Human Rights

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya): The case of Binyam Mohamed (BM) is the latest in a long line of disputes concerning terrorists, alleged terrorists and their treatment to come before the courts. The judgement published on Wednesday - the last (maybe not) in a series of judgements in this case - is extremely interesting and addresses what the Divisional Court (with two judges sitting) believes to be ‘a novel issue which requires balancing the public interest in national security and the public interest in open justice, the rule of law and democratic accountability.'. Were it not contained in 33 closely argued pages,I would recommend the judgement as ‘required reading' to all participants in the forthcoming Convention on Modern Liberty. It discusses many issues relevant to the Convention and will certainly feature in the session addressing the question ‘Who decides, the politicians or thejudges?'. Lord Bingham, a member of the panel opening that session, is quoted extensively in the BM judgement.

Patrick Corrigan, (Amnesty Blogs: Belfast and Beyond): Having just attended my boys' nativity plays (well done everyone at All Children's Primary in Newcastle, Co Down!) my mind wanders to the series of flagrant human rights abuses related in the biblical tale and how they might be experienced in the present day…

First off, Joseph and Mary's right to marry and found a family life, as articulated in Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has arguably been hindered by the forced relocation to Bethlehem for a census ordered by the Executive power, King Herod.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles De Menezes has this afternoon delivered an open verdict. This was their only option other than lawful killing, after the coroner ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing at the end of the hearing last week. This led to protests from the family, of which some previously unreported details are now coming out.

The Justice4Jean campaign are reporting via their twitter feed that the jury ruled police did not shout a warning before shooting De Menezes.

Patrick Corrigan, (Amnesty Blogs: Belfast and Beyond): Today is international Human Rights Day and, ten years after the Multi-Party (Belfast/Good Friday) Agreement, we will finally see the advice on the shape and content of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland handed over by the NI Human Rights Commission to the Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office Minister Paul Goggins.

I’ll be in Castle Buildings at Stormont (venue for the negotiations which led to the historic Agreement) this afternoon for the official handover. Even before this event, there is already news that the two Commissioners (out of ten) with connections to Northern Ireland’s main unionist parties, are withholding their support for the otherwise agreed advice.

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): I have never quite followed the split between those who think reform-minded people should talk in terms of "civil liberties" and those who insist on "human rights". But a packed meeting of people in Cambridge last night for a forum to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Human Rights Act gave me cause to consider the terminology of rights, and especially the split in thinking it revealed between practitioners and the public.
 
The panel consisted of Rabinder Singh QC, from Matrix Chambers, Professor Rob Home, of Anglia Ruskin University, Andrew Watson, a local No2ID activist, and Jean Candler, from the British Institute of Human Rights. They spoke throughout in terms that emphasised the "human" in the phrase "human rights" and brought the debate down to everyday level - assisted, it should be said, by an admirably forthright chair, Boni Sones, of Women's Parliamentary Radio.
 
Naturally enough for Cambridge, there was an assumption that this was a gathering of enlightened people.  But it became apparent that there is a distinct difference in understanding between the practitioners and some of the audience when it comes to the use of the word "rights", which I think goes far wider than the Mumford Theatre at Anglia Ruskin, co-sponsor with the Cambridge CAB of the debate.
 
The panel spoke always in terms of "human rights", but several people in the theatre spoke of "rights" as individualistic and undesirable commodities that could, for example, cause disruption in families (children's rights) and schools (ditto), where children who should be excluded were not and so damaged the education of their class mates.  Of course, the panel had emphasised that human rights strike a balance between rights and responsibilities that must be determined in any case; that the interests of others and the wider community had to be taken into account; and that every judgment had to be proportionate.  But they blamed the Human Rights Act, at least implicitly.

Damian O'Loan (Paris): The election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States may bring good news to the hunt for one of the most closely guarded secrets in the history of British involvement in the Northern Irish troubles. During the campaign, as noted here and elsewhere, the now President-elect pledged support for a comprehensive truth recovery process, in particular for a full, independent public judicial enquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane, a lawyer shot dead in front of his wife and children at home in Belfast in 1989, by loyalist paramilitaries with the alleged collusion of British state agencies.

In responding to a questionnaire compiled by two Irish-American groups, Mr Obama said he would support an Inquiry under the terms recommended by Canadian judge Peter Cory in 2003, a report accepted by the Tony Blair under the Weston Park agreement of 2001. The government went on to delay proceedings before eventually hastily passing the Inquiries Act 2005 with no public consultation. That legislation, which replaced the 1921 Public Inquiries Act, allows ministers the power to deny truth recovery in several ways.

Clare Coatman (London, oD): I am working on a Convention on Modern Liberty (announcement forthcoming) and I came across a very interesting Google map displaying a selection of infringements of human rights and civil liberties ranging from the worrying to the bizarre. Watch out for stories near you!

Tom Griffin (London, OK):The Guardian brings us news of some important developments in the case of Binyam Mohammed this evening:

It emerged tonight that lawyers acting for Smith have sent the attorney general, Baroness Scotland, evidence about MI5 and CIA involvement in the case, which was heard behind closed doors in high court hearings. In a letter seen by the Guardian, they have asked Scotland - as an independent law officer - to investigate "possible criminal wrongdoing". The move could lead to a criminal prosecution.

The evidence was suppressed following gagging orders demanded by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, and the US authorities. The action by Smith, the minister responsible for MI5 activities, is believed to be unprecedented.

A detailed account of the case, 'Human Cargo' (pdf), which includes a harrowing description of Mohamed's CIA sponsored torture in Morocco, is available from Reprieve. 

Esha Momeni, an Iranian-American 28-year old graduate student studying arts and media at California State University, Northridge, was arrested on Wednesday October 15th in Tehran, Iran. Esha is a member and volunteer of the One Million Signatures Campaign --a grassroots movement that has emerged inside Iran demanding gender equality. She had flown out to Iran from Los Angeles in July to visit family and friends. While there she was also working on a film about the One Million Signatures Campaign to submit as her final graduating project at CSUN.

Esha now sits in Iran's notorious Evin prison after being pulled over by police on the pretext of having made an illegal turn at an intersection. Authorities subsequently entered her parents' house and removed items such as books, camera footage, and computers. The authorities thus far have not mentioned to her parents or her lawyer what the charges are, if any.

Members of the Campaign in both Iran and California are working tirelessly to spread the word about Esha's arrest, which comes as a surprise considering the fact that all she was doing was filming campaign members and those interested in gender related issues. It should be stressed that all her activities were in accordance with the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I am also a member and volunteer in the campaign and would like to write a few words about my friendship and experiences with Esha Momeni. I will not give a melodramatic soliloquy on the matter, nor do I feel the need to interject with a character defence. What is obvious is that as a woman, a friend, a confidante, and a mentor Esha Momeni stood up for me, and all the other women and men in or outside of Iran that have raised their voices for change. But as we gaze from wherever our "outside" may be, Esha is still standing for us, even if it is in the 209th ward of Iran's Evin prison.

 

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): The Government has decided to sign up in full to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to the BBC. The Convention requires that in dealing with under 18s, states must make their "best interests" their primary consideration (rather than some social goal, say, like "national security"). For the past 17 years the UK has retained an opt-out allowing child migrants and asylum seekers to be locked up for months on end without any judicial scrutiny. This led to some very serious criticisms of the UK by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

The decision by Government to change its mind on the issue comes after ministers reached the view that making the "best interests" rule apply to immigrant children would not compromise the UK's control of its borders. It is a welcome step towards a more just and humane immigration policy and - we can only hope - towards the understanding that human rights are universal and not simply a privilige of citizenship.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has today published a report on the prospect of a UK bill of rights.

Committee chairman Andrew Dismore argues that the report's recommendations offer a solution to the thorny question of how such bills should deal with social and economic rights.

The Human Rights Act is a parliamentary model of human rights protection. Courts have an important role, but parliament has the final say.

Our new bill of rights could build on this unique relationship between the courts and legislature. It could provide, for example, that economic and social rights are not directly enforceable by individuals against the government, but make it the government's duty to achieve the progressive realisation of those rights, with a limited role for the courts to review the measures taken. 

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): I can't say that I watched or listened to every TV or radio news report yesterday, but the pattern of those reports I did catch was clear enough. Not one reported in terms that the trial and conviction of Salim Ahmed Hamdan for being Osama bin Laden's former driver was a clear violation of international human rights laws, or even used the term, "human rights abuse". It was established, without comment, that Hamdan had been in custody for seven years and that, had he been found not guilty, or given a sentence light enough for release once the seven years were taken into account, he would anyway remain incarcerated.

Instead that old polarity was established - between on the one hand the need for security against terrorism, and on the other, due process and US law, as apologists for the Guantanamo regime explained that this military farrago was "straight down the middle". This was just one of a host of assertions that went unexamined and unchallenged. Meanwhile George Bush's concerns about "human rights abuses" in China were rightly broadcast, though without any suggestion that his position was contaminated by the enormity of the US record on unlawful detention and torture.

Patrick Corrigan, (Amnesty Blogs: Belfast and Beyond): There were more politicians at Saturday's Belfast Pride parade than you could shake a stick at. Or at least an Amnesty placard which, once again, was the hottest item in town.

In the wake of the now infamous series of anti-gay comments made by DUP MP Iris Robinson – not to mention the huge response of the LGBT community and their supporters – Northern Irish politicians of every party (except the DUP, of course) were out in force to prove their gay-friendly credentials.

Damian O'Loan (Paris): Allegations of British collusion with torture by Pakistani security services led to calls for an Intelligence and Security Committee investigation on Tuesday. A week earlier the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a report into historical enquiries. These events are linked.

Lat year, the British government accepted the findings of a report confirming police collusion with a loyalist paramilitary group involved in murders and other grave offences.The NIAC report may be a step towards allowing further historical inquiries to be suppressed. Why would we not want to learn from our history?

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The cost of Britain's surveillance society has reached £20 billion according to a report by the TaxPayers Alliance released today. The bill includes £19 billion for ID cards, £500 million for CCTV and £300 million for the DNA database.

The Edge of Heaven, directed by Fatih Akin, is a carefully crafted, tender account of six interwoven lives. Ali is a effervescent Turkish expatriate living in Germany with his bookish son Nejat. The film begins with Ali inviting Yeter, a Turkish prostitute, to become his live-in girlfriend - much to Nejat's dismay. Yet Nejat quickly gains respect for the grim but kind hearted Yeter and after her sudden death, he returns to Turkey to search for her daughter Ayten. Ayten meanwhile, is a defiant political activist desperately refuge in Germany after an encounter with the Turkish police. Penniless and homeless, she is taken in by a German student named Lotte and her disapproving mother. When Ayten's asylum plea is rejected, Lotte follows Ayten to Istanbul to help secure her release from prison.

Patrick Corrigan, (Amnesty Blogs: Belfast and Beyond): While Northern Ireland's Consultative Group on the Past won’t be publishing their report till the summer, yesterday it’s co-chairs, Archbishop Robin Eames and Denis Bradley, set out to trail their findings with a joint keynote speech in Belfast.

Given that part of their role is to consider if and how Northern Ireland might go about establishing a suitable truth recovery process, it is perhaps fitting that they have started their own ‘harsh truth confrontation process’.

They presented a mini-narrative of the last forty years and, as analysed by Brian Rowan in the Belfast Telegraph, set out an "assessment of what is possible and what is not".

In any attempt to deal with the legacy of a conflict, there are at least four – sometimes competing – personal and/or societal objectives: truth, justice, reconciliation and peace.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I went to the 4th annual Bindman debate last night. Its theme was ‘Have the rules of the game changed?’ a reference to Tony Blair’s notorious declaration on 5 August 2005, just before setting out to spend the rest of the month in Cliff Richards' Barbados villa, that, “What I'm trying to do here… is to send a clear signal out that the rules of the game have changed” . After praising the other parties who were working with the government on a joint post 7/7 response, Blair set out a plan that shattered the parliamentary consensus. He was greeted by the country’s largest selling newspaper the following morning with the immortal headline: “VICTORY FOR SUN OVER NEW TERROR LAWS”.

Despite the Moscow final, a large audience listened to Robin Lustig chairing a panel that opened with David Blunkett. He told us that the rules had not changed but… terrorists now presented a new threat, the electronic complexity of evidence is now hugely greater, terrorists don’t mind being detected after they have committed a crime, they don’t fear prosecution, indeed they “just don’t give a damn”. To protect our nation without destroying our liberties we needed debate and disagreement but we also needed the judges to be more "helpful".

Blunkett was followed by Professor Conor Gearty who warned us against “helpful” judges doing the executives work for them (as they did during the IRA campaign endorsing terrible miscarriages of justice). But he could not bring himself to support the judges who, perhaps having reflected on this, are currently “nervous” of assisting the government. He also warned the audience of a new situation where arrest is now the starting point of an investigation not its culmination.

After Gearty we heard Lord Carlisle, the Lib-Dem peer selected to be the “Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation”. His bullying piety, transparently partisan 'sincerity' and stereotyping of his opponents was a sad demonstration of why so many reach for the sick bag when they hear politicians at work. At least Blunkett said that he wanted policy to proceed “step by step” and, in his concluding remarks, that “exaggeration is the enemy of reason”. Carlisle made Blunkett appear a moderate, as he denounced “pragmatic incrementalism” and called for all anti-terrorism legislation to be consolidated into a single body of law that would set its stamp for a generation.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Reports this morning suggested that Brown was ready to make concessions on the 42 days, legislating for greater parliamentary and judicial scrutiny in return for the support of potential rebels. He apparently said he would “rather be right, and lose” but now recognizes that a defeat would be disastrous, possibly even fatal, for his leadership. His concessions have not done enough to convince Labour MP David Winnick, however, who went ahead and tabled an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism Bill to stop the extension of pre-charge detention. Winnick is the MP who tabled the amendment allowing 28 days detention in 2006, defeating Blair’s plans for 90 day. What is promising for opponents of the Bill (pretty much everyone outside the Home Office, including the Director of Public Prosecutions) is that Winnick claims to have support of MPs who supported the 90 days but have since decided that 28 days is sufficient. He thinks this may just be enough to bring about a government defeat.

I hope he’s right. As Stuart Weir and other supporters of OK and LC's “Not a Day Longer" campaign have endlessly pointed out on OK and elsewhere there has been no new evidence produced to justify 42 days detention; the judicial and parliamentary safeguards are inadequate; and the law risks alienating precisely those communities whose support is needed to defeat terrorism.

Brown’s determination to go for 42 days in the face of massive opposition from the legal establishment, human rights groups and countless experts on counter-terrorism was a cynical and calculating move designed to make him look tougher than the Tories and appeal to the Murdoch press. There is now every chance that, just like the strategy with the 10p tax, it will backfire spectacularly.

Henry Porter (London, writer): It is the triumphant vindictiveness of Jacqui Smith's speech today which leaves such a bad taste. That and the candid admission that new Labour has long given up being tough on the causes of crime and is instead prepared to let the Sun's editorial line dictate social and policing policy.