“Leave the European Convention” Home Secretary

Theresa May, the Home Secretary said in a speech today that the UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights. We have been waiting for some time now for this announcement – or something like it – and it was expected to be made by the Justice Secretary.

Rachel Logan, Amnesty’s legal programme director, said:

Mrs May’s proposal to tear away from the European Convention on Human Rights would strike at the very architecture of international protections, and betray the British people who built the convention at the end of the Second World War.

The Convention has done so much for the rights of the free press, gay people, women, people with disabilities and other ordinary people here and across Europe.

Some see this as part of Mrs May’s pitch to become prime minister if and when David Cameron quits the scene. There is considerable media pressure to quit the convention often based on misleading information. We shall have to see how this develops and we still await the Bill of Rights long promised but slow to appear.

As one of the countries which promoted the convention after the war it would be a tragedy if we left it. As the Amnesty spokeswoman says it has done so much to promote rights not only in this country but elsewhere in Europe. It is a surprise to many people when told what a beneficial effect it has had in countries such as Russia.

A spokesman from Liberty called the speech ‘desperate’.

Illustrated left is the tapestry made by Amnesty groups in the south region currently on display in the Cathedral Chapter House, which shows the clauses of the Un Convention on Human Rights on which the ECHR was based.

April 25, 2016 0

Unpublished letter

Text of letter sent to Salisbury Journal

The following letter was sent to the Journal in Salisbury but regrettably for space or other reasons it was not published (14th April). We do not know at present what the current situation is with the promised bill to abolish the Human rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights (or whatever it is to be called). It is a manifesto promise and a draft was to be published in the Autumn but has not yet appeared. It is possible that the arrival of Michael Gove into the Justice Dept. had something to do with it.

Now that we are in full swing with the debate about leaving the European Union, it is possible that this has been shelved for the moment. Mr Gove is a leading proponent for the Brexit camp who – if current polls are to be believed – are doing well at the moment. The calculation may therefore be that if they win then the scene is set to dump the HRA as well.

On the other hand, there will be a heavy workload in managing our exit and carrying out the negotiations to secure access to the European market once we leave, so there will be limited civil service and parliamentary time to spend on a new Bill of Rights.

But back to the letter and our local MP John Glen is keen to abolish the HRA and it would be a pity if he is given space in the Journal again to put forward his views and the opportunity is not given to those who disagree with him. The unpublished letter:

Britain has had a proud history of leading the charge on human rights progress from the aftermath of the Second World War when we were key drafters of the European Convention of Human Rights, to the suffragette movement, to gay rights and other equality legislation. We have often been champions of progress.

What a shame, then, that this year the UK was singled out for criticism in Amnesty International’s annual report on the state of the world’s human rights. Amnesty is warning that the government’s plan to tear up the Human Rights Act is a gift to dictators all over the world. Russia recently drafted legislation which allows it to ignore human rights rulings it doesn’t agree with. Far from being able to condemn that action and call on Putin to uphold basic human rights, the UK is actually talking about following suit. Music to the Kremlin’s ears, no doubt.

Here in Salisbury, the local Amnesty group is campaigning to save the Human Rights Act. Britain should be a world leader on human rights. The Human Rights Act protects ordinary people – from the elderly to hospital patients, to domestic violence victims – and we want to see those protections spoken about with pride by our politicians. We should be redoubling our commitment to enduring human rights principles in these troubling times, not undermining them.

Let’s hope next year’s annual report on the UK reads: “much improved”.

April 14, 2016 0

Nineteen years on death row in Georgia USA

Has now been executed (12th)

Neglect, racial prejudice and a sleeping lawyer leaves a man on death row. Execution imminent

In May 1997, Kenneth Fults pleaded guilty to the murder of Cathy Bounds – shot at her home on 30 January 1996. After a three-day sentencing hearing, the jury voted to sentence Kenneth to death.

Eight years later, one of the jurors from the sentencing signed a sworn statement admitting that he voted for the death penalty out of racial prejudice:

I don’t know if he ever killed anybody, but that n***** got just what should have happened. Once he pled guilty, I knew I would vote for the death penalty because that’s what the n***** deserved.

When evidence of racist motivation among the jury was raised at an appeal hearing, the state argued that it was too late to review the issue and Kenneth’s death sentence should stand. After 19 excruciating years on death row, Kenneth’s execution is now imminent. He is due to be executed on 12 April 2016.

Lawyer asleep during court

Former jurors on the case have since signed affidavits saying that Kenneth’s trial lawyer made little effort to save his client from the death penalty, and shockingly was seen to be asleep during the proceedings.

Mr Fults’s lawyer… was uninterested in what was happening, and it seemed like something was wrong with him. I saw him fall asleep repeatedly during the trial, and he would wake up, startled, when it was his turn to examine witnesses. I saw him sleeping off and on throughout the whole trial. Former juror on Kenneth Fult’s case

A childhood of neglect

The jury heard some mitigating evidence – that Kenneth was a man with a very low IQ who suffered from depression and an inability to always understand the consequences of his actions – but not they did not get the full story. His lawyer, Mr Mostiler, failed to give any background on Kenneth’s childhood of neglect and abandonment – born to a 16-year-old mother who later became addicted to crack cocaine.

I don’t believe he had a fair trial. Mr Fults’s current lawyers have told me about how Mr Fults was neglected and abandoned as a child and that he is mentally retarded. Mostiler didn’t bring this up at trial and he should have, so that we would have known more about Mr Fults before we talked about whether to give him the death penalty.

Another former juror on Kenneth Fult’s case In 2006 – a clinical psychologist assessed Kenneth as having an intellectual disability – with a low IQ. International law bans use of the death penalty on people with mental or intellectual disabilities.

What we’re calling for

We are completely opposed to the death penalty – in all cases, with no exception. The death penalty violates the right to life and is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We’re asking the State of Georgia authorities to stop the execution of Kenneth Fults and for his death sentence to be commuted.

Send your own appeal

If you would like to write your own appeal, please send via fax or email to ensure it reaches the Chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles by 12 April 2016.

Contact details:

Terry Barnard
Chairman, Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles
Fax: +1 404-651-6670
Email: laqsmith@pap.state.ga.us
Salutation: Dear Chairman Barnard

And please send copies to:

Governor Nathan Deal
Office of the Governor
Fax: +1 404-657-7332
Email: Complete the form at http://gov.georgia.gov/webform/contact-governor-international-form or http://gov.georgia.gov/webform/contact-governor-domestic-form

Execution in the USA

Last year saw a dramatic rise in executions globally, with the highest number recorded in more than 25 few years. However, the Americas is becoming a virtually death penalty-free region.

The USA is the only country in the region to still execute – and consistently one of the world’s top five executioners, behind only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and China.

Last year 28 people were executed in the USA and almost 3,000 people remained on death row.

Racial inequality

In June 2015, US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer noted that multiple studies have concluded that ‘individuals accused of murdering white victims, as opposed to black or other minority victims, are more likely to receive the death penalty’ in the USA.

African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white, according to a 2007 study in Connecticut conducted by Yale University School of Law.

From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims.

An irrevocable punishment

It may be an obvious point, but once somebody has been executed – there is no going back. And the risk of ending the life of an innocent person can never be overcome. Over the last 46 years, 150 prisoners sent to death row in the USA have later been exonerated due to evidence of wrongful convictions. The key factors leading to wrongful conviction include inadequate legal representation, police misconduct, racial prejudice and suppression of mitigating evidence.

China executes more people than all countries put together but the figures are a state secret.

April 7, 2016 0

The Investigatory Powers Bill

Parliament debates security Bill

The Investigatory Powers Bill was debated in Parliament on 15 March in a lengthy second reading debate and there were many good quality contributions made by Members on all sides of the House. Only days after the debate we had a terrible reminder of the terrorist threat with the attacks in Brussels on 22 March. The need to maintain an intelligence system to find potential terrorists before they take action and to track them down afterwards was recognised by all the speakers in the debate.

There were several concerns about the Bill one of which was what Andy Burnham called the ‘point of balance’ between security and privacy (column 824). This was occasioned by the concerns about mass surveillance and the desire to collect and store Internet Connection Records (ICR) for 12 months. Dominic Grieve – although supportive of the Bill – said that it did not ‘include a clear statement on overarching privacy protections’ (836).

A similar point was made by the SNP MP Joanna Cherry who felt the Bill did not go far enough to ‘protect civil liberties’ (839). The powers sought went beyond those of other western democracies and she worried that they set a dangerous precedent to Commonwealth countries in particular.

One concern in particular was the clause about economic well-being which could be used against trade unions (862). In past eras, the security services had been found to use the powers and techniques they then had to frustrate trade union activity.

There was a lot of debate about the difference between ‘content’ data and ‘contact’ data (855). Many say that the security services are mostly interested in the latter to help them track movements and contacts between criminals, they are less interested in the content which may be encrypted anyway. David Davis pointed out that two law lords had expressed incredulity because the government had sanctioned illegal surveillance of discussions between a lawyer and his client (864). This highlighted the issue of trust: that the Bill proposed that the sanctioning of interception would be by a minister and ultimately, can they be trusted?

To what extent are Ministers accountable? One MP said that attempts to find out information are refused either because it is a criminal matter or, the information was a matter of national security. Hence the argument was ‘misconceived’ (845).

One of the beliefs behind this activity is that bulk collection will help with finding intelligence. Evidence from the USA concerning the activities of the NSA (American equivalent of GCHQ) was that the bulk collection of data had not led to the discovery of previously unknown terrorist plots or the disruption of a terrorist attack. It was initially claimed that 50 such plots had been prevented but once they were examined in detail only one money laundering case was found. In other words there is a lot of false claiming of success going on.

The notion that ‘the more privacy we sacrifice the more security we gain’ was challenged by more than one speaker (843). This concept underpinned several speakers in favour of further intrusion citing cases of abducted children and paedophile activity in support of their case.

It was clear throughout the debate that members are struggling with the rapid increase in technology which is increasing the number of ways to communicate and the ability to store and sort vast amounts of data. As the technology advances, so the issue of privacy and civil liberties comes into play because it is some much easier today to intrude into someone’s life. The point was made that this intrusion can include digital cameras, games consoles and baby monitors (846).

A lack of clarity with some of the wording is a key issue. The need for precision of language about what and how much can be intercepted was stressed (843). Trust is an issue and it is important to remember that the debate may not have happened had it not been for the revelations by Edward Snowden. We were blissfully ignorant of the sheer extent of the penetration of phones, emails and so forth and the relevant committee knew little of it either.

So the key issues appear to be the bulk collection of data and whether this is advisable or even achievable; the conflict between security and privacy and the control mechanisms to ensure that there is suitable oversight. Linked to the latter is the issue of trust especially in the light of actions by previous governments for example intruding into Doreen Lawrence’s phone.

After the terrible events in Brussels, there will be an understandable desire for ‘something to be done’. Had the debate taken place after that outrage then it might have taken on a different tone. Politicians have to reflect the media and since much of our media is already ill-disposed towards the Human Rights Act, it is understandable that human rights and the free movement of people around Europe would be questioned. It is more than ever necessary to keep a cool head. Terrorism is about an attack on values and one of our key values is respect for individuals and the rule of law which includes basic rights enshrined in the HRA.

The Bill moves onto the committee stage and it will be interesting to see how the debate on control and oversight is played out. Peter Curbishley

March 22, 2016 0

Group minutes

The minutes of the last meeting are here thanks to group member Lesley for writing them up. We discussed North Korea and the forthcoming video planned with Clare Moody; the Death Penalty report which highlights the events in Saudi, Pakistan and elsewhere; plans for the Human Rights Act, forthcoming events such as the stall in the market, and social media statistics including the success of the post about the war in Yemen and our role in arming and supporting the carnage, and several other topics. The next meeting is on 14 April.

March

We have just added a link to an organisation, based in the USA, which campaigns for human rights of those who work in sometimes appalling factories for a pittance to bring us cheap clothes. Called The Institute for Global Labour (sic) and Human Rights, it came to light in an article on the German retailer Lidl and its latest offering of a pair of jeans called ‘jeggings’ for the princely sum of £5.99 ($8.62). The article alleges that the factories that make them in Bangladesh do so by paying a pittance to their workforce. Source: The Observer 13 March 16

It’s sometimes easy to forget that human rights can be infringed in clothing factories as well.

March 13, 2016 0

Saudi executions imminent

“Saudi Arabia’s use of the death penalty to silence dissent sends a chilling message to anybody who dares to speak out against the authorities.” James Lynch

The families of three young men arrested for their involvement in anti-government protests while under the age of 18, fear their sons are among four people reported to be facing execution tomorrow, Amnesty International said today.

The family of Ali al-Nimr expressed fears on social media that he, along with Dawood Hussein al-Marhoon and Abdullah Hasan al-Zaher, is among the prisoners referred to in a government-run newspaper article published today. The article said the scheduled executions will complete a wave of punishments for terrorism offences that saw 47 people executed on the same day in January.

See the full story:

Executions

March 12, 2016 0

Urgent action: Iran

Possible execution of someone a juvenile when offence committed

We enclose an urgent action concerning a man who was a juvenile when the alleged offence was committed. If you are able to write this would be appreciated.

Urgent action (pdf)

February 24, 2016 0

Amnesty’s Annual Report

Amnesty publishes annual review of human rights around the world

Amnesty’s annual report contains elements which will be very familiar to readers of this blog. Overall the picture is bleak. The use of torture and other forms of ill-treatment is still used in 122 countries around the world many of which will have signed the UN convention against its use.

Countries are using the threat of terrorism to clamp down on free speech and to arrest those who disagree or oppose them. A culture of impunity is developing where human rights infringements go unpunished and have no effects on trade or government dealings.

Grim reading.

February 24, 2016 0

Excellent debate on the HRA

A debate on the Human Rights Act was held in Southampton

UPDATE: 12 March

A fuller version of the talk is now to hand and can be accessed here:

soton talk (pdf)

On Friday 19 February, the Southampton and Romsey groups of Amnesty hosted a debate on the HRA. The speakers were Dr Clare Lougarre of Southampton University and Dr Alan Whitehead, the MP for Southampton Test. A representative from the Conservatives was invited but did not take up the invitation.

Clare began by placing the HRA in its context as a natural consequence of the Euroean Convention on Human Rights [1950]. In the context of the debate on the current government’s manifesto commitment to annul the HRA, articles 2, 3 and 4 were significant.

art 2 says that court’s decisions must take into account the decisions, declarations or advisory opinion of the European Court
art 3 UK laws are compatible with the European Convention
art 4 says that if our laws are not in accordance with the convention they may issue a declaration of incompatibility.

She said there were two options for the government: they repealed the act but we stayed within the convention or, it withdraws its signature from the convention altogether. In the first case, there would be little difference as we would ultimately be bound by the European Court. In the second instance however there would be no recourse to the EC and the most likely affected by this are the vulnerable in society.

Dr Whitehead said he was puzzled by what the government wanted to do. The animus against the HRA was based on myth, semi-truths and half truths he said. One myth was that it was ‘Labour’s Human Rights Act.’ This was a frequent phrase used by conservative critics. It simply wasn’t true he said, it was a cross party bill supported by many conservatives. He was moved to ask ‘what part of the act don’t you like?’ He reminded the audience that it was a conservative – Winston Churchill – who was one of the prime movers in creating the ECHR in 1950.

One of the charges against it was that the court had ruled on areas which were never intended by the original convention, in other words there was ‘mission creep.’ This was inevitable since the articles were widely drawn and also, attitudes had changed over time with, for example, our approach to abortion.

The case that is frequently brought up is Abu Qatada. This was presented as a failing of the HRA. It was not. The Home Office had made mistakes in its original paperwork and the reason he could not be sent back [to Jordan] was because either he, or the witnesses, would be subject to torture. [He might have added that abolition of torture was subject to another treaty altogether.]

A further point made by Dr Whitehead was that it should not be for a single government to make law on something as important as this. He did not think we would see anything before the end of the parliament and what would emerge would be a ‘mouse’ of a bill.

It was a lively and informed debate and all credit to the two Amnesty groups for organising it. For further information on the HRA go to (among other sites) British Institute for Human Rights and Rights Info. Now that the movement to come out of the EU is getting underway, the HRA will be a whipping boy for those that want us to leave the union. Both these sites help counter the frequent flow of misinformation by some sections of the media and some politicians.

February 22, 2016 0

Human Rights Act guide published

A useful guide to the Act has just been published by the British Institute of Human Rights and can be accessed here either in e-book form or as a video.

February 6, 2016 0

Tag: “Human rights”

“Leave the European Convention” Home Secretary