office (see later).

In the meantime, we have identified particular issues around the Death Penalty on which we have campaigned.  Throughout the year we have responded to all the Urgent Actions received in respect of individuals under threat of execution – 31 in total.  The majority of these have been for prisoners in Saudi Arabia, Iran and the USA.  We have worked on the cases of individuals sentenced to death within Amnesty’s Campaign against torture – most notably Moses Akatugba and Saman Naseem (see later), including them in letter writing, card signings and petitions, and have also continued to campaign on behalf of Reggie Clemons (see later).  In partnership with St Thomas’s Church, we held a Vigil as part of the World Day Against the Death Penalty.  This was our first such venture, and it has to be said that public support was disappointing, but the Group felt it had been very worthwhile.

2015 has been a challenging year:
  • We saw an unprecedented rise in executions in Saudi Arabia following the accession of King Mohammad bin Salman.   At least 151 had taken place by early November, and  executions are now at a 20 year high.  Disproportionate use is made against foreigners, particularly from poor countries, who do not understand arabic and are denied adequate translation in court.  Barbaric methods of execution are employed  – beheading, stoning and crucifixion.  Death sentences have been passed for a range of offences, including ‘apostasy’
  • There has been a rise in the number of executions in Iran – at least 694 in the first half of the year
  • There are considerable concerns at the numbers of countries now using the death penalty to deal with real or perceived threats to State security under the guise of terrorism – Pakistan, Tunisia, Chad and Egypt as well as Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Initial fears that the legislation would be used to include a wide range of ‘crimes’ other than terrorism were more than justified.  A report by Reprieve states that those executed in Pakistan have included individuals sentenced to death as children and victims of police torture
  • Concerns have been raised at the numbers being sentenced to death and executed for alleged crimes committed when children.  Countries with the worst records  for this are Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. This issue has been taken up by the Salisbury Group – as mentioned above, it was the focus of  our Death Penalty Vigil for this year’s World Day Against the Death Penalty.  We highlighted the case of Saman Naseem, a Kurd arrested at 17, tortured and sentenced to death for being a member of a banned organisation.  Reports earlier in the year of his execution proved to be unfounded, and he has now been granted a re-trial
  • There has also been the issue of the growth in sentences and executions for drug-related offences, particularly in Indonesia
  • China continues to refuse to publish details of the numbers of executions, but is believed to carry out more than the rest of the world combined.  There have, however, been some encouraging signs.  In January, a youth wrongly convicted of rape and executed 18 years ago received recognition of his innocence and a posthumous pardon. In May a number of Judges contributing to a Symposium on “Mistaken Cases” called for reforms which would go some way to meeting standards for a fair trial. Also in May, the sentence for a woman convicted of the killing of her abusive brother was commuted from death to life in prison
  • The year for the USA in respect of the death penalty has been mixed.   Its use continues to decline across America – the number of death sentences handed down dropped by a third in 2015 , with only six states – Texas, Missouri, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma and Virginia – carrying out executions.  Public attitudes to the death penalty are also changing, partly because of concerns at costs incurred from keeping prisoners on death row for many years and the lengthy appeal process, but also because of an increasing recognition of the risk of unsafe convictions.  Almost 3,000 cases were identified involving unreliable or false testimony given by FBI Agents using a now discredited technique of hair analysis.  Following 28 years on death row, Anthony Ray Hilton was released from death row in Alabama when his innocence was confirmed through the use of ballistic tests
  • In 2015 Nebraska abolished the death penalty, and in Connecticut the death penalty abolished for new offenders in 2012, was abolished for the 11 inmates currently remaining on death row.  There remain, however, pockets within the States where the use of the death penalty is disproportionate to the numbers within the population.  Professor Frank Zimring of the University of Berkeley, California, believes the attitude of the district attorney to the death penalty to be a key factor
  • Here in the UK it is now 50 years since the abolition of the death penalty, and it is encouraging to note that for the first time support within the country for its use fell below 50%.  The Group have, however, been concerned at changes in our Government’s approach internationally to issues around human rights, and specifically to the use of the death penalty.  In June we wrote to Salisbury MP John Glen to ask why the British Government could not follow the lead of the French President, Francois Hollande, in speaking out publicly while in Saudi Arabia against the use of the death penalty.   His reply cited the value of behind the scenes diplomacy, seeing this as being more productive than speaking out publicly
  • In August we learned that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had dropped explicit references to abolishing the death penalty from its global human rights work.  Despite the 2014 Human Rights and Democracy Report in which the Government claimed their work in this area was part of ‘sustained and long term efforts to to see an end to the death penalty world-wide’, all references to the death penalty were set to vanish from its stated priorities.  In reporting on this, The Times of India made a pointed reference to the British Government’s condemnation of the hanging last year of the convicted terrorist, Ajimal Kasab.   Mr Glen replied that the decision of the FCO to overhaul its approach to human rights had been made on the basis of feedback from diplomats who reported difficulties in relating our long list of human rights priorities with the issues they faced in real life.  He stated that the death penalty could come under all three of the broad categories listed in the new guidelines, and this approach would enable diplomats to ‘tailor them appropriately to local circumstances’.  As a group we are particularly concerned at what we see as a ‘fudged’ approach, and a serious threat to our country’s ability to be seen as promoters of human rights.

Economic prosperity was further up my list of priorities than human rights

Sir Simon McDonald, Head of the Foreign and Colonial Office in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee

This year has, however seen a number of successes in our campaigning: 
  • We have continued to campaign actively on behalf of Moses Akatugba, the young Nigerian accused of the theft of three mobiles and sentenced to death as a juvenile.  After ten years on death row, in June Moses was granted a pardon and released.  Over 34,000 had signed the petition, with more than 200 by people in Salisbury at last year’s stall for World Day Against the Death Penalty.  Amnesty have received a letter of thanks from Moses, describing his feelings on learning of an experiencing his release, and describing Amnesty activists as his ‘heroes’.  We were able to celebrate this success at our Vigil
  • Following our long term campaign for Reggie Clemons in Missouri, in December we received the news we had been waiting for.   After a long wait for a decision from the Court following the report of
    Reggie Clemons (picture Amnesty USA)
    Reggie Clemons (picture Amnesty USA)

    the Special Judge, Reggie’s conviction and sentence for first degree murder were ‘vacated’.  The Court had upheld his right to a fair trial, which was all that he had sought from the beginning.  We now await news of a date for his re-trial.

The Salisbury Group’s Campaigning Plans for 2016 
  • We will continue to write in response to individual Urgent Actions in respect of the death penalty
  • We will be continuing to campaign on behalf of Saman Naseem to ensure that he receives a fair trial
  • We will continue to campaign specifically on behalf of individuals sentenced for alleged crimes committed as juveniles.
  • We will await news of the date of Reggie Clemons’s new trial, and campaign to ensure this is fair and in accordance with internationally agreed standards.
  • We will await the outcome of the current AI Death Penalty Campaigning Survey, and will participate in any national campaign arising out of this.

 

 

 

 

2

2015: Review of the year


Year of achievement

This has been a busy year for the group.  A prevailing theme has been the Magna Carta celebrations and weTapestry enjoyed a fruitful relationship with the Cathedral where one of the extant copies of the charter is displayed.  We organised a talk in the Cathedral by Dominic Grieve – the former Attorney General – and 160 attended to hear him speak in favour of the Human Rights Act.  Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty, spoke at the Sixth Form Conference also at the Cathedral.  We mounted a display in the cloisters and we ended the year by displaying the tapestry, assembled by members of Amnesty groups in the south region, with two contributions from refugee groups.  Another event was at the Playhouse where we hosted a discussion with Kate Allen; Prof Guy Standing and Ben Rawlence – a first for us.  The Playhouse agreed to display the tapestry ahead of it moving to the Cathedral.

Films

For several years we have held a film night at the Arts Centre and this year we managed two, the first being the documentary Bastards.  Set in Morocco, this moving film showed an illiterate woman’s struggles with her family and the justice system on behalf of her illegitimate son.  We were delighted to welcome the director of the film, Deborah Perkin, to introduce it.  After the showing, we asked people to sign cards for Ali Aarrass who was returned to Morocco from Spain, held incommunicado, denied access to a lawyer and tortured for 12 days.  An enquiry into his allegations was promised but has not happened.  He still seeks justice and has recently ended a prolonged hunger strike.  Campaigning for Prisoners of Conscience like Ali are a core aspect of Amnesty’s work.

The second film was Timbuktu which was timely in view of the problems with terrorism and Islamic extremism.  We are grateful for the continuing support of the Salisbury Arts Centre in this enterprise and to the many people stopped after the showings to sign cards.

Saudi Arabia and arms sales
Paveway missile sold to the Saudis
Paveway missile sold to the Saudis

Saudi Arabia formed a backdrop during the year with their continuing and increasing use of the death penalty and a host of human rights violations.  In July, we wrote to our local MP, Mr John Glen, to urge his government to take a more robust line with the Saudis.  We received a reply from him and a minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assuring us that diplomacy was proceeding behind the scenes.  We had not long received the letter when it was revealed that the FCO had just removed references to the abolition of the death penalty from its policy.  It was also revealed that the requirement to adhere to international law and treaty obligations had been removed from the ministerial code.  We then discovered the astonishing news that the UK government had been active in securing a seat for a Saudi man on the UN’s Human Rights Council.  Together with the continuing support the government offers to sellers of arms to Saudi Arabia, this shows that claims to be interested in better human rights in countries like Saudi was a sham.  It was depressing to note the new college in Salisbury being supported by a range of arms companies.

Economic prosperity was further up my list of priorities than human rights

Sir Simon Mc Donald, head of the Foreign and Colonial Office in evidence to the Foreign Affairs sub-Committee

Our all too close relationship with the Saudi government was exposed at the end of the year when the Independent revealed details of the secret security pact signed between the two governments.  Human rights groups, the Independent reported, expressed alarm at the secretive nature of the deal with a regime which has been condemned for its human rights record.  Kate Allen, Amnesty’s Director, called it a ‘murky deal’.

Yemen

Later in the year there was a great deal of interest in Syria and the decision to bomb ISIS.  A major debateArms-Fair---share-assets-email-Sep-2015 was held in Parliament with impassioned speeches on both sides.  We noted that no such passion was evident in the case of Yemen where British arms supplied to Saudi are being used to bomb civilians and kill children.  The government remains to keen to sell arms to whoever seemingly unconcerned where they end up.  They support the annual arms fair in London and, no doubt mindful of previous revelations about the sale of torture equipment, banned a representative from Amnesty attending.

It is extraordinary that so much heat and righteous indignation is engendered by the barbaric activities carried out by ISIS, but beheadings, crucifixions, floggings and torture carried out on an increasing scale in Saudi Arabia result not in condemnation, but visits by ministers and by members of the royal family.

Good news
Moses Akatugba
Moses Akatugba

But is was not all bad news.  The Salisbury group, in common with others around the world, campaigned for the Nigerian man Moses Akatugba who was brutally tortured by the Nigerian police and forced to sign a confession to murder.  We are pleased to note that many Salisbury people signed our petitions and cards with the result (with world wide campaigning as well) that Moses was released after 10 years on death row.  This was a notable success.  Over 34,000 people around the world signed petitions.  Amnesty have received a letter of thanks from Moses describing his feelings on learning of his imminent release and describing Amnesty activists as his ‘heroes’.

Another success was the decision by the state authorities in Missouri to give Reggie Clemons a retrial.  After a long wait for a decision from the Court following the report of the Special Judge, Reggie’s conviction and sentence for first degree murder were ‘vacated’.  The Court had upheld his right to a fair trial which was all that he had sought from the beginning.  This is a campaign which the local group has been pursuing actively for many years and again we are pleased to record our thanks to many hundreds of Salisbury people who signed cards and petitions.

Locally, the group undertook two Citizenship talks, one at South Wilts and one at the Shaftesbury School.  These are popular with young people and well attended.

Death penalty

Campaigning against the Death Penalty has continued to be a major focus for the Salisbury Group.  Regrettably, there has been no national campaign coordinated by Amnesty International in London.  We hope this might change in 2016 as we have taken part in a Survey currently being carried out by HQ confirming that we would like this important aspect of Amnesty’s work to be taken up again – particularly in the light of the recent changes in the priorities of the Foreign and Colonial Office.

In the meantime, we have identified particular issues around the Death Penalty on which we have campaigned.  Throughout the year we have responded to all the Urgent Actions received in respect of individuals under threat of execution – 31 in total.  The majority of these have been for prisoners in Saudi Arabia, Iran and the USA.  We have worked on the cases of individuals sentenced to death within Amnesty’s Campaign against torture – most notably Moses Akatugba and Saman Naseem (see below), including them in letter writing, card signings and petitions, and have also continued to campaign on behalf of Reggie Clemons (see above).  In partnership with St Thomas’s Church, we held a Vigil as part of the World Day Against the Death Penalty.  This was our first such venture, and it has to be said that public support was disappointing, but the Group felt it had been very worthwhile.

One of our concerns are the numbers of being sentenced to death and executed for alleged crimes committed when children.  Countries with the worst records for this are Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan.  This issue was taken up by the Salisbury group and it was the focus of the Vigil for this year’s World Day Against the Death Penalty.  We highlighted the case of Saman Naseem, a Kurd, arrested aged 17, tortured and sentenced to death for being a member of a banned organisation.

The group continues to publish a monthly death penalty report which collects information from around the world on the use of this barbaric and ineffective practice.  At the bottom of this blog you will find other sites which provide information.  While countries like the USA, Saudi and Iran feature frequentlyy in these reports, it has to be recognised that China executes more than the rest of the world put together but keeps the statistics a state secret.

A full report on the death penalty is on a later blog.

China

This year saw the state visit by the Chinese president to these shores.  There was considerable discussion about human rights in China – or the lack of them – including the denial of free speech, the use of torture, thousands executed after brief trials and continued suppression in Tibet.  It was revealed by the Chinese media that George Osborne – who is keen to replace David Cameron as Prime Minister – on his visit to China, failed to mention human rights at all to the surprise of his hosts.  What was said to the president on his visit here, if anything, is unknown.  Protestors in London were mysteriously kept well away by armies of Chinese.  This was a clear demonstration that the current government is almost exclusively concerned with economic matters and not about human rights.

North Korea
Group campaign event, Saturday 8 November
Group campaign event, Saturday 8 November

During the year we continued to highlight where we can, the continuing state of human rights abuses in North Korea.  The situation there remains dire and the role of the Chinese is crucial.  People fleeing the country are frequently handed back to face a terrible future in a forced labour camp the condition of which are unimaginable.  They also try and obstruct efforts by the UN.  Their fear is that instability in North Korea could be the trigger for unrest in China itself.  There is now greater awareness of what is going on the country and the story has moved away from border skirmishes to the appalling human rights situation: progress of sorts.  Clip from the video made in 2014 available on YouTube.  The message reads ‘Close the Camps’ 

Stop torture

We have campaigned throughout the year on behalf of individuals who have been subjected to torture.  This abhorrent practice is still very common around the world with an estimated 141 countries still practising it.  This is despite signing various UN protocols to the contrary.

Human Rights Act

We have reported on many occasions the desire by the government to do away with, scrap or abolish the HRA.  Our local MP, Mr John Glen is on record as wanting this.  Part of the reason – perhaps the major part – is the continuing dislike of things European.  ‘Brussels’ has become shorthand for anything bad and for interference in our affairs and the HRA is caught up in that.  It doesn’t help that the majority of newspapers publish seemingly endless stories of dubious decisions which are the result – it is claimed – of the workings the act.  Stories about benefits for ordinary people almost never make it onto a tabloid page.

A second reason (we have speculated) is that much press activity nowadays involves the intrusion into the private lives of celebrities and politicians using hacking, buying information from the Police and other sometimes illegal means.  Article 8 of the HRA includes a right to privacy which would seriously curtail this activity.  We are currently awaiting the review of the act (promised in the Autumn) and how the government proposes to change it.  Perhaps we can be encouraged by the appointment of Michael Gove MP as Justice Minister, who has shown himself willing to overturn some of the worst excesses of his predecessor such as iniquitous court fees and banning books from prisons.

During the year we were pleased to welcome the formation of Rights Info which was established to counter the misinformation regularly pumped out by our media.  It analyses the various cases and stories which make the news and presents the facts.

Snoopers’ charter

The investigatory powers bill is currently in the report stage.  It proposes giving increased powers to the security services to intercept private messages, phone calls, Skype, emails and social media.  People are rightly concerned and fearful of terrorist activity and mostly take the view that as I’ve got nothing to hide, losing a bit of liberty is a price I’m willing to pay for greater security.  There is a trade off here: we give up some liberty and the right to our privacy to enable the security services to invade emails and the like in their hunt for terrorists, drug smugglers and people traffickers.  But we expect our politicians to exert oversight and to ensure the security services are properly accountable.  The revelations by Edward Snowden exploded that and showed that the relevant parliamentary committee had little or no idea of what was happening.  We have also noted the strange dichotomy between the publics’ distrust of politicians on the one hand and trusting them when it comes to intruding into our private lives on the other.

Peter Wright’s book Spycatcher (Viking Penguin) first revealed the inside story of the MI5 which he alleged had burgled its way around London.  More recent books such as Seamus Milne’s The Enemy Within (Verso) revealed the underside of the security services and their (successful) attempts to undermine the miners’ strike and Nick Davies’s Hack Attack (Chatto and Windus) which told the story of the media’s involvement with politicians, senior Metropolitan Police officers and the security services.  All these books, and others, show the importance of strong independent control of what these services are up to.  Unfortunately, the unholy link between some newspaper groups, politicians and the police makes achieving this very difficult.

David Davis MP with Kate Allen, Salisbury CathedralSo although we do not mind the security services penetrating terrorist cells, we might mind them listening in to solicitors discussing their client’s cases,  journalists’ phone calls and bugging human rights groups, all things they have been shown to do.  Liberty is a precious thing and we need to be ever vigilant that their activities are closely monitored and are appropriate.  With the politicians we have today we cannot be sure of this.  One of the few exceptions is David Davis MP (seen here third from left at the Sixth Form Conference at the Cathedral, next to Kate Allen) who has regularly highlighted the dangers of this bill and of the creeping nature of intrusion being planned by the Home Office.

Conclusions

This has been a busy year for us with many achievements.  However, we look forward to next year with some forboding.  The desire to promote economic interests almost at any cost and the near abandonment of overseas human rights issues is a worry.  We want to go on selling arms to highly unstable regimes like the Saudis, seemingly with no concern with how or where they use them.  Claims of ‘quiet diplomacy’ are a sham when you are promoting one of their number onto the UN’s Human Rights Council.  At home, the combination of the ‘snoopers’ charter,’ a desire to end or abolish the Human Rights Act and to curtail the Freedom of Information Act are all steps in the wrong direction.

This has been an exceptionally busy year, as the report notes. We have succeeded in holding major headlining events, around the Magna Carta celebrations, while still carrying on our usual campaigning, and keeping awareness of Amnesty high in the city, all with a relatively small activist base. Our visits to schools have been valuable in this respect too, and thanks are due to all who have helped over the last year to keep us in the public eye and assisted in the success of the achievements noted here. I would conclude by wishing our readers an supporters a happy New Year, and hopes for freedom for those we are supporting.

Andrew Hemming, Chair of the Salisbury group

We continue to be heartened by the warm support we get at signings from people in the Salisbury area.  The support of the Cathedral in this Magna Carta anniversary year has also been particularly valued.

You can follow us on Twitter – http://www.twitter.com/salisburyai

peter curbishley


 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Government plans to modify the Ministerial Code


Government plans ‘seriously concerning’

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 text blockmanifesto 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

UPDATE

Further responses and condemnation of this change in the code

British Institute of Human Rights warning

4

Death penalty report for September


UPDATE: 8 October.  Richard Glossip has been given an indefinite stay of execution

 

We attach the monthly death penalty report for September thanks to group member Lesley for compiling it.  China remains the world leader in the use of the death penalty.

September report

CORRECTION: Philip Hammond is the Foreign Secretary

0

What is the Foreign Office’s policy on human rights?


Contradiction at the heart of government’s human rights policy

October 2015

There seems to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the government’s policy as it relates to matters such as human rights and the death penalty.  Readers of this blog will be aware that we wrote to our local MP, John Glen, on 8 June to point out that France was speaking out publicly concerning the rise in the number of executions taking place in Saudi Arabia and that Sweden had reportedly stopped selling arms there.  We noted that in the first 5 months of this year, the number of executions has equalled that for the whole of 2014.

We received a response from a FCO minister Tobias Ellwood who assured us that Saudi Arabia ‘remains a country of concern on human rights, because of its use of the death penalty as well as restricted access to justice, women’s rights, and restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion or belief.’

Within days of receiving this letter from Mr Ellwood with a covering letter from John Glen, it was reported that the Foreign Office had both dropped any explicit reference to death penalty and had also dropped the very phrase used by Mr Ellwood namely: ‘a country of concern’ and replaced it with the more anodyne ‘human rights priority countries’.

We wrote pointing this out to Mr Glen on 5 August and, not receiving a reply, wrote again a month later on 14 September.

Then, on 20 September came the astonishing news that a Saudi representative was to become a member of the UN’s human rights council (The Independent).  Human rights organisations were aghast that a country such as Saudi with its record of torture, floggings, executions and so on and so on, should be elected to such a body.  No sooner had we digested this piece of news when The Australian newspaper revealed on 30 September that this election had not happened by chance but that diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showed that the UK government had allegedly initiated the secret negotiations to enable the Saudis to get elected.  The cable apparently read:

The delegation is honoured to send to the ministry the enclosed memorandum, which the delegation has received from the permanent mission of the United Kingdom asking it for the support and backing of the candidacy or their country to the membership of the human rights council (HRC) for the period 2014 – 2016, in the elections that will take place in 2013 in the city of New York.

The ministry might find it an opportunity to exchange support with the United Kingdom, where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would support the candidacy of the United Kingdom to the membership of the council for the period 2014 – 2015 in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In simple terms: we will support you if you support us.  Why the UK should need the support of such a country is a puzzle in its own right but for the UK to be supporting the Saudi government for a human rights council is beyond belief.

UN Watch commented:

[we] find it troubling that the UK refused to deny the London – Riyadh vote trade as contemplated in the Saudi cable, nor even to reassure the public that their voting complies with the core reform of the UNHRC’s founding resolution, which provides that candidates be chosen based on their human rights record, and that members be those who uphold the highest standards of human rights.

On 18 September, Mr Glen replies to our second letter.  He claims the change in wording came about on the basis of feedback from diplomats who ‘reportedly had difficulty relating our long list of human rights priorities with the issues they faced in real life – from the chaos of failing states to the corridors of Geneva.’  Adopting more thematic categories makes it easier to apply pressure it is argued depending on the circumstances of the country concerned.

Rather than being ‘vague and obfuscating’ (as has been claimed) the ‘categories are sufficiently broad that diplomats can tailor them appropriately to local circumstances.’  He argues that the change of wording is ‘essentially about semantics’.   FCO ministers have been very clear, even since the change of wording, that their stance on the abolition of the death penalty remains the same, he says.   He quotes Rt Hon David Lidington, Minister for Europe:

The Government calls on all states to adopt an immediate moratorium on [the] use of the death penalty in accordance with the relevant UN General Assembly resolution, and views this as part of the process towards complete abolition.  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to use its diplomatic and programmatic tools to work towards the goal of global abortion.

Finally, he says ‘I can assure you that the change of wording is not an indication of a change in policy: the UK government will continue to work towards a complete abolition of the death penalty, using all the tools at its disposal.’

So where is the truth?

On the one hand, solemn assurances are given that government ministers are committed to the cause of global human rights, whatever the wording of their policies, which are purely a matter or semantics it is claimed.  On the other hand, a ‘trade’ was undertaken between London and Riyadh to get the latter elected onto a UN human rights body.  Assurances that ‘all the tools at its disposal’ are being used in pursuit of global abolition must be set against George Osborne’s visit to China this month where the nationalist State-run Chinese newspaper The Global Times, lauded the 44-year-old Chancellor for his ‘pragmatism’ in concentrating on business matters and not drawing attention to human rights like some other visiting western leaders.  China leads the world in executions the numbers being a state secret.  It is a serial offender on the human rights front.

On the basis of this evidence it would appear that the claimed commitment to human rights is for domestic consumption only and that the reality, when it comes to actual dealings with foreign governments, is that they seldom feature.

Sources:

Human Rights Watch; The Australian; The Global Times (China); The Observer; The Guardian; The Daily Telegraph; International Business News

2

Death by crucifixion in Saudi Arabia


A man, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was convicted when he was 17 is to face death by crucifixion after his appeal was turned down.  The appeal was heard in secret and he was not present.  He was accused of participating in illegal protests and of firearms offences.  As is usual in Saudi, he was denied access to a lawyer and is likely to have been tortured and forced to sign a confession.  See International Business Times for the full story.

No to the death penaltyAmnesty believes that Saudi has one of the highest rates of executions in the world and is exceeded only by China (details of which are a state secret) and Iran.

We are engaged in correspondence with our local MP John Glen about the government’s policy towards the kingdom and we were initially assured both by Mr Glen and a FCO minister Mr Tobias Ellwood, that the abolition of the death penalty was an important policy for the government.  These matters were raised at the highest level with the Saudis we were told.  Within days of these assurances, it was announced that the abolition of the death penalty was no longer an explicit policy of the government.  We have written to Mr Glen on this and a reminder was sent this week.  A reply is awaited …

See our death penalty report.

1

#FCO #armssales and #humanrights


UPDATE: 8 September

Letter in today’s Guardian (8 September):

The government would do much better to raid the export credit guarantee scheme [rather than the overseas aid budget] and other subsidies to the arms trade. This would raise funds for refugee provision and reduce arms sales to Middle Eastern states, impacting directly on the latter’s ability to wage war on their and other populations in the region.

Benjamin Selwyn, Director, Centre for Global Political Economy, University of Sussex

Saudi Arabia

Last month, we wrote to John Glen MP asking that his government take a more robust line with the Saudi Arabian government in view of the large increase in executions and floggings, many of which are carried out in public.  We noted that the French president Francois Holland had spoken publicly against the practice despite large arms sales in the offing.  The British government has said it prefers to lobby in private and to pursue a policy of quiet diplomacy.  By contrast, the Swedish government has ended arms exports to the country.  As policies go, it is one which is conspicuous by its failure to achieve anything at all and in other contexts would be declared ‘not fit for purpose’.

No to the death penaltyA recently published report by Amnesty shows that Saudi Arabia is one the top three world executioners after China (which executes thousands but the statistics are a state secret) and Iran.  Between January 1985 and June 2015, 2,208 were put to death.  102 have been executed in the first 6 months of 2015.  Crimes include ‘witchcraft,’ ‘sorcery’ and ‘apostasy’.   In some cases relatives are often not notified of the execution.

The FCO’s July in-year update on Saudi says:

We remain concerned about the continued use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, including the fact that trials and executions do not meet the minimum standards which the EU advocates in countries where the death penalty is applied. We regularly raise the issue with the Saudi authorities, bilaterally and through the EU, and will continue to do so. There has been a significant rise in the number of executions this year. While no official figures are published, according to statistics reported by NGOs over 100 people have been executed since 1 January. NGOs report that the majority of executions were for murder and drug-related offences

In response to our letter to Mr Glen, we received a letter from a FCO minister, Mr Tobias Ellwood, which assured us that the Foreign Office was doing all it could to end the practice and that ‘the abolition of the death penalty is a human rights priority for the UK’.  The HMG Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty (2010 – 2015) states:

Promoting human rights and democracy is a priority for the UK.  It is a long standing policy of the UK to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle (p2)

Within days of receiving this letter however, we discovered that it is no longer an explicit FCO policy.  The new policy has dropped any reference to abolishing the death penalty.  We also noted that Private Eye had a piece on the very same Mr Ellwood who had been a guest of the Saudi Government on a £6,000 fact-finding visit sponsored by a defence forum.

It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that defence sales matter far more than the dreadful human rights situation in countries like Saudi Arabia which – apart from public floggings and beheadings – tortures its citizens and has severe restrictions on the lives of its women.  Saudi Arabia is the leading destination for UK arms sales amounting to £1.6bn in 2014.

Nicholas Gilby of the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) reported on the high level of corruption in this industry:

This paper examines the Government’s approach to corruption within the UK arms industry and shows it has very dirty hands …

… civil servants told to ‘look the other way’ and not ask awkward questions.

Chemring, which has one of its factories just outside Salisbury, had sales to Saudi Arabia of £47.8m last year and £97.6m in 2013 (source: annual report).

UK governments have invested a lot into the arms trade.  Support includes marketing support via DESO (Defence Exports Services Organisation); export credit guarantees; around £26m in R&D costs and something called ‘launch customer support’ which is buying weapons from a UK supplier even though overseas suppliers are cheaper.  There are also missions by ministers and members of the Royal family to foreign countries like Saudi.

Could it be that the Foreign Office was embarrassed by such an explicit policy in the face of a rising tide of executions in countries such as Saudi Arabia; Pakistan and India, all countries where arms sales are important?

Successive governments have claimed a devotion to human rights and a commitment to end the death penalty.  The reality it seems is that arms sales trump this commitment and in dropping the express statement of policy, the FCO is at least being honest.

Following the change of wording by the FCO which seemed to be in contradiction to the assurances given to us by the minister and Mr Glen, we wrote again asking why the policy had changed.  We await a reply…

CAAT report

3

#Deathpenalty report for August


No to the death penaltyBelow is the death penalty report for August thanks to Lesley for its preparation.  It links in part to other items on this blog and in particular the decision by the UK’s Foreign Office to drop explicit reference to the abolition of the death penalty from its list of policies.

Report (pdf)

1

Robust reponse to Saudi Arabia rejected by FCO


UPDATE: 3 August

At the end of this blog we wrote ‘it seems therefore that nothing will change’.  How wrong can you be as it has just been announced that the FCO will no longer be specifically campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty.  The FCO message to us was dated 6 July and Mr Glen’s covering letter dated 14 July.  So in the space of a few weeks abolishing the death penalty world wide has gone from ‘a human rights priority for the UK’ to being no longer a policy.  The group plans to write to Mr Glen again to seek clarification.

July 2015

No to the death penalty

The Salisbury Group wrote to the local MP, Mr John Glen to ask for a more robust response by our government to the barbaric activities of the Saudi government in particular the increasing number of executions which are taking place.  In our letter we said:

[we are writing] to you in connection with the increasing level of executions currently taking place in Saudi Arabia.  (Over the course of the first five months of this year, the number of executions has equalled that of the whole of 2014).

You will no doubt be aware that on his recent visit to the country, President Francois Hollande made a public statement to the effect that all executions, not just those of his own nationals, should be banned, and called for the abolition of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia.

M. Hollande was prepared to do this, despite the fact that France – as does the United Kingdom – has significant financial interests in the its dealings with Saudi Arabia. The British government, however, has never seen fit to raise the issue in public, preferring to pursue a policy of ‘quiet diplomacy’.  This policy has manifestly had no effect.  Numbers continue to rise, and the Saudi Government have now advertised for eight additional executioners – ‘no particular skills required.’

As a group, we are asking that your government should take a much more robust line over the issue with the Saudi government.

Whereas the government – including the Prime Minister – has been vocal in its criticisms of the Islamic State for its appalling behaviour and of Russia for its activities in Ukraine, they seem strangely silent when it comes to Saudi Arabia.  This contrasts with France which has openly criticised them and Sweden which has decided no longer to sell them arms.

Mr Glen replied, enclosing a letter from the FCO minister, and said:

“I enclose correspondence from the FCO minister Tobius Ellwood in reply to your recent letter about the UK’s apparent reticence when it comes to condemning the use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia.

“As you can see, the approach taken by the government is not in any way indicative of an equivocal view on this practice, which is as barbaric as it is ineffective.

“However, the government recognises that its abolition is not a matter of mere legal reform but would require a seismic societal shift.  It has therefore taken an approach which it feels is most constructive – engaging behind the scenes rather than inflaming the situation and triggering a backlash through outspoken public critique”.

The letter from the Foreign and Colonial Office is as follows:

“[…] The abolition of the death penalty is a human rights priority for the UK.  The UK opposes the death penalty around the world because we believe it undermines human dignity and there is no evidence that it works as a deterrent.

“Saudi Arabia remains a country of concern on human rights, because of its use of the death penalty as well as the restricted access to justice, women’s rights, and the restrictions of the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion or belief.

“Ministers, our Ambassador, and the Embassy team in Riyadh frequently raise the issue of the death penalty with the Saudi authorities, bilaterally and through the European Union.  As it is part of Sharia Law, we must recognise that total abolition of the death penalty is unlikely in Saudi Arabia in the near future.  For now, our focus is on the introduction of EU minimum standards for the death penalty as a first step, and supporting access to justice and the rule of law.

“The British Government’s position on human rights is a matter of public record.  We regularly make our views well known including the UN Universal Periodic Review process and the Foreign and Colonial Office’s  annual Human Rights and Democracy Report.  We also raise our human rights concerns with Saudi Arabian authorities at the highest level.  But we have to recognise that the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia reflects widely held conservative social values and that our human rights concerns are best raised in private rather than in public”.

It seems therefore that nothing will change.  It is important to recognise that behind the scenes lobbying can be constructive.  However, the policy of raising matters ‘in private rather than in public’ does not appear to be working.  Successive governments have courted the regime and Saudis are free to invest in London and elsewhere in the UK.

Eurofighter of the type sold to Saudi Arabia

It would be naïve not to recognise the reality behind this reluctance to criticise the Saudis and the importance to the government of the sale of arms and the supply of oil.  Saudi Arabia is a key market for the UK and much effort is put into promoting sales including by members of the royal family – see the Guardian article:  Human rights are of secondary concern.

As long as these interests are paramount, it is difficult to see how the toll of executions can be checked in the near future.

 

4

In defence of the Human Rights Act


It may seem odd, not to say a little reckless, to be defending an act so widely criticized by large parts of the British media and so many politicians, particularly those in the Conservative party. Indeed, such is the level of criticism in the press that it would be a brave politician who puts his head above the parapet to attempt to say something positive about it, Kenneth Clarke being one of the few.

There are many politicians who want to see it abolished including the Conservative member for Salisbury, John Glen. They would like to see a British bill of rights to replace the Human Rights Act (HRA) although quite what has happened to this is unclear but it has probably foundered because of Lib Dem opposition. Both Theresa May, the Home Secretary and Chris Grayling the Justice Secretary, are committed to repealing the act if re-elected in 2015.

The criticisms come in varying forms but they include statements that it is a ‘charter for criminals’, that we are subject to ‘European diktats’, that it makes it harder to ‘keep our country safe’ (David Cameron), and that we cannot deport foreign criminals and terrorists. There are also stories – many of them made up or are a wilful distortion of the truth, such as a mass murderer wanting pornography in his cell because it was his ‘human right’ (it isn’t and he didn’t) or a violent man demanding a burger before coming out of a house (likewise). In that case the police bought him a burger as part of the negotiating strategy and it was nothing to do with HRA.

In all this tirade of criticism the facts almost get lost. It is also hard to recall that it was a conservative politician, Sir Winston Churchill who, after the war was keen to see a convention established and that it was an Englishman Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, with a French colleague, who put together the original act which was completed in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, and came into force in 1953. It was their desire to see an end to the horrors seen in the war by establishing the rule of law in Europe. Key influences in drafting the convention were the Magna Carta (whose 800th anniversary we are to celebrate in 2015), the 1689 Bill of Rights and habeas corpus.

When reading the HRA, what surprises most readers is how benign and self-evidently beneficial it is. It says for example, that torture or other cruel and unusual punishments should not be used; that people should know of what they are charged; that people have the right to a lawyer; a right to a fair trial; that there should be no slavery or servitude, and there should be freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Indeed politicians are asked which of these they object to and in what way the proposed bill of rights would be different, they are strangely silent. This question was posed to Mr Glen in the Salisbury Journal and there was no answer from him.

The critics hold sway because no serious attempt has been made to explain it to the general public. There has been no attempt at all, by any political party, to set out the benefits of the act either in this country or in other countries in the EU. Instead, a general dislike of any and all things European sets the tone for the debate, if debate is in fact what we get. Because there is no positive argument, the nay sayers and critics are free to expound their beliefs largely unopposed. The recent head to head debates between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg revealed what a hard job the latter had in convincing his audience of the benefits of being in the European Union. The polls suggested he lost heavily. Although they weren’t discussing the HRA, it is bound up with all things Europe and hence a bad thing.

Advantages

So what are the advantages? The most important one of all is that the HRA protects everyone’s human rights whatever their age or whether they are rich or poor. A key feature of the act is this emphasis on individual rights against state power. There is very little in our laws or constitution which protects free speech, the right of protest, privacy or non-discrimination. In some countries these provisions are of considerable importance where the police or the state wield immense power against the individual and the court system is either corrupt or ineffective. These rights are enshrined in the HRA. Up until it became law in this country, individuals had to go the Strasbourg to get justice. Now that it is part of our law that is no longer necessary.

The European court has had most beneficial effect in Europe and in former Soviet republics. In Greece and Italy for example the court is trying to improve the enormous lengths of time the legal processes take there. In Russia there has been a sea change in the legal processes and references to the European court are testimony to improvements taking place.

It is Russia and currently the Ukraine which is particularly interesting. Both are in the news at present with the Crimea and, from time to time, the issue of human rights has been mentioned. In an earlier conflict in Chechnya, Russia was accused of using excessive force and there were accusations of disappearances, the use of torture and extrajudicial detention. Initially, Russia refused to accept any findings against them, but at the end of last year, there has been a slow change and it has accepted the European court’s ruling in some cases. The improvements are small but are beginning to happen and observers say that although more needs to be done, without the court it could be much, much worse.

In amongst the frequent criticism of the HRA and threats to abolish it by Teresa May, Chris Grayling and echoed by our own MP, it is odd to read a different interpretation by the Home Office and the Foreign Secretary, William Hague. This is a policy statement from the FCO:

The Human Rights and Democracy Programme (HRDP) is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s dedicated fund supporting human rights and democracy work overseas. The Programme aims to make a difference to people’s lives, helping to build the capacity of governments and civil society to promote and protect human rights. In 2012/13, we supported over 70 projects worldwide.

Human rights, democracy and the rule of law are at the heart of the Government’s foreign policy. The HRDP targets areas that are both important to us and where we consider we can make the greatest impact in delivering the FCO’s overarching purpose to “pursue an active and activist foreign policy, working with other countries and strengthening the rules-based international system in support of our values. FCO’s web site

The last sentence here is most relevant and it is hard to reconcile this policy statement with other ministers’ statements. We are not talking of differences within the coalition here as all the relevant individuals are conservative MPs. If we repeal the act it is hard to see how its principles can be used by the FCO in its foreign policy.

The FCO clearly sees that in an international context promoting the values enshrined in the European Convention are central to establishing a stable world order. The rights we take for granted are not always taken for granted in foreign or even some European countries.

Indeed, many of our partners are alarmed at both the political and media campaign against the act. The United Kingdom’s desire to pull out is particularly alarming since we are regarded as one of the ‘good guys’ as far as legal process is concerned and as the key architect of the act in the first place, it would send a truly negative message to the rest of world and Europe. The right of a suspect to have a lawyer present while being interviewed by the police, is well established here but is still a rarity in other countries.

Why the hostility?

The question has to be asked why is it that so many politicians and significant parts of the media are so opposed the HRA? It is not an easy question to answer. In part it is a fear and distaste for immigrants and immigration generally. When the restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians coming into the country were lifted at the end of last year, there was a concerted campaign in the tabloid press with scare stories of ‘floods’ of Romanians reportedly about to enter the country. They were allegedly coming here for the benefits or to get access to better health provision. Thousands if not tens of thousands were expected. The story rather fizzled out when journalists and some politicians turned up at Stansted airport to greet the expected multitude to find, well, just two. That’s 2 as in 1, 2, 3, not two thousand, two hundred thousand or 2 million.

Reliable studies have shown that immigrants have a net beneficial benefit to our society and economy. If a strike of immigrants were a possibility then large parts of our society and industry would quickly be in trouble. Hospitals would cease to function, care homes would shut, the food industry would struggle and food shelves in supermarkets would quickly empty. This is not an essay on immigration but the constant negative stereotyping of immigrants plays into the political and human rights story. They are here to work and being young they have little need of the health service. The beneficial effects seldom get a voice unfortunately.

The second argument is that of sovereignty. This is based on the idea that because the people elect a parliament via the ballot box then they are allegedly in control of our affairs. The ‘unelected bureaucrats in Brussels,’ (or Strasbourg) to quote a well-worn phrase, are interfering with our affairs and we want less of it and them. We need to get this power back so that ‘we’ the people of the United Kingdom are back in control.

The argument over sovereignty has some problems however. The first is that the people have very little actual say over how the country is run. Corporate interests – either directly or through a large army of lobbyists – have much greater influence. Plain packaging of tobacco products (now likely to happen) and excessive sugar in our diet are both recent examples where commercial lobbying might have been the deciding factor not the health of the nation or what ordinary people want. Media moguls – again either directly, or through their media interests – wield enormous power and influence. The idea that once we come out of Europe we the people will in sole charge of our affairs is on very thin ground.

It is also paradoxical that with all this concern for sovereignty, very little has been said by the same politicians about the penetration of our electronic mail and mobile phone messages by GCHQ and NSA in America. The HRA gives us a right to privacy and this is, and has been, comprehensively breached by electronic surveillance. Initially it was claimed that there was adequate oversight. This argument quickly melted away. The ‘you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong’ argument was also trotted out. Sir Malcolm Rifkind quickly looked silly claiming that his committee was fully in charge of the situation when so clearly they had been sidelined. But whereas politicians speak readily about any Brussels inspired infringement of liberty they are deafeningly silent about the comprehensive intrusion into all our electronic communications by the security services.

It is politics where the real answer may lie. And a key factor here was the election in Eastleigh where the Conservatives came third to Ukip. This shook the party and the rhetoric against the act – and against the EU generally – gained traction. The debates between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg are further evidence that the anti–EU message is simple and strong and goes down well with large sections of the electorate. The failure of politicians from all parts of the spectrum to address this is coming home to roost.

Perhaps another reason lies behind this and concerns the fundamental nature of the HRA which is about giving power to the individual. For the first time, individuals have the power to hold the state in its various forms to account and this is arguably why it is so disliked by some politicians. It is this shift in power to enable an ordinary citizen to take on a corporation or the state and to use fundamental rights to do so, shakes the status quo.

The HRA has been a force for good in this country despite its imperfections and it should be defended.

Sources:

Why is the European court of human rights so hated by the UK right? John Henley Guardian 22 December 2013

Big changes to Human Rights or not? HRLA.co.uk April 2012

Human Rights Act myths Liberty, [accessed 17/01/2014]

Right to a fair trial (removal to Jordan) – Othman (aka Abu Qatada) Hansard HC Deb 17 April 2012 c173)

Six questions for Chris Grayling on human rights New Statesman 1 October 2013 [accessed 21 January 2014]

Judges would regret Human Rights Act repeal Joshua Rozenberg Guardian 14 March 2013

Human rights are good for Britons – and the Tories know that Natalie Samarasinghe Guardian 10 March 2013

Counter-Interpretation, Constitutional Design, and the Right to Family Life: How the Conservatives Learned to Stop worrying and Love the HRA (Briefly) Joshua Braver UK Constitutional Law Association 6 January 2014

Theresa May’s assault on the right to family life ignores a complex reality Julian Norman Guardian 30 September 2013

Also Amnesty UK.

 

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑