Quantcast
Channel: openDemocracy RSS
Viewing all 21780 articles
Browse latest View live

The crisis in trans healthcare in the UK killed my daughter Synestra

$
0
0

A new book, Transition Denied, exposes 'system failures' to protect vulnerable trans teenagers in Britain. This excerpt is from its prelude, by Synestra de Courcy’s mother.

Synestra de Courcy (right). Photo: Amanda de Courcy/Transition Denied. Who was Synestra? If you live in North Herts [in England], and if you read the LGBT press, you might have come across her story a couple of years ago. At least, you may have read the bare bones of that story.

Synestra was a young trans woman who grew up in and around Stevenage, was educated in Letchworth and, in the last years of her life, went to London to make her fortune, before dying from an accidental drugs overdose at the unspeakably early age of 23.

So much promise, so much heartbreak. At school, she challenged rigid views of gender and sexuality head on, coming out first as gay, then agender. Rather than reject her, as some schools would, they celebrated her difference and in her final year, she was elected head ‘boy’. Online, she built a solid following with her personal vlog and a series of expert broadcasts on make-up.

Though that was only the beginning of her journey. By the age of 20 she identified very clearly as transgender and was desperately seeking help from the NHS with her transition. That help was not forthcoming. Instead, as many trans people before her, she got the runaround: she’d not followed the right pathway, ticked the right boxes. Vital letters went missing. Professional assessments were ignored.

So she did what she needed. She started to pay for the treatments and surgeries she so desperately sought through sex work. That, in turn, took her down the road to drugs: first as recreational habit; later, as dangerous addiction. Bad decisions? Yes.

But to Syn, there was an inevitable logic to her lifestyle. Besides, it wasn’t as though she wasn’t enjoying herself. Her story, as so many trans stories, was complicated. To suggest she played no part in her own downfall would be to erase one half of her. She was brilliant. She was lovely. She was also flawed.

None of which excuses the system failures that left her quite unsupported at key moments in her too short life. In 2015, just as her life seemed to be turning a corner, she went to one more party, diced with drugs one last time, and died.

She is missed by many. Her family. Her friends. Her partner. By the trans community, many of whom saw her as likely to play a strong and influential role in future.

For them, as well as for those who would have liked to know her better, this, warts and all, is Syn’s story.

“System failures left her quite unsupported at key moments in her too short life.”

Who was Synestra? She was my daughter, my first-born child, and, like all mothers, I cherished her. The utter horror of learning of her death takes my breath away and stops me in my tracks whenever I recollect it. She is never far from my thoughts.

To lose one’s child is the most unbearable pain one can suffer; it is not the order of things. It will never happen to me, we think. But sometimes it does...

Her name Synestra means ‘at one with the stars’. She chose it herself. This beautiful name seems now as if it were some sort of mysterious premonition.

Synestra made a profound impression on so many people. She was quiet, intelligent, and spoke with an eloquence that belied the stunning impact one felt when first setting eyes upon her. She was a dichotomy.

Synestra de Courcy. Photo: Amanda de Courcy/Transition Denied. Synestra did live her short life to the full, as she wanted to live it. She learned, and had the power to learn, like no other person I have ever met. Her father, brother and I found ourselves, like many people who knew her, in total awe, and she was way beyond us in terms of knowledge; in just about any subject one cares to mention.

We certainly had our ‘ups and downs’. Coping with such an extraordinarily bright child brings its own issues. But Syn lacked wisdom and experience, the worldly-wise things that as we age, we simply ‘know’. Being a very bright child gave Syn empowerment over others, and she became almost megalomaniac in her outlook; impossible to influence and certainly impossible to control.

As parents, we could see the devastating effect that drugs were having upon her during 2014, but we were helpless. We quickly realised that Syn of course, was an adult in the eyes of the law, and we had no influence in reporting her issues to the doctors, and had no real idea of where to seek help. Had we done so, would she have taken heed?

The simple answer is ‘no’. Synestra had to find her own path through her difficulties, and this she was finally doing. She was strong, wilful, and once she decided to put this episode behind her, as the clinics and the specialists noted with amazement, she ‘recovered’ with astonishing speed. Or did she...?

“Synestra touched a lot of people, helped a lot of lives, and the world is a lesser place without her in it.”

The tragedy was that she was ‘almost there’. She had come through the worst of her dark drug addiction and was following a programme to wellness. We all started to relax. And that is where it all fell apart.

I will never be able to forgive myself for not being there for her that last weekend, but in my heart, I know that the tragedy that unfolded was the accident that had been waiting to happen. No one could foresee the events that unravelled that fateful night, but that accident took away one of the brightest stars – someone who seemed destined for great things. Now we will never know what could have been.

Synestra touched a lot of people, helped a lot of lives, and the world is a lesser place without her in it.

I take this opportunity to mention a charity that I started following her death. Synestra’s Community Interest Company (Synestra’s CIC). The purpose of the CIC is to help schools, colleges, and universities become more aware of the transgender community.

Life is hard for us all at times, but being ‘different’ and not conforming with society’s view of Boys & Girls, has a damning impact on those that are unsure, or simply fall in between society’s ‘norm’. So let’s make all toilets just ‘toilets’ for example, let’s allow kids to wear skirts or trousers, short or long hair and remove this need to conform with an idealistic view of pink or blue children.

The most difficult ‘nut to crack’ is the parents themselves. Teachers are getting it, but parents, no, they’re not. All parents are proud of their children, but when we talk about non-conformity relating to gender, one can see the bristling effect immediately.

Being transgender is not a disease, not something one catches, it’s not a fashion, a fad, or any other such nonsense. People are all ‘people’ no matter what gender, colour or creed. As a society we manage reasonably well with most prejudices, and my aim is try to help eradicate this one.

* Transition Denied: Confronting the Crisis in Trans Healthcare by Jane Fae, with a foreward from Amanda de Courcy, was published on 21 May 2018 by Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

An appeal to the representatives of countries who are expected to travel to the World Cup football games in Russia

$
0
0

The Russian Federation is holding 70 Ukrainian political prisoners in custody. Many of them have been convicted under torture and using false evidence. 

Oleg Sentsov. CC BY-SA 4.0 Antonymon / Wikipedia. Some rights reserved.

President of Argentina Mauricio Macri

Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull

King of the Belgians Philippe, Prime Minister of Belgium Charles Michel

President of the Federative Republic of Brazil Michel Temer

President of the Republic of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos

President of Costa Rica Carlos Alvarado Quesada

President of the Republic of Croatia Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, Premier Minister Andrej Plenković

Queen of Denmark Margrethe II, Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen

President of the Arab Republic of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Prime Minister Sherif Ismail

President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister Édouard Philippe

Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Angela Merkel

President of Iceland Guðni Thorlacius Jóhannesson, Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir

President of Iran Hassan Rouhani

Prime Minister of Japan Shinzō Abe

Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea Lee Nak-yeon

President of the United Mexican States Enrique Peña Nieto

President of the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco Saadeddine Othmani

President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Muhammadu Buhari

President of the Republic of Panama Juan Carlos Varela

President of the Republic of Peru Martín Vizcarra

President of the Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki

President of the Portuguese Republic Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Prime Minister António Costa

King of Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

President of the Republic of Senegal Macky Sall, Prime Minister Mohammed Dionne

President of the Republic of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić, Prime Minister Ana Brnabić

King of Spain King Felipe Vi, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy

King of Sweden Carl XVI Gustaf, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven

President of the Confederation of Switzerland Alain Berset

President of the Republic of Tunisia Beji Caid Essebsi, Head of Government Youssef Chahed

Queen of the United Kingdom Elizabeth II, Prime Minister Theresa May

President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay Tabaré Vázquez

Your Majesties, esteemed representatives of the citizens of your states!

The main football event of the year, the World Cup, is drawing closer. It will take place in Russia despite this country occupying the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, unleashing a war in eastern Ukraine, supporting the brutal dictator Assad and war crimes in Syria, curtailing the democratic rights of its own citizens, repressing the indigenous population of occupied Crimea - the Crimean Tatars, interfering in the elections of western countries and unleashing a disinformation campaign against them.

Your excellencies, the list of Russia's crimes can be continued, however, one stands out. On 14 May, the jailed Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov, who had resisted the occupation of his native Crimea in 2014, announced a termless hunger strike. The only condition for ending it is the "release of all Ukrainian political prisoners held on the territory of the Russian Federation". There are at least 70 such prisoners, and the number increases each day.

Oleg was sentenced to 20 years in a penal colony as a result of a falsified trial. Other political prisoners have been convicted in a similar manner: on the basis of false "confessions" obtained under torture, fake witnesses, planted ammunition. The latter was the reason for the arrest and conviction of Volodymyr Balukh, a Crimean farmer who rejected the occupation of Crimea and kept raising a Ukrainian flag over his house. Balukh is holding a termless hunger strike for over 70 days since 19 March, balancing between life and death. Also on hunger strike, in solidarity with Sentsov, are Oleksandr Kolchenko and Oleksandr Shumkov. The number of arrests and sentences grows with each day. Just on 4 June, Ukrainian journalist Roman Suschenko was sentenced to 12 years of "severe regime" imprisonment in Russia on baseless mystery “spying” charges. All these tragedies go unnoticed by the world.

Russia has established a real repression machine in occupied Crimea. Civic activists among Crimean Tatars are being arrested in droves and accused of terrorism. Also accused of terrorism is the 19-year old Ukrainian Pavlo Hryb, whom the FSB kidnapped while he was on a trip to Belarus. The list of political prisoners is long and each name in it represents a shattered fate and children left to grow up without parents (see more information here).

Your Excellencies, all of these Ukrainians became victims of Russia's undeclared war against Ukraine. In authoritarian Russia, their purpose is to be broadcast on state TV playing the role of "enemies," "terrorists," and "extremists," inciting the hatred of Russians towards Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, and ramping up support for Vladimir Putin's aggressive politics.

Oleg Sentsov has declared that he intends to hold the hunger strike until the fatal end. This is a realistic scenario: one has to only recall his letter from prison, where he wrote about Ukrainian political prisoners: "If we are destined to become nails in the lid of the tyrant's coffin, then I would like to be such a nail. Just know that this nail will not bend." And he told his lawyer: "If I die before the World Cup or during it, then there will be a [public] resonance in favor of the other political prisoners."

A hunger strike is the only weapon that the imprisoned filmmaker has to counter the horrendous injustice against 70 Ukrainian citizens.

Your Majesties! You, the powerful of this world, have another weapon. One of the dreams of Vladimir Putin is to use the presence of foreign dignitaries at the tribunes of the World Cup to embellish his image of a "strong leader" and as visual support for his politics of repressions and wars. You can take the side of the filmmaker who was sentenced for protesting the occupation of his native Crimea by joining the political boycott of the World Cup, inviting others to follow your lead if you have already done this, and calling upon Russia to fulfill the demands of Oleg Sentsov and release all Ukrainian political prisoners. History shows that leaders of authoritarian states prefer to put on a mask of mercy before sports events.

The full list of signatories is here:

Willem Aldershoff, former head of unit, European Commission, analyst international affairs, Brussels, Belgium

Alim Aliev, program director, Crimean House, Ukraine

Victoria Amelina, writer, Ukraine

Yuriy Andrukhovych, writer, Ukraine

Ivan Andrusiak, writer, Ukraine

Anne Applebaum, journalist, historian, USA

Antoine Arjakovsky, historian, France

Larysa Artiugina, film director, project leader NGO NewDonbas, Ukraine

Kateryna Babych, No Borders Project, Committee of Solidarity with Crimean Hostages, Kyiv, Ukraine

Marieluise Beck, former State Secretary, Alliance '90/The Greens (Germany)

Мark Bielorusets, translator, Ukraine

Andriy Bondar, writer, Ukraine

Kateryna Botanova, journalist, curator, Switzerland/Ukraine

Stephen Blank, Senior Fellow, American Foreign Policy Council, USA

Maksym Butkevych, human rights defender (No Borders Project, Committee of Solidarity), Ukraine

Artem Chapeye, writer, Ukraine

Simas Čelutka, Head of European Security Programme, Vilnius Institute for Policy Analysis, Lithuania

Yevgen Chernykov, actor, Ukraine

Halyna Coynash, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, Ukraine

Mustafa Dzhemilev, Crimean Tatar leader, political prisoner during the USSR

Danilo Elia, journalist, Rai - Radiotelevisione italiana, National Public Broadcasting of Italy

Michel Eltchaninoff, philosopher, France

Andrew Fesiak, International Director, Final Cut Media, Ukraine

Leonid Finberg, sociologist, cultural researcher, director of Center for Studies of History and Culture of Eastern European Jewry, Ukraine

Gregory Frolov, director of Free Russia House, Kyiv, Ukraine

Svetlana Gannushkina, human rights defender, Russia

Nina Garenetska, musician, Dakhabrakha band, Ukraine

Georg Genoux, Theatre/film director, Germany/Ukraine

Anastasiya Gernega, Chairperson, NGO Touchpoint, Ukraine

Iryna Gorban, art-manager, Ukraine

Marko Halanevych, musician, Dakhabrakha band, Ukraine

Rebecca Harms, MEP, Alliance '90/The Greens (Greens)

Markéta Hejkalová, writer, Czech Republic

Ola Hnatiuk, University of Warsaw, PEN Club member, Poland

Yaroslav Hrytsak, historian, Ukraine

Jakub Janda, Director, European Values Think-Tank, Prague, Czech Republic

Andrey Khadanovich, litterateur, Belarus

Borys Khersonsky, writer, Ukraine

Oleksandra Koval, head of the Publishers’ Forum NGO, Ukraine

Maxym Kurochkin, playwright and screenwriter, Ukraine

Askold Kurov, filmmaker and producer, Russia

Myroslav Laiuk, writer, Ukraine

Philippe de Lara, professor of political science, France

Anastasia Levkova, writer, journalist, Ukraine

Danylo Lubkivsky, Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine (2014), Diplomatic advisor to the Prime Minister of Ukraine (2015-2016)

Edward Lucas, London, UK

Olesya Mamchych, writer, Ukraine

Myroslav Marynovych, former Soviet political prisoner, Ukraine

Juraj Mesik, global risks analyst, Slovakia

Diana Matsuzaki, journalist, Hungary

Marina Meseguer, journalist, Spain,

Patryk Michalski, journalist, Poland

Vitalii Moroz, Internews Ukraine, Ukraine

Mustafa Nayyem, member of Parliament of Ukraine

Oleksandra Nazarova, psychologist, Ukraine

Andriy Nikitchyuk, Euromaidan Press, Ukraine

Tetiana Okopna, translator, Ukraine

Oleksiy Panych, philosopher, Ukraine

Tetiana Pechonchyk, Human Rights Information Center, Ukraine

Kateryna Petrovska, writer, Ukraine, Germany

Nataliia Popovych, Co-Founder, Ukraine Crisis Media Center

Anzhela Prazdnichnykh, medical doctor, Belgium

Antje Rempe, Germany, President of the association for partnership between the twin cities of Kharkiv and Nuremberg

Mykola Riabchuk, writer, Ukraine

Oleksandra Romantsova, Center for Civil Liberties, Ukraine

Olexander Scherba, Ukrainian Ambassador to Austria

Anton Sliepakov, musician, Dakhabrakha band, Ukraine

Arkadiy Shtypel, poet, translator, Russia

Roman Shutov, EaP Strategic Advisor, Baltic Centre for Media Excellence, Ukraine

Alya Shandra, Euromaidan Press, Ukraine

Konstantin Sigov, Director of the European Humanities Research Centre, National University of “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”, Ukraine

Ostap Slyvynsky, writer, Ukraine

Bohdana Smyrnova, filmmaker, New York/Kyiv

Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale University, USA

Alice Stollmeyer, Executive Director, Defending Democracy, Belgium

Maksym Strikha, professor of physics, writer, Ukraine

Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda, Ukraine

Joanna Szostek, researcher, Royal Holloway University of London, Great Britain

Liudmyla Taran, writer, Ukraine

Tetyana Teren, journalist, Ukraine

Halyna Tkachuk, writer, Ukraine

Olena Tsybulska, musician, Dakhabrakha band, Ukraine

Halyna Tytysh, journalist, Ukraine

Andreas Umland, Senior Fellow, Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, Ukraine

Oleksandr Vilchynskyi, writer, Ukraine

Pavlo Volvach, writer, Ukraine

Natalia Vorozhbyt, playwright and screenwriter, Ukraine

Maryna Vroda, director and writer, Ukraine

Wira Wowk, writer, translator, PEN Club member, Brazil

Volodymyr Yermolenko, UkraineWorld, Internews Ukraine, Hromadske.ua, Ukraine

Pavlo Yurov, independent director and actor, Ukraine

Iryna Zabiiaka, translator, Kyiv, Ukrainereza Semotamová, Writers in Prison Committee of the Czech PEN Centre, Czech Republic

Oksana Zabuzhko, writer, Ukraine

Yevgeniy Zakharov, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, Ukraine

Alla Zamanska, TV Director, Ukraine

Serhiy Zhadan, writer, Ukraine

Bohdan Zholdak, writer, Ukraine

 

If you would like to sign the letter, please fill out this form.

 

Sideboxes
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

‘My concern was his safety’ Police officer on Rashan Charles restraint

$
0
0

Officer denies using unauthorised neck hold and combat throw on young black Londoner. Asked what was in his mind, officer says: drugs, gangs, weapons. Inquest, Day Two. 

Rashan Charles (Family)

The police officer who restrained Rashan Charles last summer was questioned yesterday at St Pancras Coroner’s Court about his actions during the fatal encounter. 

Rashan, aged 20, died after being restrained by the officer and a man described as a “member of the public” at a convenience shop in Hackney, East London. 

The officer, known in court as BX47, said he followed Rashan into the shop after seeing him exit a car in the early hours of the morning of 22 July 2017. 

In CCTV footage shown to the court Rashan walks into the shop, followed a few seconds later by BX47. The officer grabs Rashan from behind, turns him and walks him down a narrow aisle to the front of the shop. Then he pushes Rashan against an ice-cream chest freezer, puts an arm around his neck and shoulders and throws him to the ground. 

Coroner Mary Hassell asked the police officer what he was trying to do when he threw Rashan to the ground. He replied that he had used a type of restraint known to police as a “seat belt hold” or “reverse take down” to “better control” Rashan. 

“Looking back, do you think that the reverse take down was appropriate?” the coroner asked.

“Yes,” he replied. “My priority was getting control of him. I was struggling to do so while standing.” 

Why did BX47 follow Rashan?

The court heard that BX47 belonged to an elite group of specially-trained police officers known as Territorial Support Group (TSG). He received regular high-level training in public order and crisis situations.This training included the range of approved methods for restraining a person resisting arrest. 

Before going out into a London borough, Territorial Support Group patrols are given an intelligence briefing on the locality. On the night of Rashan’s death BX47 had been deployed to Hackney. Jude Bunting, the lawyer representing Rashan’s mother and grandmother, told the court that the Hackney briefing attended by BX47 included specific intelligence on wanted individuals. Bunting said Rashan Charles was not one of them. 

Under questioning, BX47 told the court that he did not know Rashan, had not met him before pursuing him that day, and did not recognise anyone in the car Rashan was in.

A combat throw to the ground

Bunting asked which part of his training did BX47 draw on once he had hold of Rashan and just before he threw him to the ground, adding that one principle was to avoid taking a person to ground unless you are confident you can control them. It had to be a controlled take down. Yet BX47 had omitted that step.

The officer replied that he thought he could control Rashan from the ground more easily. He denied missing out the step and said that before throwing Rashan down, “I first took hold of his arms.” 

Referring to the police training manual used by Territorial Support Group trainers Bunting described the correct procedure for “reverse take down” which involves communicating verbally with the person being arrested, holding them by the shoulders and guiding them to the floor while safeguarding their head. Bunting asked BX47 to compare the correct procedure with the CCTV of his encounter with Rashan.

He is not escorted to the ground, he is thrown with force.“He is not escorted to the ground, he is thrown with force,” Bunting said. “When you landed on the ground your hand was around his throat. Would you agree that this was not the rear take down we can see in the training manual? This was a neck hold and combat throw down?”

BX47 said: “No.” He insisted that he had used the correct restraint and that he did not put his hand on Rashan’s throat. 

In response to further questioning about the type of restraint used, BX47 said: “I believe that he was trying to put his hands to his mouth,” adding that he was focused on gaining “control” of Rashan and stopping the movement of his hands. 

The jury was shown CCTV of what happened after Rashan was thrown to the ground, and then footage with sound from BX47’s body worn camera. The officer can be heard shouting: “Spit out, spit it out.” 

He told the court that he believed Rashan had something in his mouth and that he applied pressure between “where the lower jaw meets the upper jaw, which would normally make the mouth open”. In the body worn camera footage Rashan is wriggling beneath BX47, who holds him down, leaning over him. 

A ‘member of the public’ intervenes

A second man, dressed in jeans and a jumper, joined in the restraint. Described by police as a “member of the public”, he must be known only as Witness 1. (Last November the coroner granted anonymity to two police officers and two witnesses — including the men who restrained Rashan: BX47, and Witness 1.)

Rashan Charles (Family)

Bunting asked BX47 if he knew Witness 1. No, he said. Bunting asked if knew whether Witness 1 had any experience in such situations. BX47 did not answer directly. Instead, he replied: “I never met him before.”

CCTV showed Witness 1 and BX47 handcuffing Rashan as he lay face down. Rashan appears to stop moving. In footage from the body worn camera that was positioned just below BX47’s left shoulder, Rashan’s mouth, lips and neck look faintly off-colour. 

‘He’s just putting it on

The coroner and lawyer for Rashan’s family took BX47 through the footage, attempting to estabish when exactly it became clear to him that Rashan was unwell. 

BX47 watched the footage of Rashan on the ground, handcuffed with the two men restraining him, Witness 1 says, “He’s just putting it on.” Officer BX47 says, “No he’s not.”

Coroner Mary Hassell asked BX47: “At this point are you concerned by now?”

BX47 said: “The whole way through I was concerned.” 

In the footage, Witness 1 and BX47 ask Rashan to open his mouth. One of them says: “There’s something in his mouth.” BX47 tells Rashan to breathe. Witness 1 pinches Rashan’s nose. In court BX47 said he didn’t see Witness 1 do this at the time. Witness 1 holds Rashan’s mouth. The coroner said: “Can you tell me what that’s about?”  BX47 replied: “No, I can’t remember.”

The coroner said that Rashan appears to be unconscious in the footage when Witness 1 and BX47 are restraining him and asking him to open his mouth. 

“By now are you not thinking that Rashan might have lost consciousness?” she asked. 

“I was not sure,” said BX47. 

The coroner said that looking at the screen one interpretation would be that Rashan had lost consciousness.

BX47 said that he conducted a breathing test and believed Rashan was still breathing. He said he thought he could see Rashan clenching his teeth. 

Would you agree that he looked terrified?

On body worn camera footage shown to the court, roughly one minute and 30 seconds into the restraint Rashan makes a noise, like a whimper or murmur. A close up of his face shows his eyes wide and staring. For Rashan’s family, Bunting asked BX47: “Would you agree that he looked terrified?”

BX47 said: “I don’t know. His eyes were looking wide.” He added that he did not recall seeing signs of Rashan’s distress. His said his eye level was slightly different to the body worn footage shown to the court. 

Bunting suggested to BX47 that the reason he tells Rashan to “breathe” is because “you were concerned that he was not breathing?”

“No,” the officer replied.

Bunting asked BX47 if he agreed that Rashan shows no signs of acknowledging him. 

BX47 agreed.

Signs of choking?

Bunting asked: “How could Rashan remove anything from his mouth when he was handcuffed? How could he stop himself from choking? How could he talk?” 

BX47 said he didn’t think Rashan was choking. He said he couldn’t see any signs that Rashan was choking. The choking signs he would look for would be “coughing, struggling to breathe, visibly choking”. 

Bunting suggested to BX47 that his training had prepared him for identifying and dealing with a medical emergency. He said that during the restraint BX47 was attempting to conduct a “search by mouth”, something that should only be done with multiple police officers. 

“At that point I’m trying to get whatever is in his mouth out for his safety,” BX47 said. “It was not about searching. My concern was primarily about his safety.” 

My concern was primarily about his safety.

Bunting referred again to the police training manual. He said that if a person had something in their mouth the protocol was to call an ambulance immediately: “You felt that there was something in his mouth” and yet didn’t call an ambulance immediately. “Would you agree?”

BX47 agreed.

Throughout questioning BX47 maintained that he thought Rashan had something in his mouth or was attempting to put something in his mouth. Bunting reminded him that suspected swallowing of concealed drugs should be considered a medical emergency, so why did he not treat Rashan as a medical emergency?

BX47 replied: “Not initially. There was a lot going on. I was trying to look at what the situation was.” He added that he put Rashan on his side as that was the best method to “aid his breathing”. 

Bunting said the reason BX47 had had such extensive training was because the use of restraint poses serious risks. He suggested that the officer didn’t follow protocol because “you were panicking”. He asked, “Do you agree you lost control?” 

“I wouldn’t say I completely lost control of the situation, no,” said the officer.

Counsel for the police

Following a break, Neil Saunders, the lawyer representing BX47, and John Beggs QC, representing the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, questioned the officer.

John Beggs QC elicited that BX47 was with a patrol of six officers in Hackney that morning. While driving towards Hoxton in south Hackney, the patrol became suspicious of a small car at a set of traffic lights after seeing the driver’s indicator light switched direction “at least” three times. When, later, Rashan left the vehicle, BX47 left the patrol vehicle to pursue him on foot. 

Beggs suggested to BX47 that he chased Rashan Charles because of the “behaviour of the vehicle from which he emerged” which “on at least three occasions changed directions in apparent reaction to your carrier” an obvious police vehicle. 

To each suggestion BX47 answered: “Yes”.  

Beggs added that the time of day, it was around 1.45am, was another factor. 

“Yes,” BX47 agreed.

In the officer’s mind: drugs, gangs, weapons

Beggs then asked BX47 what he thought Rashan would have been doing in that area at that time? BX47 responded that he thought “people” would be “out to sell drugs or involved in some sort of gang activity”. He added that there could have been weapons or drugs in the car.  

Neil Saunders, representing BX47, asked his client if he saw Rashan put anything his mouth when he followed him into the shop? 

BX47 said no, that he saw Rashan raise an arm. He said his first thought was to get control of Rashan’s arms to prevent him reaching for anything such as a weapon.

“What sort of weapon would you have in mind that night?” Saunders asked.

BX47 said he thought a knife. 

Saunders went over the restraint used and BX47 repeated that he was trying to get control of Rashan’s arms and stop him putting his hands to his mouth. 

Was BX47 ever sure that Rashan had swallowed anything? Saunders asked.

The officer replied: “No, not until later on when the object was pulled out.”

Saunders said that during the body worn camera footage Witness 1 can be heard telling Rashan: “Stop biting my fingers!” He asked BX47 why this was significant. “The fact that he would be biting would make me think that he was not unconscious,” BX47 replied.

Saunders asked BX47 if he thought any harm was being done to Rashan. BX47 said: “No”. 

“Were you under the impression that everything being done was to assist Mr Charles?” Saunders asked,

“Yes,” said BX47.

Once the lawyers had finished questioning BX47, the coroner asked the jury if they had questions for the officer. They had one. The coroner read it out: “Did you see Rashan trying to bite Witness 1’s fingers?”

“No,” said BX47. 

The inquest continues. 

 


 

Edited by Clare Sambrook for Shine A Light.

Sideboxes
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

Chile criminalizes Mapuche defenders of land and water

$
0
0

The infamous Counter-Terrorist Act recently applied to three Mapuche defendants is a reminder of this continuing state of injustice against a native American people. Spanish

uis Tralcal Quidel with his daughter. Cource: CiDSUR. All rights reserved

Last May 5, a local court in Temuco, Southern Chile, sentenced Luis Tralcal Quidel, José Tralcal Coche and José Peralino Huinca on charges of terrorism for setting fire to a large-estate house in 2013 - its owners, the Luchsinger-Mackay couple, who were in the premises at the time, died as a result. This was the second time the case was in the courts: in October 2017, the appeal court in Temuco had absolved eleven defendants of any crimes and dismissed the charges of terrorism.

The three men now sentenced to life imprisonment have already spent quite some time in jail as a result of both this and previous trials, most of them on charges of terrorism. Luis Tralcal, in particular, has been brought to court on nine occasions and even though he has been acquitted each time, he has spent several years in “preventive custody”. All three are community activists who have been leading local struggles for the restitution of Mapuche territory. They consider themselves defenders of land and water and they fight for the preservation of the Wallmapu (the ancestral Mapuche territory) from  extractivism, predatory economics and grasping ways of life. Like many of their peñis (brothers and sisters) before them, they have been persecuted, harassed and intimidated by the country’s powers that be: the central government and its local branches, the judiciary, the police, and the mainstream media.

State hoaxes, corporate pressures

Like many of the previous trials of Mapuche activists, this one has been irregular since its very beginning. The fact that the Mapuche conflict has intensified in the last few years has led the Chilean State to turn it into a show trial and present the Luchsinger-Mackay case (undeniably a terrible event) as an emblematic case of "Mapuche terrorism" - despite all the evidence against, it has applied the “Counter-Terrorist Act” to the defendants. On the day after the event, El Mercurio carried an article under the headline “The tough guy of Vilcún” suggesting that Luis Tralcal had played a leading role in the increase of “violent actions” in the area.

The main evidence against the defendants is Peralino Huinca’s first declaration of 2013, in which he testified against himself and ten other Mapuchedefendants, without the presence of his attorney. He later retracted this declaration and claimed that he had signed it under torture and other unlawful forms of coercion such as being offered money and special protection, which he refused. There is no record in video or audio of the alleged confession, only a written document in a far more sophisticated language than Peralino’s. His second declaration, in which he qualified the content of the first one as “pure lies”, can be watched here. Psychological tests conducted under the Istanbul Protocol confirmed that Peralino's first declaration was made under duress.

Security operations carried out on the margins of the law are part of the Wallmapu’s everyday life. A group of high-ranking Carabineros (Chile’s uniformed police) are currently on trial on charges of illicit association in relation to the undercover Hurricane Operation, a massive hoax against Mapuche activists. Having found no evidence against the suspects, the Police Intelligence Unit (UIOE) developed a system to intercept text messages to and from the electronic devices of ten suspects, to be used as evidence – a procedure which was consented by a Judge of the Temuco Court. A special parliamentary commission conducted an enquiry into the UIOE operation, and yet the same UIOE produced guns and pamphlets as evidence in an early version of this trial.

What is more, it was recently disclosed that two of the judges (out of three) in the bench trial were, and still are, applying for government jobs -  which is a blatant conflict of interest, since the government is a main plaintiff in this case. The third judge (a woman), who had kept observance to due process, withdrew on medical grounds from the trial a few days before the verdict was made public for alleged workplace harassment. To this should be added that the main plaintiff’s witnesses were some of the largest agro-business producers in the area.

The chain of events leading to the current trial started around the 2017 absolutory sentence, as a sort of backlash - in fact, a reactivation of the colonial offensive by Chile - corporations, State, and media - against Mapuche defense of their territory and culture. In September 2017, under Michelle Bachelet’s government, a meeting was held between the judges of the region’s courts and the high ranks of the police, prosecutors, and government authorities. A week later, the Chilean Home Vice-Secretary Mahmud Aleuy visited his Argentine colleague in Buenos Aires, giving a transnational dimension to the conflict.

 

International response to accusations of “terrorism”

The Chilean State’s persecution of Mapuche grassroots leaders and spiritual authorities has been condemned by different organizations such as Chile’s National Institute of Human Rights (INDH), the Inter-American Human Rights Court, the European Humanist Forum, and many others. In a number of occasions (e.g., in its report and a few weeks ago), the INDH - which is an autonomous body, independent from the government of the day - has explicitly declared that the Chilean State has been engaging for quite a long time in actions which violate norms and agreements it has itself adopted - the most important of which, the 1989 International Labour Organization's 169 Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, which was signed by Chile in 2008.

The ILO 169 Convention is widely considered to be the main international tool for indigenous rights. It overrides in some important issues previous assimilationist legal provisions, to the extent that it recognizes the inalienable nature of native collective rights, including the right to economic and political self-determination. It also establishes the right to consultation in case of conflict, particularly in matters where agro-business and mining interests are involved. It mandates that human rights be specially observed in indigenous conflicts, and advises authorities against penal sanctions and even the use of ordinary justice in these cases.

In 2014, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) issued a ruling in the case Norín Catrimán y others vs. Chile. The ruling declared that the Chilean state had violated the principle of equality and non-discrimination, as well as the right to equal protection under the law, in a trial of seven Mapuche leaders under terrorist charges. At that time, 23 of the 26 individuals who were being accused of terrorism in Chile were Mapuche.

Turned into law (number 18.314) in 1984, the so-called “Counter-Terrorist Act” was an important tool to facilitate the crushing of the opposition to Pinochet's dictatorial regime. It was based on the so-called National Security Doctrine, a set of principles put forward by the United States in its attempt to dominate the hemisphere in the aftermath of the Cuban revolution, which proved to be crucial, particularly for the military through the School of the Americas, in defining the “internal enemy” – namely, Marxists, Communists, radical leftists and other destabilizing elements. Within that framework, Mapuche struggles were soon pigeonholed as terrorist activities.

Terrorism charges allows the authorities to keep suspects for long periods of time in what is euphemistically called “preventive custody", which is something the IACHR in 2014 ruled highly discriminatory. It also increases the sentences twofold, permits and actually encourages “faceless witnesses” and compensated informants, and imposes a number of restrictions to the defendants' attorneys for reasons of secrecy and “national security”. Before the judicial sentence last May, the two only convicted persons on terrorist charges related to the Mapuche conflict were actually police covert agents.

In Chile, the Counter-Terrorist Act” has never been seriously questioned, not to say challenged, by allegedly progressive governments in post-dictatorship times. Today, right-wing president Piñera has acknowledged the need to and put forward a proposal for “perfecting it”. But almost in the same breath, Piñera has made public the intention of withdrawing the country from the ILO’s Convention.

 

Like other countries in the Americas…

For the human rights advocacy groups operating in the Wallmapu, the last sentence of the Luchsinger-Mackay trial is clearly a show of force by corporate powers defending investments in the region. According to them, this is the actual reason for the political pressures upon the justice system from successive Chilean governments - which, it should be remembered, is a plaintiff in this case.

The lawful violence displayed and exerted by the police, the justice system and the government is just the lastest episode of the Chilean State acting as a colonial power in defense of large capitalist interests and against those who defend other ways of living and other uses of the land which are based on an alternative epistemology that has survived almost 500 years of annihilation policies and technologies. Today, in Chile, the very same institutions which supposedly stand to observe and protect individual rights show their helplessness to prevent the three Mapuche communards from being condemned to life imprisonment. Their attorney's last resort is to submit an appeal to the Supreme Court to have the sentence annulled, hoping that the high court will be insensitive to the powers that be - the very same occupying powers of the Wallmapu which operate throughout the Chilean institutions.

This is not, however, a national offensive but a regional one. In recent years, we have witnessed a frightening increase in murders of environment, indigenous, and other activists in non-urban contexts. According to The Guardian, 116 environmental activists were murdered only in Latin America in 2017, out of a worldwide total of 197. This means nearly four Latin American environment-defenders assassinated every week - 46 in Brazil, 32 in Colombia, 15 in Mexico. Many more activists are currently harassed, criminalized, and threatened with eviction or jail if they do not get on board the “development” train. In Chile, two years after the assassination (which was initially presented as a suicide) of activist Macarena Valdés, the case shows no signs of progression.

On the brink of ratification or revocation of the May sentence, the silence imposed on Chile’s public opinion has made it necessary to search for international solidarity. “Declaration under torture is not evidence” and “Tralcal is innocent”are two of the slogans of the campaign. In the videos below, Luis Tralcal says that the Chilean justice “has been incapable of capturing the actual perpetrators” of the Luchsinger-Mackay case, and "From the first day the police knew I wasn’t in that place, for I was in a public place”. On his part, José Tralcal says he was told in jail: “If you want to be left alone, you must stand down and renounce your leadership (…) But I couldn’t. I cannot abandon the Mapuche families in such a vulnerable position”.

Sideboxes
Country or region: 
Chile
Topics: 
Civil society
Conflict
Democracy and government
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

Ushering in a new school of principled politics

$
0
0

“The reason we formed DiEM25 was the diagnosis that old wine in new bottles will not help revive the spirits of progressives in Italy or in the rest of Europe.” Interview.

lead May 29, 2018. Carlo Cottarelli meets Italy's President Sergio Mattarella at Quirinale palace. Usq/Ropi/Zuma Press/Press Association. All rights reserved.Aldo Cazzullo, Corriere Della Sera (AC): Let us start from the beginning? Why did you decide to resign after OXI’s victory in the Greek referendum?

Yanis Varoufakis (YV): Because that very night, when I spoke to Prime Minister Tsipras, he declared his readiness to turn the NO, our people’s majestic 62% OXI vote, into a YES. Staying would have meant endorsing the overthrowing of a people by its… government.

AC: Did you know or did you expect that Tsipras would accept an even harder austerity plan than the one rejected by the Greek people?

YV: Of course. The troika were not interested in policies that worked for Greece or for Europe. Indeed, they were not even very interested in getting their money back – for if they did care about their money, they would have accepted the moderate proposals I put to them which would have generated more income, more taxes and, ultimately, more repayments to our creditors. No, they were only interested in one thing: Crushing the Greek Spring and humiliating Tsipras so as to signal to the peoples of Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and, ultimately, France that they will suffer if they dare vote for governments that do not obey Berlin and Frankfurt. Tsipras’ humiliation via brutal new austerity was the priority. Our priority ought to have been to honour that NO.

AC: What are your relations with Tsipras today? What are you predictions about the next Greek elections?

YV: My relation with Tsipras is non-existent for a simple reason: we have nothing to talk about! In order for him to continue to do what he does he needs to tell himelf a story that he knows I know that he knows to be… untrue!

As for the election results, it is too early to tell. Syriza and New Democracy are struggling to convince the people that each of them will be better at implementing measures that everyone knows will fail. This causes widespread despondency and apathy, boosting abstention and the de-legitimation of politics. Our new party, MeRA25, will do well, I hope, as long as the voters learn about us; as long as we manage to break down the complete media silence about us and the total exclusion of our representatives from TV and most radio stations. As we say, our only opponent is the… couch which keeps disappointed but politicised, progressive people from going to the polling stations on election day.

AC: What’s your political project today?

YV: Across Europe, it is to turn the May 2019 European Parliament elections into a transnational campaign against both the Deep Establishment’s business-as-usual and the nationalists’ false promises. To this effect, our Democracy in Europe Movement, DiEM25, has inaugurated, together with other political forces across Europe, including of course in Italy, a transnational progressive list, #EuropeanSpring, with which to succeed in putting forward a progressive, hopeful, ambitious, credible alternative.

As for Greece, my project is to help turn MeRA25, DiEM25’s new political party, into an instrument by which to end Greece’s Great Depression.

AC: The Other Europe with Tsipras list gathered 4% of votes during the last elections. How much would a Varoufakis list score?

YV: There will be no Varoufakis list! The time for ‘saviours’ and persona-led parties is well and truly over. I am happy to be one of the many co-founders of DiEM25 and of our #EuropeanSpring. And I am proud of being part of Europe’s first transnational political party aiming to save all our countries from the false dilemma between the troika or exit, between pro-Europe and anti-Europe, between an authoritarian establishment and an authoritarian anti-European nationalism.

AC: Who are your interlocutors and allies in Italy? What do you think about Liberi e Uguali the party of Mr D’Alema and Vendola?

YV: The reason we formed DiEM25 in the first place was the diagnosis that old wine in new bottles will not help revive the spirits of progressives in Italy or in the rest of Europe. The performance of parties like Liberi e Uguali in Italy, the social democrats and the Left in Germany, and other such parties elsewhere confirmed this.

So, our main interlocutors are our members, the activists of DiEM25 Italia who, recently, held twenty regional constituency meetings to construct a national political structure involving 10,000 citizens and, with this structure, to join in our transnational #EuropeanSpring movement. Rather than indulging the old school of politics, we refuse to enter into negotiations with politicians with a view to divide positions and share offices. Instead, we are concentrating on cultivating a new school of politics which concentrates on talking only about policy proposals and ideas of what must be done. In this context, we place a great deal of emphasis on local government, municipalist movements and solutions. It is in this context that we are working, for example, with Napoli Mayor Luigi de Magistris in constructing our transnational #EuropeanSpring.

Having established that Italy and the rest of Europe needs a new political movement along the lines of DiEM25, we have made the courageous decision to contest the national and, of course, the European Parliament elections in Italy. Our members are currently debating the final details and the manner in which we shall construct as broad a coalition as possible against both the incompetent establishment and the xenophobic nationalists. On June 13 we shall be announcing our decisions in Milano.

AC: Much has happened in Italy in the last few hours. Do you regret that a Lega-5S government was not born?

YV: I regret that President Mattarella had no problem with Salvini being Interior Minister given his promise to throw half a million migrants out of the country

I regret that not even for a moment did he consider vetoing the idea of a European country deploying its security forces to round up hundreds of thousands of people, cage them, and force them into trains, buses and ferries before sending them goodness knows where.

I regret that Matteo Renzi missed his opportunity to insist that Berlin accepts a policy re-think that would make our countries sustainable within the eurozone – thus putting Salvini and de Maio in the driving seat.

Finally, I regret that President Mattarella’s only concern was to block the appointment of a finance minister that voiced reasonable concerns about the euro’s architecture (concerns that all decent economists have, even ones supporting the euro vehemently) and who believed that Italy should have a plan for exiting the euro just in case it is needed (a plan that everyone has, including the ECB, the German government, every major bank etc.)

AC: Could the two populisms get together against the Brussels and Berlin elite?

YV: You are asking someone who sees populism as a clear and present threat to democracy and to prosperity for the many. There is a profound difference between being popular and being populist. Populists exploit fear and anger to garner power in order to use it against the majority. If Brussels and Berlin lose to populism, we all lose. This is why DiEM25 is so keen to create a democratic, Europeanist alternative to both (A) the authoritarian incompetence of Berlin-Brussels, and (B) to the xenophobic populists.

AC: Do you know Mr Salvini and if yes what do you think about him?

YV: No, I have never met him.

AC: You said that the 5 Star movement is not a left party. What are they then? Could they still be considered an anti-system movement?

YV: They began as an anti-system movement combining some ideas that would benefit the common people with increasingly xenophobic views. They are appealing to Italians who are being held back by corruption and by austerity – and who, wrongly, turn against the foreigners, the ‘others’. Having said that, I am convinced that 5S has risen high only because the Left has failed so spectacularly.

AC: Does it still make sense to distinguish between a political left and right? Or is the new division among the people and the elite, those on top and those at the bottom, or between globalist and nationalist or (sovereign-ist)?

YV: As long as we live under capitalism, the Left-Right divide will be pertinent and inescapable. As long as there is a distinction between those who work but do not own the company and those who own the company (or parts of it) without working in it, the tug of war between capital and labour, profit and wages will be central in determining social outcomes. And so will the Left-Right distinction. But, having said that, there are moments in history, like the 1930s and the post-2008 period, when the crisis of capitalism is so deep, and democracy so much under treat, that room is created for a minimum common program between anti-systemic liberals, Marxists, ecologists, even progressive conservatives. This is why we say that, while I and many of my DiEM25 colleagues are unapologetic left-wingers, DiEM25 is more than a left-wing movement. It is rather the meeting place of democrats eager to find an alternative both to the inane establishment and to the nationalists.

AC: President Mattarella has rejected Professor Savona as minister of finance because he is supposedly anti-German. But isn’t there a sort of German arrogance whereby Germans aim to dictate rules to other EU countries?

YV: The problem with the German elites is that they are refusing to be hegemonic and, thus, end up being authoritarian. The German political class continues to behave as if Germany is a small open economy whose net exports are only due to the skill and hard work of their engineers and whose surpluses are well earned. They deny the macroeconomic effects of their policies upon their partners and insist, puzzlingly, on celebrating their surpluses while admonishing others for having… deficits. In the end, German savers are forced by the laws of economics to entrust their savings to foreigners whom they end up despising for being indebted to them.

Free riding comes in two varieties: (1) Wanting to live off other people’s money. And, (2) Wanting to benefit from the low exchange rate that other people’s moneylessness causes. It is clear that no Union can survive in this manner. Unfortunately, there seems to be no likelihood of a change in Berlin now that the new social democratic finance minister has proven more austere and less imaginative than even Dr Wolfgang Schauble was.

AC: Introducing Professor Savona, the Bild wrote he is ‘the new Varoufakis’. Are they wrong?

YV: Of course. The profound difference is that I was desperate to keep Greece in the euro sustainably, which required that I clash with the troika whose policies (and refusal of the necessary debt restructuring within the euro) were making this impossible. In contrast, exiting the euro is the not-so-secret dream of the Lega (the party behind the choice of Mr Savona).

AC: You know the US very well. What do you think about Trump and his ideologist Bannon who visited Italy last March and who is supporting a national ( sovereign-ist) government?

YV: Mr Bannon is, undoubtedly, an ultra-dangerous belligerent who wants catastrophic regime change (Libya- and Iraq-style) in countries where, if he succeeds, developments will turn the world into an even more treacherous place than it already is, with many more millions of refugees flooding our shores. Mr Trump, on the other hand, is trying to control the diminution of American power through a process of economic shock-and-awe that stuns Germany and China into submission. The combination of his scandalous corporate tax cuts, the new tariffs, and his pulling out of the Iran deal are part of this overarching program. However, I have little doubt that, if he succeeds, the result will be a new global recession that, ultimately, undermines American interests as well.

AC: Has Angela Merkel reached end of her political career? Who’s next?

YV: Yes. Mrs Merkel is now an enfeebled Chancellor, totally at the mercy of those in her party who are already plotting her replacement. Of course, she is totally to blame, having squandered enormous political power since 2010 that she could have used to unite Europe, rather than divide it via the awful policy mix of universal austerity for the many and socialism for the bankers. Sadly, her successor, whomever it is, will make us feel nostalgic for Mrs Merkel – just like Mr Scholz managed to make me miss Dr Schauble!

AC: What about Renzi?

YV: He wasted his many opportunities to make a positive difference. I shall mention two: First, the opportunity to go to Brussels to demand, as the Prime Minister of the third largest eurozone country, that the EU considers changes to the eurozone rules that would make our countries sustainable within the euro area. He chose, instead, to demand Italy’s right to bend the existing rules – thus looking in German eyes like a spoilt child. Secondly, in June/July 2015 he had an opportunity to defend the then Greek government’s arguments in favour of an immediate debt restructure and a humane fiscal policy. Instead of helping Europe demonstrate that it could be a decent place for deficit countries like ours, he aided Merkel to throttle Tsipras and push him into capitulating. On the day of that capitulation, he celebrated that “they” had gotten “rid of Varoufakis”. The road toward his own downfall was thus paved.

AC: What do you think about the Italian left? the PD is divided among followers of Renzi willing to position the party on the political centre, and the post-communists pushing more to the left.

YV: Very little, sadly. Unfortunately, my friends on the Italian Left still believe that they can stitch together a coalition without a clear, European-wide agenda, forgetting that the whole they are constructing is even less than the sum of the parts. I wish this were not so, so that we could support them. But it is so and this is why DiEM25 has made the momentous decision to contest elections in Italy: because we need a progressive movement that ushers in a new school of principled politics.

AC: Is Corbyn a good model for revamping the European left?

YV: Jeremy Corbyn has already made a gigantic contribution to the quality of politics in Europe, and not just left-wing politics. He has shown that it is possible to activate politically millions of disenfranchised young people that the establishment traditionally dismisses as apolitical, Generation Y etc. And he has proven that a principled position can cut through the walls erected in our way by systemic media doing the job of an authoritarian oligarchy.

Having said that, we must not forget that the UK is quite different to our continental countries – which means that, while we must learn from Jeremy, we can’t just copy his techniques. We need our own strategy which, in the case of Europe, must be transnational – like the one DiEM25 has been putting together since February 2016.

AC: What do you think about Macron?

YV: I have spoken a great deal about the French President, praising his solidarity to me personally in 2015 and explaining that he understands that the present architecture of the eurozone is unsustainable. On the other hand, I also said that, ever since he rose to the Presidency, he has adopted legislation that is socially regressive (e.g. cutting taxes on the rich while diminishing the incomes of weaker citizens), awfully authoritarian (e.g. he made permanent security legislation that clashes with civil liberties) and self-defeating.

He also put forward proposals about eurozone reform which, while in the right direction, were too lukewarm. Worse still, he did not back them up with any credible threat to Berlin – which led Mrs Merkel and the German establishment to bury them. The result is that, given France’s inability to flourish in the present architecture of the eurozone, Mr Macron is a spent force. He looks and sounds good but his capacity to make a difference has been wasted and will, from now on, lose authority little by little.

AC: What about Podemos in Spain, and the current discussion about Pablo Iglesias’ new villa?

YV: Podemos blew fresh wind into the progressive side of politics when it managed to give voice to the Indignados. My concern is not the new villa that Pablo and his partner have purchased. Even though I understand the reactions against this purchase, the notion that those speaking for the dispossessed must be themselves dispossessed is not one that I can adopt. No, my concern is Podemos’ reluctance to articulate a coherent economic and social policy framework that answers to specific questions such as: “If elected, what will you do in the Eurogroup? What is your policy on non-performing bank loans and how will you implement it against resistance from the ECB?” Without such a policy framework, progressive movements like Podemos can never win elections. This is why at DiEM25 we are putting so much emphasis in presenting a rational, comprehensive policy agenda that answers all these burning questions.

AC: What do you think about the prospects for a Cottarelli government?

YV: First, let me say that this is not a personal matter. I know Carlo Cottarelli from his days at the IMF, I worked with him in 2015, and I hold him in some personal esteem. His problem is that, unlike Mario Monti, he cannot count on anything like a parliamentary majority. His will be a stopgap, caretaker government that will hold the ‘fort’ until a new election strengthens the ultra-right further, to the detriment of migrants, progressive Italians and our common goal to turn Europe into as realm of shared prosperity.

A shorter version of this interview first appeared in Italian in Corriere Della Sera, the Italian daily on May 31, 2018.

Country or region: 
Italy
EU
Topics: 
Conflict
Democracy and government
Economics
International politics
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

Germany's falling crime rates show the left should drop identity politics

$
0
0

AfD is a far-right party which has drawn a lot of strength over the past five years by banging on about how unsafe German streets have become.

lead lead lead 31 May 2018: Stephan Brandner, AfD MP, Alexander Gauland, leader of the AFD, and AfD MP Beatrix von Storch at a press cobnference. Kay Nietfeld/ Press Association. All rights reserved.Last year crime in Germany was at an all time low according to figures taken over the last quarter of a century. This is according to 2017 statistics released by the Home Office in Berlin.

Yet, one citizen in four is worried about crime. Over twenty million Germans don't feel safe in their own country, one of the most secure and orderly places on earth. Striking numbers. Especially in the context of the highest crime-solving rates ever.

Criminologist Bernd-Rüdeger Sonnen, professor of criminal law at the university of Hamburg, was asked by the Süddeutsche Zeitung why Germany is “such an anxiety-ridden Republik.” “A minority of people have had bad experiences. Fear is fuelled by talk down the local pub or through the media,” Sonnen answered.

The worst crimes are disproportionately reported. “If you're continually confronted with harsh criminality, a distorted picture takes shape and fear levels go up,” the criminologist explained. So, whereas certain popular media like the Bild newspaper keep talking of a Messer-Epidemie, or knifing epidemic, actual killings have gone right down. Whereas certain popular media like the Bild newspaper keep talking of a Messer-Epidemie, or knifing epidemic, actual killings have gone right down.

Statistics are always to be taken with a pinch of salt. When it comes to criminality, it's invariably difficult to depict the scenario at a certain moment in time. The newly published police stats include lots of suspects, but of course only courts have the last word.

Nonetheless, Germany emerged in 2017 as a country where ordinary people can be almost guaranteed their lives will remain peaceful. It was also last year when Alternative for Germany (AfD) entered the Bundestag for the first time. AfD is a far-right party which has drawn a lot of strength over the past five years by banging on about how unsafe German streets have become. It has won many votes from the centre-right, deemed as not being tough enough on non-white and non-Christian immigrants and actually guilty of inviting them in droves; but also, and crucially, from the left too.

Social Democrats are – once more – the government junior partners of the Christian Democratic Union party. The radical Left party is stable, but also condemned to irrelevance. By now, it's crystal clear that even if progressives were to find the right words to say that Germany is indeed – on the whole – a safe place, the scores of voters they need just wouldn't listen.

These crime stats are further evidence of a deep malaise inside the wider left-leaning movement. Not just in Germany. In the wake of Italy's recent general election which has spawned a government with marked xenophobic tendencies, La Repubblica newspaper asked Mark Lilla what the left should do to regain traction among the working class, the eroded natural basin. The Columbia University professor and New York Times political analyst has a strong opinion on this to offer.

The left ought to stop doing identity politics; it need not defend every single recrimination by all minorities; it must not justify their extremism or, from time to time, acts of violence. “It seems as if [US] Democrats are not interested in regaining power,” professor Lilla told Rome's daily on 3 June. “They are into cultural values. They demand that every little group be accepted for what they are. Meanwhile, Republicans keep lording it over us.”

Lilla thinks the right is more persevering; they've built a strong base over the past thirty-five years. They've listened to people from all over, even from the smallest of counties in the back of beyond. “All along, the left has focused on identity particular-isms; it doesn't have a strong project it can boast, nor a unifying story of our national history to tell. What's the point in being right on many specific issues if in the end it's your opponents running the country instead?” “What's the point in being right on many specific issues if in the end it's your opponents running the country instead?”

In both Europe and America fewer and fewer people believe in the left. Many, taken up by fashionable post-ideological arguments, don't even bother calling it by its name. If the right says your country is not safe any more, even when evidence tells you the opposite, there's a tendency to believe such a narrative. In the absence of a reliable alternative, this was always bound to be the case. No wonder AfD managed to get into parliament eight months ago. With 92 seats, it's even the largest opposition party. With the groundwork already conveniently laid out, the task didn't require much effort anyway.

Country or region: 
Germany
EU
United States
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

Salvini and the racist immigration policy of Italy’s new government is giving a green light to racial violence

$
0
0

Soumaila Sacko was a USB trade union activist. His union had helped represent thousands of migrants working in agriculture in southern Italy.  

lead lead Soumaila Sacko's fellow workers protesting at his death in Calabria (taken by https://www.facebook.com/InfoMigrants/)

It was Saturday, June 2, the Republic Day in Italy, which celebrates the country’s abolition of the monarchy in 1946. Streets were mostly empty in the morning. Local folk were taking a rest at home on this traditionally leisurely national holiday. I was in Marsala, the west Sicilian town known for Giuseppe Garibaldi’s one-thousand-men landing on their mission to conquer the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in 1860 and the eventual unification of Italy.

On this day, as local people got ready to have their pasta lunch with families, a parallel world moved at an entirely different pace only a few miles away. Out there in the vast green fields that surround the town, Sanji and other Gambian workers were working under the fierce sun, over 30 degrees, on this early summer day. They were tidying up weeds and looking after the thriving vineyards, growing bigger and thicker by the week.

No, the Africans aren’t “taking” local jobs. Local people simply don’t want to work in the fields. They see it as beneath them. Local youth who feel there are no future prospects for employment would go to look for work and seek their fortunes in northern Italian cities or abroad. Marco, a middle-aged man born and raised in a farming family in Marsala, told me that he spent nearly two decades working hard as a hotel driver in Milan and then as a waiter in a Mexican restaurant in west London, to be able to buy homes and build a secure future for his family. He didn’t want to work on his dad’s vineyards which supplied the small local winery. He wouldn’t have what he has today – a 2,000-square-metre, beautiful country house, properties in town, and three family cars – if he had stayed on the family farm in rural Sicily.  For the young, as he was some twenty years ago, farming simply wasn’t the future they saw for themselves. Farm work is physically demanding, the working hours are too flexible, the reward traditionally small. As they say, no [local] person in their right mind would want to be toiling on farms. Naturally, someone else with less options in life, like Sanji and his fellow Gambians, would come and make up for the shortage.

Pack your bag

Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy’s far-right party La Lega (The League, which used to be called the Northern League) and the country’s new deputy prime minister and interior minister who is now in charge of immigration, said that “the good time for illegal immigrants is coming to an end”. Firstly, Salvini has never set foot in a Sicilian farm. No one in their right mind would say that toiling in the fields in southern Italy is a “good time”. Besides, who are the “illegal immigrants” he is talking about? Displaced people who risk their lives to escape conflicts and poverty and end up being treated as commodities in reception camps and having to wait indefinitely for their documents? The people upon whom Italy’s agriculture has depended but refused to reward their labour like that of fellow human beings?

Vineyards, Marsala (taken by Hsiao-Hung). All rights reserved.For the long day’s work they do in the fields, Sanji and other African workers are paid two to four euros, per hour, depending on the individual agreement they have with the individual farmers. There are no rules about it and how much you earn for your labour is simply a matter of “luck”. And when bad luck comes to you and the farmer decides to renege on the deal, you don’t get paid at all. Whether you happen to be working during Ramadan and enduring the whole working day without food and water is none of the farmer’s slightest concern.

Despite the poor working terms and conditions, many African workers have to accept the unacceptable. There was, literally, no choice, as most other work opportunities are denied them. Therefore, no matter how bad things are, they will always return to work during harvests. By the autumn, when these vineyards in Marsala and elsewhere are ready, the farmers will never be short of workers.

Soumaila Sacko

On the evening of the Republic Day, after the African workers in Marsala broke their fast, had dinner and exchanged greetings with their families and friends on social media, they got to hear the news about the horrific racist murder of a 29-year-old young Malian man named Soumaila Sacko who lived in a makeshift camp on the outskirts of San Fernando, in the province of Reggio Calabria in southern Italy. His camp sprang up after local residents’ violent “ethnic cleansing” where three migrant workers were shot with an air rifle, many were beaten and more than fifty injured in January 2010, prompting hundreds of migrant workers to flee town. Since the new camp was set up, the site had always gathered at least 3,000 migrant workers during the harvest season, with the same appalling living conditions and no protection for health and safety. Back in January, Becky Moses, a 26-year-old Nigerian woman, was killed in a fire there.

Sacko’s murder shocked, angered and traumatized not only his fellow workers, but also migrant farm workers beyond Calabria. No one could ignore the fact that Sacko was murdered just hours after Salvini was sworn in as the country’s deputy prime minister and interior minister, the man who had built a political career on inciting racial hatred.

“The good times for illegals is over; Get ready to pack your bag,” Salvini declared. During his visit to Catania and Pozzallo in Sicily the following day, for the purpose of rallying support for his party in municipal elections in late June and consolidating his anti-migrant platform, he said that “refugee camps have to end.”

The new government, Salvini said, will set out to increase the number of detention centres in order to deport their pledged 500,000 “illegal immigrants” (assuming Italy was able to sign deportation agreements with all the countries involved). This is on top of the fact that the previous centre-left government had already reduced the total number of incoming migrants by 75% by signing deals with factions and militias in Libya which helped trap tens of thousands of Africans inside Libyan detention prisons and enabled the most horrific human rights violations. The new government, with the far-right at its centre, most certainly does not care about the tremendous human suffering of the proposed deportations. When questioned about the fiscal costs, Salvini hinted at the possibility of transferring the current state resources allocated for reception camps to the use of funding deportation, which currently doesn’t look remotely affordable in Italy.

Edge of society

This is the extremely hostile environment in which “outsiders” from the Third World find themselves in this country. “Migrants”, “refugees”, “illegal immigrants”, whatever the label might be, they are sure to be talked about and decided upon like objects. They are truly, in the eyes of the “Italians first” ideologues, lesser humans.

Soumaila Sacko had lived in this hostile climate in Italy since 2010 and saw that things had got to change. He began to campaign for rights for fellow migrant workers. During his time working in the fields picking fruits in San Fernando, he was a USB trade union activist. His union had helped represent thousands of migrants working in agriculture in southern Italy.  

On Republic Day, Sacko wanted to help his two friends and walked with them to San Calogero a few kilometres away, to collect scrap metal from a disused factory, so that they could build their shack in the tent area where they lived in San Ferdinando. This is the norm for migrant farm workers’ living conditions across Italy: they have to build their own shacks and tents with no basic facilities, because farmers do not provide accommodation to them, despite being legally obligated to do so. The horrendous exploitation on the farms and appalling living conditions have utterly segregated African workers from society; it has created ghettoes in which African workers enjoy no healthcare and no institutional labour protection. The tent area where Sacko and his friends lived was one of Italy’s biggest ghettoes. Living on the very edge of society means that life is filled with real, day-to-day risks to personal well-being and safety. Around these segregated communities, African workers often encounter direct racism, racial harassment and at times racial violence.

That night, when Sacko and his two friends had picked up three metal sheets for their shack, a white man drove up and fired at them, four times, with a shotgun. Sacko was hit in the head; he couldn’t be saved and died in hospital. A young man and a well-respected activist. He had his whole life in front of him. Racism brutally took it away.

In response to this most despicable racist murder, the USB called a strike the following Monday, and Sacko’s outraged co-workers all joined protesting at his death. The union also called for a nationwide demonstration on June 17, to demand dignified living and working conditions for migrant workers in Italy. The union’s leader, Ababacur Sauomaoure, said the union demands truth and justice for Sacko. He has a message for Salvini: “Your good days will come to an end. Because we will fight back.”

Sideboxes
Country or region: 
Italy
EU
Topics: 
Civil society
Culture
Democracy and government
Economics
International politics
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

A call for the revival of political and economic education

$
0
0

Political and economic education is pitiful, and via political parties, the education system and trade unions, it desperately needs to be revived.

Christchurch City Libraries/Flickr. CC (by-nc-nd)

One way we participate in democracy is by voting. Another may be protesting, or through supporting some trade union action. However we engage, we are doing so armed with some knowledge about the current state of affairs, and having made a judgement on how we would like them to be in the future. For all of government’s calls for us to be active citizens, engaging in a healthy democracy, it is less clear how we are expected to acquire the knowledge required to be adequately informed. Current political and economic education is pitiful in this country, and via political parties, the education system and trade unions, it desperately needs to be revived.

After the age of 14, students in the UK need never study history, geography or English literature, subjects that are often a gateway into study of politics and economics (which are seldom available at GCSE level). Those who are studying economics and politics at post-14, post-16, and at university level are overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly white, and overwhelmingly from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Unsurprisingly, this is the demographic working professionally in politics and economics today.

What is left for those who don’t happen to come from the backgrounds that choose these subjects? Bundled together in a bizarre mix there is the non-statutory subject (although there are calls for this to change) of personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) - a.k.a. sex ed alongside personal finance. PSHE is often sidelined within schools with the economics part of it sidelined further still, and often given only a few minutes a week, with reports of it never being covered at all.

In an attempt to remedy this, in 2002 the subject of ‘citizenship’ was made compulsory. Branded a ‘national joke’ by many, citizenship is treated in much the same way as PSHE, delivered by untrained teachers who are under a lot of pressure to make sure students get higher grades on ‘core’ subjects. In other words, our education system is organised in such a way that PSHE and citizenship are luxury subjects - to be taught once all the ‘proper’ education has taken place. How can we expect to diversify our political elite whilst treating political and economic education with such contempt?

How can we expect to diversify our political elite whilst treating political and economic education with such contempt?

One answer may lie with trade unions. There is a long and sadly diminishing tradition of trade union education in this country, most notably scuppered by Thatcher’s break with the post-war social consensus in 1979. Prior to the second world war, political education was provided most notably by the Workers' Educational Association (WEA) (founded in 1903), and the National Council of Labour Colleges (NCLC). After the second world war they were joined by organisations such as the TUC Education Scheme, and by initiatives such as the shop stewards training scheme.

The history of these organisations is long and complex, but what they did provide was education for adults that better equipped workers and those without work to better understand the economic and political forces that shaped their lives. They helped to explain everything from the history of political parties in the UK to what real wages are. The topics covered in the courses provided by these groups seems more pertinent than ever today. For example, consider how the recent UCU pension strike may have unfolded differently had everyone both directly and indirectly involved had a solid grounding of the exact purpose of pensions, and their moral and ethical rationale?

There are many questions to be answered when it comes to political and economic education. What, for example, is its primary purpose? Is it to emancipate the working class and give them the tools to be middle class? Or is it to overthrow the middle class? The answer to these questions will shine light on who we, as a society, believe should provide the education, and who should be given the power to check it for biases and inaccuracies. There are of course many groups who are already having this debate - Economy, Momentum, ShoutOutUK, Rethinking Economics and the PSHE Association to name a few. However, these groups are pitifully underfunded, and still exist on the fringes of mainstream debate. We urgently need to move this discussion onto the national stage. It has the potential to radically alter how we each view our place in society, what our leaders of tomorrow will look like and significantly improve the state of our democracy.

If you would like to respond to this piece and contribute to the series, please email us at beyond.slavery@opendemocracy.net

Sideboxes
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

Let battle commence! Matt Hancock approves both bidders for Sky

$
0
0

Sky shareholders look set for a bonanza summer – but what do the latest twists and turns in the Sky saga mean for news viewers?

Image: David Jones/PA Images, all rights reserved.

Culture Secretary Matt Hancock announced on Tuesday June 5th that he would not intervene in the bid by US cable giant Comcast to buy Sky – and also that he had approved a proposal from 21st Century Fox to sell Sky News to Disney if it was allowed to buy the rest of Sky.

The scene in the House of Commons on Tuesday for the ministerial statement was novel in one sense. Tom Watson was still leading for Labour, but was a “shadow” of his former self: 6 stone lighter than the old heavyweight version. And Matt Hancock, previously number 2 to Karen Bradley at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), was now ensconced in a cabinet seat, his predecessor having transferred to Northern Ireland as a side-product of one of Theresa May’s regular resignation crises.

Hancock confirmed what media analysts had already worked out: that he had no good reason to block Comcast’s attempt to buy Sky, and that one of the many remedies Fox and Sky had proposed as a way round objections to their merger from the Competition and Markets Authority had found favour with the CMA.

It is 16 months since Fox started this saga, with a £10-75 per share offer for Sky, and four months since Comcast topped that, with its £12-50 a share bid. Fox, already in possession of 39% of the shares, looks to have a head start: but Comcast has stated that it would be content with 50%+1 of the equity, allowing independent owners of Sky’s shares to bypass the Fox position if they wanted the higher amount. Assuming Fox completes its paperwork with the DCMS on the Disney disposal, and the outcome survives a final 15-day public consultation, by the beginning of July, battle will commence.

Why should any of us care?

There have been two key issues in this story. The first has been the determination of those who hate or distrust the Murdochs to prevent them buying Sky at all (their past behaviour having been too reprehensible) – a campaign led by Avaaz, Hacked Off and the three musketeers (Labour’s Ed Miliband, Vince Cable of the LibDems and Tory veteran Ken Clarke). They have failed to stop the overall transaction (though Avaaz has one last throw of the judicial review system to go), but the doubts they have raised have turned control of Sky News into a battlefield of its own.

Sky News has a very small share of the UK news consumption market (around 5%). Although companies controlled by the Murdochs have, over the 30 years of the existence of Sky News (during which time they have pumped some £500 million into running the service), owned variously 100% of Sky, 50% and 39%, no-one can produce a single instance of their having interfered in its editorial processes.

Nonetheless, both Ofcom (in its initial report on the Fox bid) and the CMA in its own reports have cited a theoretical possibility that Murdoch newspapers (owned 100% by NewsCorp, itself 39% controlled by the Murdochs) and Sky News (under 100% Fox ownership, again 39% controlled by the Murdochs) might “take a similar approach on specific topics or issues, push certain stories, or downplay others”. Neither regulator explained how this could be done, when any expression of views by Sky News would be a breach of its licence; nor whether, if the seeming co-ordination was a matter of matching up news agendas, such behaviour would be contrary to the Broadcasting Code (in which case it could be sanctioned) or not (in which case, what was the problem?).

Blood under the bridge

All this is blood under the bridge. Ofcom and the CMA have concluded that 100% Fox ownership of Sky News was too problematic to be allowed to happen without powerful remedies.

Fox offered three: a firewall for Sky News inside Sky; a ring-fenced stand-alone entity called Sky News within the Sky business, legally, financially, physically and operationally separate; or a divestment of that entity to a third party – specifically, Disney (which has agreed to buy much of the Fox business, including Sky, in a separate deal).

It is highly likely that Sky News (as we know to be true of Sky itself) would have preferred to keep the news channel inside the mother-ship, contenting itself with long-term financial guarantees and a robust set of protections for its editorial independence. The further it was separated from the main business, the higher the risk over time that the news operation would be marginalised.

The CMA operates to a different logic. What it calls “behavioural remedies” require continuing monitoring and involvement: which is why it favours “structural remedies”, capable of “fixing” a problem instantly. As it happens, even a disposal of Sky News to Disney after a Fox takeover of Sky would take at least 3 months, and the 411-page CMA report published on Tuesday (available on the CMA website) concludes with a complicated graphic trying to capture all the moving parts in even this favoured remedy.

Fade away?

And then, of course, there is Comcast. Although it has also given undertakings to the DCMS about the future of Sky News (matching some of those from Fox), it is hard to see how these could be legally enforceable if there has been no intervention in its bid for Sky. Indeed, what might suit Comcast would be for Fox to win the battle for Sky, and sell on the loss-making Sky News to Disney, whilst Comcast then outbids Disney for the larger Fox deal (including the rest of Sky). It might then suit both Disney and Comcast quietly to let Sky News fade away (each already owns a major US news broadcaster: ABC in the Disney stable, NBC in Comcast’s).

Essentially, what the CMA, Ofcom, Matt Hancock, Tom Watson, Avaaz, Hacked Off and the three musketeers have succeeded in doing is to consign Sky News to remote US ownership: either to Disney or Comcast, neither having any real interest in a loss-making minor player in the UK media scene. How that is a better outcome than trusting the Murdochs – who launched Sky News in 1988 in the face of a wall of hostility, sustained it after the launch of BBC News 24 had made it permanently unprofitable, and continuously re-invested in it both in terms of infrastructure and personnel even when the majority of Sky shareholders were offering to close the service in order to engineer a merger transaction – well, that somewhat bemuses me.

But that’s politics! When Tom Watson name-checked Adam Boulton and Kay Burley (Kay Burley!) as exemplars of the excellence of Sky News, it was impossible to tell how far into his now-slim cheeks his tongue had been pushed. (Kay Burley’s pugnacious presenting style once made her a bogey figure for Labour voters.)

Sky shareholders look as if they will have a bonanza summer, on the assumption that Fox will have to bid at least 10% above the Comcast offer to get back into the game – perhaps more, if it wants to deter Comcast from coming back with another, higher, bid. As for Sky News, its medium-term future looks assured. But long term? That’s another story.

Sideboxes
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

The Argentinian Green Tide: The right to abort is being won on the streets

$
0
0

Feminist activism in Argentina has managed to introduce a series of public hearings on reproductive rights on the legislative agenda. The debate now reaches the nation's Congress. Español 

"Green tide" feminist demonstration infront of the Congress of the Argentine Republic. Photo: Julieta Bugacoff. All rights reserved.

The 10th of April 2018 will be forever recognised as the day in which, in the entire history of feminist activism in Argentina, the debate regarding the legalisation and depenalisation of abortion was finally discussed through a series of public hearings. This precedes the debate that will take place in Congress for the first time.

Eight projects have been presented, and the one with the most potential is the National Campaign for the Right to Abort, presented on the 6th of March by activists and feminist groups.

Under the name of Draft Bill for Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancies, it is the seventh project presented by the Campaign in seven years.

It understands abortion as a right that can be exercised at the request of the carrier of the child until the 14 week point, and until the end of the pregnancy in three cases (pregnancy as a result of rape, danger to the life and physical/mental health of the woman, and foetal malformations). 

It does not consider institutional or individual conscientious objection and it additionally includes abortion in the Obligatory Medical Program (PMO). The Ministry of Health created the PMO in 2002, after the economic crisis of 2001.

Said program guarantees the entire population access to basic medical services for the conservation of their health. 

It’s a tide, a green windstorm that floods everything: the streets, schools, trade unions, homes, theatres, poetry readings, beds. Seeing the green scarf on another is like a sign of solidarity, it’s like saying “we’re fighting for the same”.

In many cities throughout the country mobilisation can be found. The debate is omnipresent, and it is becoming enriched by every activist that speaks up: “legalisation alone or also depenalisation?”, “Don’t forget to include carriers of children who do not define themselves as women”, “Let’s use arguments that don’t depart from the basis of eugenics”, “The most important thing is the freedom to choose what to do with your own body and that the state respects that decision”. 

Photo: Julieta Bugacoff

In her exposition before Congress, journalist Mariana Carbajal indicated that every day, 135 women are interned in public hospitals for problems relating to voluntary interruption of pregnancy and that two out of ten of these women are 19 years old or younger.

She added: “abortion already exists: around 450,000 women resort to this practice every year. Criminalisation doesn’t persuade them not to abort. The only thing it achieves is to put their lives at risk”. 

“Because it’s a democratic deficit. Because we decide what to do with our bodies. Because we’re going to win this in the streets” is what is said throughout various actions outside the Congress building and in various plazas across the country.

‘Pañuelazos’, protests which involve hoisting up a green scarf as a flag of battle, poetry readings, signing of documents, and talks are the result of years of feminist activism seeking to include abortion on the public agenda as a matter of health and public policy. 

Picture for supplement Soy: Sebastián Freire

For the first time, the Law of Gender Identity is referred to in a draft bill regarding abortion presented by the National Campaign. It is also the first time the voices of trans men with the ability to carry a child are heard.

“Legal abortion for trans men” is the demand that many bring to the table, and add to a debate that has been largely cis thus far. Trans men that decide to abort must confront a double disadvantage: the fact that abortion is illegal, and the issue of having to deny their gender identity as to avoid mistreatment by those who attend to them.

The photo above was the cover of the diversity supplement of newspaper Página 12 from the 20th April 2018, becoming yet another milestone in this story. 

Photo: Julieta Bugacoff

Mabel Gabarra, lawyer and member of the National Campaign, indicated that the Campaign demands a laic state to come into effect: “Legislators and governors can’t let religious principles prevail since they must guarantee the right to freedom of consciousness and the right of all to take free and responsible decisions”.

Photo: Julieta Bugacoff

Activists claim that the state should guarantee the provision of birth control for those who wish to avoid unwanted pregnancies, the implementation of a full program of sex education, and a reproductive health system able to attend those in need without mistreatment, discrimination and penalisation. 

In the month of June, the draft bills will be considered in Congress, and regardless of the outcome, the high degree of involvement of different societal actors in this debate and the different actions that have been carried out have shown that the discussion regarding reproductive rights in Argentina will never be the same again.

There’s a different air, new protagonists participating, and this makes the patriarchy stagger along with the fundamentalisms that sustain it.

Sideboxes
Topics: 
Civil society
Conflict
Culture
Democracy and government
Equality
Ideas
International politics
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

The migrant-led activism stamping out racial hostility in the UK

$
0
0

Meet the pro-migrant individuals, groups and organisations who are working tirelessly to counter this government’s anti-immigrant policies, pro-Brexit propaganda, and ‘hostile environment’.

Image: IWGB picketing outside University of London. Credit: IWGB.

Images of ‘that’ poster depicting desperate refugees rambling to reach Europe, accompanied with the headline ‘Breaking Point’, designed to whip up a frenzy of pro-Brexit, anti-migrant prejudice, will be engrained on Britain’s consciousness for a very long time. As will the decision to leave the EU, driven in part through this widespread anti-immigration sentiment and fear that freedom of movement is responsible for taking the ‘great’ out of Great Britain.

The Windrush scandal has pushed Britain’s harsh immigration policies into the limelight, forcing one ministerial resignation and an apology from the government. But people who have lived and worked hard in Britain for many years are still losing their jobs, homes, being denied NHS treatment, and even being torn away from their families. Then there’s the relentless drive to make life as difficult as possible for illegal immigrants. Post EU referendum, the number of enforced removals and detentions of all foreign nationals, including EU citizens, has risen sharply. Government figures show 5,301 EU nationals were removed during the year ending 2017, a 20% increase on the previous year and the highest figure since records began. Equally distressing is the six-fold increase in the number of EU citizens being detained since 2009.

So this is Theresa May’s hostile environment.

And it is encouraging a wave of migrant-led activism. Pro-migrant individuals, groups and organisations are working tirelessly to counter the harsh consequences our intimidating Home Office, anti-immigrant policies, pro-Brexit propaganda, and purpose-built ‘hostile environment’, are creating.

The3million – challenging Brexit-based apprehension

One such individual and organisation is Katia Widlak and The3Million, the largest grassroots organisation of EU citizens living in the UK. The3million is a not-for-profit organisation, founded after the Brexit referendum to help protect the lives of EU citizens who call Britain their home.

The organisation’s name derives from the estimated number of EU citizens who have moved from another EU country to live and work in Britain.

Katia Widlak, a UNISON organiser and chair of the board of trustees of the3million, explained:

“We aim to help EU citizens, as well as British citizens living in other EU member states, retain as many rights as possible and to give them a voice. We don’t side with a particular political party, to enable us to speak to as broad a spectrum of people as possible. The3million offers a support network for EU citizens living in Britain and engages with public sector organisations and businesses to support the rights of EU workers.”

Katia’s organisation is concerned at how Brexit-based uncertainty and apprehension is overwhelming EU citizens living in the UK, as well as UK citizens living in other member states, who are equally uncertain and concerned about their future rights in their chosen EU country.

And even before Windrush confirmed it, ministers have shown how out of touch they were on immigration. The 3Million was notably unimpressed with the former Home Secretary’s Rudd’s comparison of the complex EU registration process to setting up an account with the luxury retailer, L.K. Bennett.

Referring to the Windrush scandal, Katia asked:

“How on earth is it possible that things like this are happening in the UK?”

With the uncertainty surrounding EU citizens’ rights after Brexit in March 2019, Katia fears the recent local elections might have been the last chance for EU citizens to vote in UK local elections, so one key activity The3million has been recently involved in was raising awareness of EU citizens voting rights. “The3million campaigners have been busy on Britain’s streets handing out leaflets, posters and flyers to make people aware that all EU citizens can vote, and how to register to vote if they have not yet registered,” said Katia.

The Racial Justice Network - “what we see now is UK neo-apartheid”

The Racial Justice Network is another organisation battling to counter the hostile political narrative escalating within Britain. The Racial Justice Network is aimed at promoting racial justice across Leeds and further afield.

The Network brings together more than 30 organisations and individuals from around the region of Leeds to help stamp out racial injustice and promote equality for all. It aims to proactively counter the hostile narrative through research, training and information on key legislation, strategy and policy, to “empower its members to challenge racial injustice and inequality.”

Penny Wangari-Jones is a race and social justice activist and campaigner for the Racial Justice Network. Penny, who is based in Bradford, spoke of people’s anger at the still hostile narrative around race in Britain:

“We are shocked and horrified when we think of the laws that existed with regards to slavery, colonisation and segregation in previous centuries, yet what we see now is UK neo-apartheid in the twenty-first century…the hostile environment segregates migrant communities from the rest of society in terms of rights, entitlements and compassion for their suffering.”

Penny says it is important to channel such anger and energy constructively in order to make a difference.

“People are angry, and we need to use that energy by training people on how to run effective campaigns to challenge racism.”

The culture of racism and hostility that has been escalating in Britain since the EU referendum is impacting ethnic minorities, says Penny. She tells of how in Bradford, for example, women are taking their headscarves off when picking their children up from school, because of the racial antagonism brewing in their locality.

“Many individuals are fearful of asserting their own cultural identity on the UK’s streets,”, she comments. “The Windrush scandal, detention, deportations have woken a lot of people to what has been happening to often unheard and vulnerable individuals in isolation…apart from it toppling Amber Rudd who was a foster mum to Theresa May’s baby, we must not forget that [May] is still in power and the policy is still in action until we as humans put humans before monetary gains,” said Penny.

In her video titled ‘5 Ways to Disrupt Racism’, Penny Wangari-Jones’ speaks of the huge rise in racism after Brexit and what we can do about it. The video, which went viral, provides advice on what people should do if they witness a racist attack, including filming the incident if it is safe to do so and then reporting it to the police or hate crime reporting centres.

IWGB - Direct action works

Another organisation working tirelessly to improve the lives of migrants in the UK is the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB). The IWGB is a fully independent trade union aimed at eradicating discriminatory working conditions for low paid migrant workers in London, predominantly from Latin America, who are being exploited by employers in industries like cleaning, driving and security.

Henry Chango Lopez is the President of IWGB. Henry moved to the UK from Ecuador in 2000. He became a member of the IWGB while working as a porter at the University of London and decided to join them alongside many of his colleagues who, at the time, were members of Unison.

“We left Unison and joined the IWGB to campaign for better terms and conditions for all the outsourced workers at the University of London. We left Unison because they were unhelpful and were putting barriers instead of helping us to campaign to improve things in our working place,” said Henry Chango Lopez.

The IWGB’s President believes that in many cases, unfair pay and working conditions in the UK is a racist attack on migrant workers.

“At the University of London, for instance, all the outsourced workers who are BME have worse pay and worse terms and conditions compared to direct employed staff who are mostly British white. That is also the case in many workplaces where we represent members and where we have been campaigning for better pay and better conditions of employment,” said Henry.

The IWGB organises protests, demonstrations, strikes and campaigns, devoted to challenging unfair working conditions among migrants, as well as employment law related to the gig economy in Britain.

Earlier this year, the organisation announced it was to hold the biggest ever strike of outsourced workers in the UK’s higher education history, with hundreds of outsourced workers of the University of London striking for higher pay and an end to outsourcing and to zero-hours.

According to Henry, the strikes, protests and social media campaigns the IWGB runs are having a positive impact in improving the rights of migrant workers in Britain.

“We have shown that direct action, social media help and pressure from the workers and supporters really works. In fact, we have good track record of winning campaigns and improving workers conditions and pay through using these tactics,” said Henry Chango Lopez.

So where now?

The government appears shamefully reluctant to ditch its absurd target to reduce net migration to “tens of thousands”. As for its objective to turn Britain into such a “hostile environment” that illegal immigrants have little choice but to be driven out, the new rebranding as a “compliant environment” so far has been accompanied by little real change.

Britain has become dependent on migrant-led, anti-xenophobia campaigns like those of the3Million, the Racial Justice Network and the IWGB to actively and urgently fight the racial intolerance plaguing the nation. To stop migrant workers being exploited by employers, and to ensure everyone who calls Britain home has the information, advice and support to provide them with the reassurance and security they need.

As Penny commented:

“Racial Justice Network and other migrant led activism will continue shouting from the rooftops about the injustices, but we need support from allies and communities at large to ensure these policies are abolished.”

Sideboxes
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

Trading sovereignty: how Ukraine's Pension Fund co-operates with the Russian authorities

$
0
0

By sending official information requests to the Russian authorities, Ukraine's Pension Fund de-facto recognises Russian jurisdiction in occupied Crimea. RU

A visitor at the pension fund in Simferopol. Photo: Alexei Malgavko / RIA Novosti. All rights reserved.Even as the Russian Federation continues to pursue military aggression in Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine’s Pension Fund is engaging in intensive communications with its counterpart body in Russia in order to establish whether Crimean residents who have applied for a pension in Ukraine are also receiving one in the occupied territory.

Whose pensioners?

Following the forcible annexation of Crimea in March 2014, a certain percentage of the peninsula’s inhabitants left their homes and relocated to mainland Ukraine, with some departing immediately and others some time later. Given that pensioners also had to leave Crimea, the payment of pensions became an issue.

According to Ukrainian legislation, pensioners departing the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine (parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Crimea) and the zone of hostilities in the Donbas have the right to receive pensions in their new place of settlement throughout the rest of Ukraine. Pension payments for internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the Donbas were commenced almost immediately – back in 2015, in fact. But the Ukrainian Pension Fund altered the procedure for the granting of pensions to displaced persons from Crimea, acting in disregard of current legislation and doing so on its own initiative.

A “rule” concocted by the Pension Fund dictates that a pensioner displaced from Crimea can only be granted a pension once an official inquiry has been sent to the Russian Federation to ascertain whether said pensioner received a pension in Russia while living in occupied Crimea. Officials in Moscow scrutinise documents in detail before putting together a response for Kyiv. If it transpires that the Russian Federation has been paying out a pension to a given person, the Ukrainian Pension Fund refuses to issue one. “Fair enough!” one might say. “Two pensions – one from Russia, one from Ukraine? That really is a bit much, isn’t it?” But this brand of “fairness”, arbitrarily instituted by Ukrainian officials, can end up having serious consequences for Ukrainian citizens. To say nothing of the fact that actions of this ilk represent a gross violation of human rights.

Sending official inquiries to the occupying authorities in Crimea is forbidden by Ukrainian law. Indeed, there is no postal service from Ukraine to Crimea. And this is why the Pension Fund resorts to subterfuge. Inquiries are sent to Moscow, Voronezh and Krasnodar region, from where they are redirected to Crimea by the Russian Federation’s Pension Fund. It’s noteworthy that the payment documents which the Ukrainian Pension Fund uses as a basis to refuse pensions are invariably issued by the Pension Fund in the so-called “Republic of Crimea” – and this despite the fact that all documentation issued by the occupation authorities has been recognised as void by Ukrainian legislation. The documents are then sent back the way they came: from annexed Crimea to Moscow and then to Ukraine.

Awarded doesn’t mean paid

The responses sent by the Russian Pension Fund to its Ukrainian counterpart are very vague, specifying only whether or not a pension has been awarded. And since the Russian Pension Fund provides no primary financial documentation (namely, payment receipts), it ultimately remains unclear whether or not a given resident of Crimea has ever actually received a pension from the Russian Federation. “Awarded” doesn’t mean “paid”.

The Ukrainian Pension Fund fails to question the information received from its Russian counterpart

After the so-called “accession” of Crimea into the Russian Federation, the Russian authorities needed to resolve the peninsula’s pensions issue, and to do so quickly. They didn’t spend a long time delving into the details: rather, they simply awarded the same amount multiplied by two (the rouble equivalent of the hryvnia figure). The money was awarded even if the individual had left Crimea.

The whole absurdity of this situation manifested itself when pension awards were made to people who had passed away. The relatives of a late Crimean resident, whose case was handled by lawyers from the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, appealed to the Ukrainian Pension Fund and requested that it pay out an as yet unreceived installment of her pension for the period when she was still alive and residing in mainland Ukraine. It turned out, according to information from Russia’s Pension Fund, that the woman was awarded pension payments for two years after her departure from Crimea, and for eight months after her actual death.

The Ukrainian Pension Fund fails to question the information received from its Russian counterpart – which, to put it mildly, is rather strange, given that Ukraine and Russia are in a de facto state of war.

Disclosure of personal data

When it sends an inquiry to Russia, the Ukrainian Pension Fund specifies the current address of the pensioner who has relocated from Crimea to Ukraine; in effect, then, it officially informs the occupying country about a particular resident’s departure from Crimea to Ukrainian-controlled territory. The pensioner’s personal information is sent to Russia without their consent. Why this is done remains unclear: the pensioner’s mainland address doesn’t need to be specified to obtain the relevant information from Russia, and doing so represents a gross incursion into a citizen’s private life.

Request to the pension fund from the Ukrainian side. Material is provided by the author.

According to Anna Rassamakhina, a lawyer for the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union who regularly represents the interests of displaced Crimeans in Ukrainian courts, the Ukrainian authorities have (as of December 2017) handed over the personal data of 2,700 Crimean residents – all of them citizens of Ukraine – to their Russian counterparts; the fact of the residents’ displacement is communicated to the Russians together with a notification of their new address. Some of the displaced Crimean pensioners are also Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) veterans. And so arises the question: why is people’s personal data being handed over to third parties without their knowledge or consent? It’s hard to believe that the Ukrainian Pension Fund is unaware that its actions are, at the very least, in violation of Ukraine’s personal data protection law. Or are we dealing with simple negligence here?

Specifying citizens’ addresses represents a gross incursion into their private lives

Over the course of several years (from 2015 to July 2017), officials did their best to pretend that there was really nothing out of the ordinary about handing over the personal information of displaced Crimean residents, some of them ATO soldiers, to an aggressor country. Things began to change slightly only after Pavlo Dovbush, a displaced Crimean and a member of the Aidar volunteer battalion, enlisted the help of lawyers from the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union to bring legal action against Oksana Syvch, the head of the office of pensions provision for military personnel and certain other categories of citizens at the Lviv branch of the Pension Fund. The action was brought because personal data had been unlawfully disclosed and handed over to the FSB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. Dovbush won the first-instance trial, and an administrative fine was imposed on Oksana Sivch. The appellate court revoked this ruling, however. But in July 2017 the leadership of the Pension Fund in Kyiv, fearful of a public outcry, instructed that the current Ukrainian addresses of pensioners from Crimea must not be specified.

And here’s another interesting nuance: the declarations pensioners are made to sign by Ukrainian Pension Fund officials feature requests to transfer their pension files from the Pension Fund of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The applicants are told that their files will be transferred from the Crimea to Ukraine, yet no mention is made of the fact that said files will be processed by the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation – which already constitutes a deliberate deception on the part of the Ukrainian authorities.

Does the Pension Fund recognise the annexation?

To find out how the Ukrainian Pension Fund rationalises its position, and why it is engaging in communications with its Russian counterpart, I sent an information request to Elena Okhrimenko, deputy director of the Pensions Department. On 8 May, 2018 I received a response from Irina Kovpashko, the deputy chair of the Pension Fund board, in which the Fund’s actions are justified with reference to the pension provision agreement that currently exists between countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

This agreement stipulates that if a pensioner relocates from one CIS country to another, the pension can only be paid out by one of the countries in question. Does it follow, then, that Crimea – officially recognised by Ukraine as temporarily occupied Ukrainian territory (as per the “Law on Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime on the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine”) – is, in the eyes of the Pension Fund, now another country, that is, a constituent part of Russia? If so, the Pension Fund of Ukraine de-facto recognises Russian jurisdiction in Crimea.

The Pension Fund of Ukraine de-facto recognises Russian jurisdiction in Crimea

The Pension Fund also cites Resolution No. 234 of Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers, which supposedly authorises the sending of inquiries to Russia. Once again, however, it is guilty of prevarication: as Anna Rassamakhina notes, the resolution doesn’t apply to displaced persons from Crimea. Which means that the aforementioned procedure of sending pension calculation inquiries to Russia is provided for neither by Ukrainian legislation, nor international instruments. Rather, it is the result of a decision arbitrarily taken by the Pension Fund of Ukraine.

What is to be done?

Some of the displaced Crimean pensioners have asserted their rights in court: the actions of the Ukrainian Pension Fund have been declared illegal by the Shevchenko and Podil District Courts in Kyiv, as well as the Busk District Court in Lviv region. In and of themselves, however, these positive rulings have failed to solve the problem. As UHHRU lawyers (who are alone in taking such cases on) assert, most of the rulings aren’t actually executed – Kyiv prohibits the Pension Fund authorities from executing them on the ground. In addition, not all pensioners can afford to go to court: the average monthly pension in Ukraine is around €70.

Though Ukrainian pensioners do prevail in the majority of cases fought against the Pension Fund, a systematic solution to the problem is a different matter entirely. Because precedent law does not exist in Ukraine, older displaced persons are forced to defend their rights through the courts on an individual basis. A few possess the requisite energy, knowledge and resources to muster a legal challenge; the majority, however, do not.

Correspondence between the Pension Fund of Ukraine and the Russian authorities. Material is provided by the author.

In the main, pensioners are not aware that the truth is on their side. After all, Ukrainian Pension Fund officials threaten to hold them criminally liable for being in receipt of two pensions simultaneously. Here’s a typical example, as provided by Anna Rassamakhina. A Crimean resident relocated to mainland Ukraine and appealed to the Pension Fund to resume her pension payments, only to be told that her paper file must first be requested from Russia. The pensioner’s file was never located, and she ended up travelling to Russia to find it herself. Since Ukrainian officials were constantly looking for pretexts not to award the woman a pension in Ukraine, there was no option left to her, now exhausted and browbeaten, but to formalise the pension in Russia.

The solution to this problem must be a systemic, structural one. To obtain information about the pensioners’ work histories – pensioners from Crimea included – the Ukrainian Pension Fund doesn’t necessarily have to send inquiries to Russia. There’s an alternative means of doing so, and one enshrined in Resolutions Nos. 365 and 637 of the Ukrainian government. These resolutions stipulate that pensions payments to displaced persons can be resumed in accordance with data from a digital pension file (as opposed to a paper one) containing the full gamut of information essential for calculating pensions payments. The Pension Fund is authorised to request such a file from the Computing Centre of the Ukrainian Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine. All the necessary mechanisms exist, then, and they’re legislatively enshrined – but fail to work in practice, and the Ukrainian Pension Fund continues to abuse power and violate the law.

Scrimping on sovereignty

Ukraine has been unable to guarantee sovereignty and territorial integrity for its citizens. The Ukrainian state cannot therefore refuse to pay out pensions simply because certain residents have found themselves in occupied territory and have been forced to live under conditions imposed upon them by the occupying country.

According to Anna Rassamakhina, the Pension Fund’s actions are primarily motivated by the desire to save budget funds. This state of affairs epitomises the totalitarian-style thinking and approach of the Fund’s officials, not least because the amounts involved are almost laughable: approximately €70 in Ukraine, €120 euros in occupied Crimea (as paid out by Russia).

According to Crimean pensioners, meanwhile, the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation suspends payments on the peninsula the moment it learns from its Ukrainian counterpart that a given pensioner is receiving a pension in Ukraine. It would appear that the Pension Fund in Crimea is just as paranoiacally afraid of the possibility of Crimeans receiving two pensions at the same time.

Ukraine will be able to assert with confidence that it has moved beyond totalitarian-style thinking only when its officials respond to Russian inquiries regarding Crimeans in receipt of pensions in mainland Ukraine by declaring that they’ve no business communicating confidential information to a country that has illegally occupied Crimea. For the time being, however, Ukraine continues to sell off its sovereignty – and to betray its own citizens for peanuts.

 

Sideboxes
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

In memory of Razan al Najjar: Steve Bell's cartoon

$
0
0

An Israeli army sniper shot the 21-year-old nurse while she was trying to care for injured protestors in Gaza. This is Steve Bell's tribute to her.

Steve Bell revised this cartoon to avoid causing unintended offence; more information here. All rights reserved.Razan al Najjar was a 21-year-old Palestinian nurse volunteering with the medical crews attending protesters hit by Israel Defense Forces' sniper fire during the ten-week protests at the Gaza border.

Called by the organisers the "Great March of Return", ("مسیرة العودة الكبري"‎), the protests were demanding that Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to what is now Israel. They were also protesting about the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the moving of the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

After giving an interview earlier that day, in which she said she took pride in the aid she was providing to the wounded, Najjar and her team of paramedics approached the border in white coats and with their hands in the air. She was fatally shot in the chest.

The New York Timesreports that in an interview at a Gaza protest camp last month, Najjar said: “Being a medic is not only a job for a man. It’s for women, too.”

According to The New York Times, on 1 June, "she ran forward to aid a demonstrator for the last time. Israeli soldiers fired two or three bullets from across the fence, according to a witness, hitting Ms. Najjar in the upper body. She was pronounced dead soon after….  On Saturday, a group of United Nations agencies issued a statement expressing outrage over the killing of 'a clearly identified medical staffer,' calling it 'particularly reprehensible.'"

Violence during the protests has resulted in the deadliest days of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 2014 Gaza War. The Israeli military say that the investigation into al Najjar's killing will continue, and accuse Hamas of putting civilians in danger.

Razan al Najjar (Image: Facebook)

Sideboxes
Country or region: 
Palestine
City: 
Gaza
Topics: 
Conflict
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

The “other” and oral sectarian culture in Syria

$
0
0

Before the Syrian uprising, relationships between Syrian sects were, like those betwen the regime and the population, governed by taqiyya [dissimulation] or even hypocrisy. العربية

Translated by Yaaser Azzayyaat

This article forms part of a special series focused onOral Culture and Identity in Syria. It is the outcome of an ongoing partnership between SyriaUntold and openDemocracy’s North Africa West Asia in a bid to untangle the roots of sectarian, ethnic and other divides in Syria.

Up until March 2011, when popular protests against the Syrian regime erupted, public and forthright discourses about sectarian beliefs or sectarian representations of the “Other” were simply taboo. This prohibition was imposed not only by the pan-Arab nationalist regime ruling Syria but also by Syrian society and social conventions between different sects. The concept of coexistence rather than citizenship governed relations between the sects of Syria. Citizenship provides a framework for political, legal and human rights. It is the outcome of human progress, upheld by international law as well as the constitutions of multiple nations.

To speak frankly and put what I am describing into a realistic context, let me give a few examples of the narratives commonly used by the Alawite community in reference to other sects. These narratives represent a largely imaginary perception of the “Other.” They fan a sectarian fear that originated in some of the historical experiences of the community in Syria and the broader region – particularly the Ottoman occupation of Syria and Lebanon, and its legacy of backwardness, sectarianism and displacement.

The Alawite perspective on other sects

I was born and raised in a town in the countryside of central Hama, a governorate characterized by sectarian and ethnic diversity. I lived there until secondary school. Despite a general state of peace and coexistence between the communal components of the governorate and the absence of wars or major incidents between its sects, each of the communal components harbored fears from the “Other,” a fear reinforced by dominant sectarian beliefs.

When I got engaged to an Ismaili girl from Salamiya, most of my relatives expressed revulsion and tried to thwart my engagement in every way possible. Only my father, my brother, and my sister accepted to go with me to seek her hand, and only reluctantly so. As soon as we finished reading our Fatihah they raced home. “If your brother ever marries that Sam‘ouli girl consider yourself divorced,” threatened my sister’s husband using a derogatory term for members of her religious community. News of my engagement became the talk of the town, and many deemed it to be only natural coming from a person like me: a former detainee, practically an outsider and even a renegade!

About two months ago, a relative of mine, a soldier currently serving in Daraa, married a widow from Hauran with three children. He was severely condemned and ostracized, first because his wife is a Sunni and second because she is a widow, i.e. not a virgin and older than him. More importantly, their marriage occurred during a fierce war for which the Alawites blame the Hauranis and the governorate of Daraa. Her people were the spearhead of the “universal conspiracy” against Syria.

In another example that highlights the thorny relationship between various sects in Syria, one of my relatives, who is a cleric, likes to boast to his neighbors and relatives that no Sunni has ever entered his home in his lifetime. This inspires respect from his fellow townsmen—or at least most of them!

The most popular attitude towards intermarriage is reflected in the proverb: “He who marries from outside his sect dies of a sickness that is not his.” This view holds especially true for the Alawite community. Whenever a casual marital disagreement becomes public knowledge, as it can happen in any family, people blame the argument on an abnormal marriage from outside the sect!

In order to belittle and demean the Ismaili sect, members of this community are often called Sam‘oulis Sam‘ouliyin. Conversely, other sects call the Alawites the Nusayriya or Nusayriyin, which the Alawites hate and associate with intentions to lessen their value.

Another saying popular in our village goes, “Eat at a Salmouni’s [Ismaili] and sleep over at a Christian’s.” Here, Alawites consider that Christians do not care about being clean and do not properly “purify” themselves with water after coming out of the restroom. However, Christians are faithful and trustworthy, as opposed to Ismailis who cannot be trusted as far as to sleep in their houses.

On the other hand, Ismailis have a proverb which says: “The enemy of your grandfather cannot be your friend.” In other words, the Alawites hate the Ismailis and hold a grudge against them. The saying refers back to the 1920s battles that took place in the Syrian coast (now Tartus governorate) between Sheikh Saleh al-Ali and his forces (Alawites) and the Ismaili community.

Furthermore, there are clearly delineated norms with regards to sects and food. For instance, Alawites eat only the meat of male sheep, cows and goats. As such, the majority of Alawites would not go to Sunni or non-Alawite butchers lest the carcass be female or improperly slaughtered according to the Islamic criteria; fataayes as such meat is popularly called.

In the Syrian coast, there is a common belief that Christians become very ugly and wrinkled as they grow older, partly because they eat pork but also because they asked the Lord for freshness and beauty for their youth!

The Alawites accuse the Murshidi sect (an offshoot of the Alawites since the first half of the 20th century under the leadership of Salman al-Murshid) that they have a special festivity of vice wherein married men and women indulge in promiscuous ceremony, with the lights off and everything getting messed up.

Alawites in our area are convinced that Bedouins are mean and deceitful, and one must should always be wary of them. The area had been inhabited by Bedouins living in tents or goat-houses, working in sheep herding and caring for the herds of the village. The relationship between the villagers and the Bedouins is therefore characterized by an employer-employee dynamic, that is, the owner of the herd on the one hand and the Bedouin working for him on the other.

A sectarian state at its core

Of course, the Syrian regime, especially over the last fifty years, has been manipulating sectarian tensions and indirectly perpetuating such sectarian concepts in order for inter-sectarian relations to remain superficial and fraught with fears, cautions and profound mistrust. For instance, I studied in a large school that received students from all the neighboring villages and different sects. Our principal (a member of the ruling Baath party) would come to our class at the beginning of every year, survey the students and their backgrounds, and identify the sect and political orientation of each one of us.

As we began to meet new colleagues and be socially more conscious, and with visits and close acquaintance with friends from all sects, the sectarian system entrenched in our heads since our childhood began to break down. In contrast with anecdotes and narratives that filled up our reservoir of knowledge and shaped our perceptions of “Others,” leftist and Marxist beliefs that we held in our early adolescence came as antidotes to old consciousness.

As a result of that socialization and the conversations we had together, we were categorized by the Baathist principal as enemies of the Baath. At a later stage, when we were detained, we discovered that our friendships and conversations were indeed reported to security services. The authorities and their security apparatus were keen on preserving the system behind traditional sectarian relations, and were concerned about any signs of new consciousness or different social practices from what they want to promote among their subjects. All of this was, of course, covered up by fake propaganda about “national unity,” “nationalism” and “social cohesion,” while any social research or scientific approaches to sects in Syria was most severely prohibited, including any attempts to discuss sectarian relations in the media, cultural forums or anywhere public sphere. As such, mutual ignorance and fears as well as illusions about the Others were only reinforced.

In the army, compulsory military service makes it inevitable that people from different sects and tribes blend into each other. As a former detainee, I did not serve in the army, but rather “served” seven years in jail. My relatives and I nevertheless know what the army is made of, especially the social relations that exist among its members. One cannot discuss sects in the army, since the security control over the army is too strict and scary. Yet despite the apparent camaraderie between recruits, an undeclared sectarian discrimination does exist with regards to privileges, allocation of posts and leaves of absence.

Mixed marriages and honor

Going back to my engagement, a funny observation is worth mentioning here. When a young man completed his studies in the West, Russia or Europe in general, and marries a Western woman, people would flock to his house to meet the new lady. Such marriage may even be a source of pride for the man’s family! Nevertheless, if he marries a woman from his own neighbourhood but not from a different sect, it would be a bombshell of doom and gloom! Some attribute this tolerating of marrying to foreign women to the so-called “Khawaja [foreigner or aristocrat] complex.”

Of course, such reaction is not equal in all sects. For instance, the toughest reactions are known to exist among the Druze, which could go as far as murdering, especially Druze women marrying from outside their sect. In other sects, such as the Alawites and the Christians, disapproval does not exceed boycott. In the case of the Sunnis, intermarriage is relatively more accepted, and poses no troubles in the case of the Ismailis.

Likewise, marriage between an Alawite man and a Shiite woman raises no issues. In spite of ideological differences between the two sects, there exist some intersections that make them “allied” or mutually understanding of each other to a large extent, especially their reverence for Imam Ali bin Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph.

For women, marrying a man from another sect is often more difficult, and its punishment is sometimes murder.

However, intermarriage among influential, wealthy or well-known families, especially those occupying high echelons of power, no threatens will be posed. For example, the filmmaker and artist Nayla Atrash was married to the late actor Khaled Taja. Despite the Atrash being a Druze and Taja a Sunni Damascene, their family did not object to their marriage. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that nobody dared defame this marriage. The same applied to the marriage of Jamal Khaddam, the son of Abdul Halim Khaddam (Sunni) from Hanan Khairbek (Alawite). Among the most famous incidents of this sort are, among others, the President and the Sunni First Lady, as well as his brother Maher and his Sunni wife.

Therefore, “honor crimes” are rather committed by poor people against other poor people. Power could not care less about sects and religions; it is more into keeping society fragmented and disintegrated.

What significantly perpetuates this sectarian state of affairs is Syrian legislation. For instance, “honor” criminals murder are penalized with a maximum of seven years imprisonment, and it was capped at two years before 2011. Furthermore, minors are encouraged to commit such crimes because their penalty would not exceed a few months in prison.

Keeping secrets and reincarnation

One of the most striking issues with regards to the image of the sectarian Other has to do with death. It is known that Alawites believe in reincarnation, i.e. the concept that a person’s soul separates from their physical body the moment he dies and assumes another creature, which is necessarily another man or woman. If the deceased person was good, his soul will necessarily enter into the another person’s body. Many stories are told among the Alawites about people who “surpassed their generations,” that is, had been other persons belonging to certain other families.

As one of our young neighbors began to grow up into a woman, the story of her so-called previous life began to circulate in the village. She had been an Israeli bomber pilot whose aircraft was shot down during the October war of 1973. She died and was reborn in our village. This return to life in an Alawite family meant that the soul of that Jewish girl was “pure.” Alawites believe that the majority of the Sunni souls are impure, so when they assume new bodies they often become animals or perhaps disabled people. Moreover, if an Alawite person’s soul is evil it will be reincarnated as an animal (snake, dog, donkey, etc.)

Alawite stories and beliefs go even further. They also hold views on the color of people. An albino has a cursed soul, and must have committed many sins in his past “generations.” A very brown person is often considered “black-skinned,” which is one example of racist ideas contained in these beliefs. For example, most Alawites are convinced that all Palestinians are dark-skinned, so my family members could not believe that some of my friends were Palestinians, just because their skin was too white or yellowish-brown. Only one Palestinian friend was recognized because of his dark skin color.

The Alawite faith is kept secret from outsiders and non-initiated Alawites. If it happens that an Alawite leaks it to a non-Alawite, God will transform him into an animal, make him blind or paralyzed. This contributes to a general fear of any “leaks” about the Alawite religion. Even revealing the religious belief to women, including Alawite women, makes it likely that the revealer will be handicapped or somehow punished by God. This is often explained by the conviction that women are unworthy of carrying the Secret, and are fundamentally short of reason and faith.

Alawites almost all agree that the Sunnis hate Imam Ali! It is difficult to convince an Alawite that, for the Sunnis, Ali is the fourth Caliph, the Prophet’s cousin and one of the first believers in the Muhammadian Message, and that he is held in no lower regards than the rest of the Caliphs Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman… These three caliphs, as is widely known, are condemned by the Alawites who believe they conspired against Ali after the Prophet’s death and even wanted him dead.

Before the Syrian uprising that evolved into a civil war, relationships between Syrian sects and communities were, in my opinion, governed by taqiyya [dissimulation] or even hypocrisy. This mirrored the relationship between the political regime and the population, as fearing tyranny often produces taqiyya politics: appearing differently from what lies in the inmost parts of people.

Syrian people from different sects mix at work, in governmental jobs, in private companies, in agricultural fields, in commercial establishments and shop. They drink tea and sometimes eat together… but this relationship remains superficial, limited to the necessities of coexistence in one geography under one rule. But once intermarriage is involved, that seemingly solid relationship soon disintegrates and even turns ugly and hostile. Syrian laws, especially Personal Status Law, reinforce this ambiguous relationship between Syrian sects. Whoever wishes to marry any Muslim woman (Sunni, Alawite, Ismaili...) has to publicly espouse Islam in the Sharia court.

When a brother kills his sister because she married an outsider, not only does the Syrian Penal Code label the killing as an “honor crime,” but it also mitigates the sentence substantially. This increases sectarianism and maintaining pre-modern state concepts. These can, as soon as circumstance are favorable, lead to severe hostility and war. Tyrannical regimes generally keep this latent hostility for use when need be, especially when people dare to revolt against their rulers and aspire to justice and freedom.

Sectarian concepts as a source of conflict

Sectarian beliefs and narratives, which are conveyed behind closed doors, act as a psychological and emotional reservoir absorbed by young children. Conceivably, this reservoir controls their behavior and thoughts as they grow up, making them view the sectarian Other through the ideological perspectives into which they were indoctrinated during the first ten years of their lives. This applies to all sects in Syria.

Sectarian doctrines flourish spectacularly during times of war, which creates the most appropriate climates for shedding that mask of love and peace that people were forced to put on. War reveals the ideas that define and describe the Other, and become the guiding principles to violence, murder and death.

“The sectarian 'Other' is the one enemy wishing to kill me and rape my wife, so I must “have him for lunch before he has me for dinner.”

This has been the case since early 2011, when the ideological basis for the Syrian civil strife was ripe after decades of encouragement.

Hints of these divides were already on display in 2004 which witnessed moments of notable sectarian unrest, including the Kurdish uprising in Qamishli and riots in Masyaf. In March, Qamishli witnessed hostilities between Arab visitors from Deir Ez-Zor and local Kurds after a football match. In Masyaf a disagreement between two bus drivers at the bus terminal, one Ismaili and the other Alawite, escalated. Had the disagreement been between two people from the same community, the problem would have been merely a quarrel, but since sects were involved, the dispute in the diverse city evolved into a prolonged state of hostility, conflict and mutual avoidance between Alawites and Ismailis.

Most of these doctrines narratives have been outright fabrications, handed down through generations and nurtured through political manipulations by tyrannical authorities, ultimately becoming facts that justify the brutality we witness nowadays in the form of massacres and mutilations.

This sectarian factor that emerged during the years of the Syrian war had been enshrined under the two Assads and exploited in political conflicts, most notably during the conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood (in 1979 and 1985). I believe that the exploitation of the sectarian factor by the regime has been a major reason for the survival of the Assad dynasty throughout this period. The role of sectarian fanaticism was evident during the now seven-year-long civil war. Indeed, this factor was exploited by both warring sides to create the perception of a Sunni-Alawite conflict, which was encouraged by regional powers and the regime alike.

The question here is, how feasible is it to stamp out these oral representations of the Other from social relations in Syria?

Perhaps these narratives and oral cultures devoted to the hatred of the Other will only disappear under a secular democratic system, wherein various components of Syrian society open up to each other, and in-depth research is conducted publicly and candidly into the beliefs and doctrines, and is publicized both on the media and in the public sphere. Would we live to see this dream come true? Perhaps.

Sideboxes
Country or region: 
Syria
Topics: 
Civil society
Culture
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

A victory for real politics? Chișinău’s mayoral elections in perspective

$
0
0

32714373_1839874162718477_6334540156975972352_n.jpgBy electing a mayor who has consistently promised to fight oligarchic control and corruption, residents of Moldova's capital have voted for the return of politics. 

 

Andrei Năstase. CC BY-SA 4.0 Andy.redbrick / Wikipedia. Some rights reserved.Andrei Năstase is the new mayor of Chișinău. The candidate from Platform “Dignity and Truth” won 52.57% of the vote in Moldova’s capital, compared to his opponent, Ion Ceban, the candidate of the Party of Socialists, who won 47.43% of the vote.

As with all recent electoral campaigns in Moldova, the Chișinău mayoral race was a dirty electoral campaign. At one point, an audio recording of Andrei Năstase talking to his mother about her participation in a party event was leaked. But it was also a campaign marked by a lack of any “grand visions” of the city which could capture citizens’ imaginations and inspire them to dream and act.

But Năstase’s victory on Sunday is, in a way, less surprising than his progress into the second round two weeks ago. Before the first round of elections on 20 May, the polls and most of the political commentators put Năstase firmly in third place. Năstase, 42, was considered a potential but somewhat improbable contender for the second round. He doesn’t have a strong local profile in the city: he has no experience in dealing with urban problems, and his political party has not participated in any significant local urban battle (the city was almost totally absent from his party’s political agenda). Likewise, Năstase’s programme for the city was far from original and not much different from those of his opponents, and comprised the traditional mix of better urban governance, transparency and anti-corruption.

It is almost axiomatic in Chișinău that a pro-western, anti-Russian candidate wins the local elections. This is the way the capital imagines a “progressive political orientation”

But Năstase took advantage of several crucial factors: a) his active, motivated and disciplined electorate that went to the polling stations; b) the low general participation (especially among younger age groups); and c) the media coverage provided by Jurnal TV, a TV station funded by the fugitive oligarchs Victor and Viorel Țopa, which fully supported him. These factors, plus his consistent  “anti-oligarchic” position and the support of Maia Sandu, his partner in the “anti-oligarchic coalition”, helped Năstase to qualify for the second round against all the odds. In the end, he took 32.12 % against the 17% of votes for the “big favourite” of the first round, the pseudo-apolitical — but closely related to the Democratic Party — Silvia Radu.  

Once in the second round, it was much easier to imagine Andrei Năstase’s victory. For one thing, he was the only openly “pro-western” candidate remaining in the race. And it is almost axiomatic in Chișinău that a pro-western, anti-Russian candidate wins the local elections. It is the way the capital imagines a “progressive political orientation”. In the Moldovan context, where all the parties and political movements package their messages in geopolitical terms (I have called this elsewhere “the geopolitical guillotine”— in which right corresponds to pro-western and left - pro-Russian), this makes perfect sense.

No “leftist” candidate (in the Moldovan sense) has won the local elections in the city since 1991. This is why it was important for Andrei Năstase (and, indeed, Silvia Radu or any other candidate) to make it into the second round against the Socialist candidate. Because after that you (no matter what your name is) usually win. This worked for Serafim Urechean in 2003, when he fought an unknown candidate supported by the then ruling Party of Communists of Moldova, and for Liberal Party vice president Dorin Chirtoacă in 2010 and in 2015. And it has worked now for Andrei Năstase. No matter what they say, Năstase’s opponents had the same strategy: to get into the second round and then to try to appear the “reasonable” candidate at any price.

Why did Ion Ceban lose?

In the aftermath of the campaign, an ironic observation started doing the rounds in Chișinău: it’s not that Andrei Năstase won the elections, it’s that Ion Ceban lost. Here, the irony was that Ion Ceban had, in theory, all the advantages that would allow him to win a local electoral campaign in the city easily: a strong and visible profile, a rich history of involvement and action at the local level, some experience in dealing with urban issues. He also leads the most numerous faction in the City Council., and enjoys the support of Moldova’s president Igor Dodon, as well as the parliamentary faction of the Party of Socialists of Moldova.

Despite being known as an eccentric, colourful, sometimes uncontrollable and unpredictable public figure — in 2015, he hit now former mayor Dorin Chirtoacă in the ear in public— in this campaign, Ceban chose to play the figure of the sober technocrat, the expert, the man that knows how to manage the city. But it didn’t work: neither for him, nor the party he represents. For one thing, the strong party that backed him was both an advantage and a liability. Though the party brought a numerous, disciplined and very active electorate to vote for Ceban, the “technocratic”, “apolitical” figure of Ion Ceban stood out on his own against the background of a Socialist Party that lacks any technocrat profile. The party breathes identity politics, geopolitics, culture and identity wars — and in this context, the figure of Ion Ceban as a “pragmatic” politician for the city looked insincere.

Ion Ceban, candidate from Moldova's Party of Socialists. Source: Ion Ceban / Facebook. Moreover, the candidate himself was more than ambiguous: on the one hand, he was playing the figure of the pragmatic politician (discussing streets, sidewalks and parking spaces), while on the other he was still active on the culture war fronts: anti-LGBT, pro-“traditional” family and against unification with Romania. At one point in the campaign, Ion Ceban declared that he would forbid public demonstrations by supporters of reunification with Romania. This was a “reasonable” thing to say as a culture warrior, but a very poor statement for a “pragmatic” mayor.

Add to this the fact that in the context of the Party Ion Ceban has a clear, strong, but not different  profile, than other party members. It might sound paradoxically but he is just a regular figure in the Socialist Party (and has a similar profile as many other member of the party, including the president). He is, for sure, the best man to the president Igor Dodon, his companion and closest ally, but he is not a distinct figure, with distinctive vision and attitudes. He is a regular member of the party that does and says whatever the party does and says at the moment. If it is geopolitics, he does it, if it is a play in “pragmatism” to win the local elections in Chisinau, he does it. And so on.

And then there was geopolitics, as usually happens at elections in Moldova. Bad geopolitics, of course: people agitating other people to go to the ballot box because “democracy was in danger” — threatened, in one story, by “Russian tanks” and, in the other story, by “behind the scenes games” from the Romanian, EU and US embassies.

Finally, the pro-Russian Party of Socialists of Moldova has a relatively low potential to grow its electorate. Being very vocal on “identity issues” and positioning itself as the only true friend of the Russian Federation in Moldova, the party offers little prospects and bridges for collaboration for parties that do not share its agenda. For example, in the second round, Andrei Năstase attracted more than 50 000 new votes, while Ion Ceban only 25,000. These numbers matter crucially if we take into account that the difference between the winner and the loser was less than 13,000 votes.

Also, this time the Party of Socialists was deprived of the direct support of other smaller pro-Russian parties. Renato Usatîi, a powerful ally in the past, whose support proved crucial in the 2016 presidential campaign, and whose candidate won impressively the elections in Bălți directly in the first round last month, withdrew his support for Ion Ceban and called his voters to chose his opponent.

What next?

The new mayor of Chișinău now has two tight and demanding schedules to face. Regular local elections are scheduled to take place one year from now, in the spring of 2019, which means that Andrei Năstase doesn’t have too much time to implement radical changes in the city and at City Hall. He has a hostile City Council. Moreover, his opponent, Ion Ceban, has already declared that he will quit his job as a media counselor for the president in order to focus only on local problems in Chișinău. In a way Ceban has already started the new electoral campaign: although he declared that he will support the “good” initiatives of the new mayor, he will hardly want to act only as a supporter of Andrei Năstase and will probably try to put pressure on the new mayor at each and every step.

By electing a candidate that claimed from the day one of his campaign that his priority is to fight oligarchic rule and corruption in the country, voters have rejected the city's “apolitical” agenda

On the other hand, parliamentary elections are scheduled to take place this autumn. And Năstase will want for sure to use his high profile function at City Hall as a trampoline to push the anti-oligarchic bloc of his party and Maia Sandu’s “Action and Solidarity” party into parliament. It is hard to believe that he will choose to leave his newly gained office in the City Hall for a place in Parliament (as the trajectory of former mayor Serafim Urechean shows, this is a sure route to political oblivion). But still, he’ll take part in the campaign: his “deeds” in Chișinău will be part of his party’s bid for seats in Parliament.

It is hard to predict how these two schedules will interfere (a safe assumption, at this moment, is to presume that a good result at the parliamentary elections will be the top priority of Andrei Năstase and his party), but it is sure that both of them are important and specific. Meanwhile, each misstep will be punished by his rivals, both at the national and local level.

Post-scriptum: Politics, apolitics, anti-politics

Andrei Năstase’s victory has temporarily dismissed the “anti-political” agenda of Silvia Radu and, to a lesser extent, the “technocratic platform” of Ion Ceban. Both Ion Ceban and Silvia Radu attempted to play the electoral game as a non-political contest between plumbers managers. By electing a candidate that claimed from the day one of his campaign that his priority is to fight oligarchic rule and corruption in the country, voters have rejected the city's “apolitical” agenda. But this return of politics should be treated very carefully. It shouldn’t mean the return of party politics in the city. The capital has already suffered by being treated as the “own” domain of one party under former mayor and Liberal party vice-chairman Dorin Chirtoaca. What is needed in Chișinău is not any politics, especially not party politics, but urban politics.

Thus, a cornerstone of the new urban politics in Chisinau should be increasing the participation of citizens in the decision making process by improving existing institutions and platforms or/and by creating new ones. Participation could be both the solution to take the country back from the oligarchs (as both the parties of Ion Ceban and Andrei Năstase seem to want this), but also putting the city into a path of inclusive, democratic development of the city. So far, the record of the city in terms of participation is, to put it mildly, bleak. And this means there is space to grow.

In a way, the most important job for Chișinău’s new city administration is an old one: ensuring that the city’s most important element, its residents, are included in decision-making processes

To begin with, the City Council for Participation (CCP), a municipal institution that was supposed to offer representation and possibilities for participation for activists, civil society organisations and regular citizens, still remains an empty promise. The creation of this institution was envisaged by the City Council of Chișinău several years ago. But the Statute of CCP was lost in some commissions in the City Hall and there is no will to change things. The other participatory initiative (Participatory Budgeting) was started one year ago and to this date is has an equally poor record. From the more than 50 projects that were presented and voted by the citizens last year, only a handful have been implemented. This year, the online vote had to be cancelled because City Hall’s website didn’t work properly.

This hardly advertises the capacity of the City Hall to absorb and foster participation in a positive light. At the same time, it doesn’t increases the willingness of citizens to participate in political process at the local level. When authorities pervert the participation of the citizens, the result is usually decreasing interest in participation itself. The distortion the case of participatory budgeting has an even worse side: residents’ total ignorance of the process of approving the city’s formal budget. This process took place in the last years with almost no participation from city residents.

Finally, besides ignoring and distorting participation, there is another trend — the co-optation of participation in order to achieve exactly the opposite. Public consultations, one of the mandatory procedures at the city level, has become, in the absence of clear rules and procedures, a way to tame potential subversive and radical effects of participation. To give an example: often, during public consultations on a real estate project — the most common in Chișinău, whereby powerful private interests take over public infrastructure in order to build more flats — the contesting voices of activists and citizens are taken and considered to be just “an opinion among others” and do not affect the overall process. This is despite the fact that activists and citizens usually point out blatant violations of the law or procedure.

In a way, the most important job for Chișinău’s new city administration is an old one: ensuring that the city’s most important element, its residents, are included in decision-making processes. To my mind, this is the surest recipe of success for any local administration.

Sideboxes
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

Looking at Lexit : Everyday Lexiteers - Interview 2 : Niall

$
0
0

"I found the politicians on both sides of the argument nothing short of disgusting and the framing of the debate as appalling."

lead David Cameron announces his resignation as Prime Minister in the wake of the UK vote on EU membership.24 June 2016. Wikicommons/ Tom Evans. Some rights reserved.

As part of our Looking at Lexit series, we’ll be asking left-wing Brexit voters about their reasons for voting Leave. Our second “Everyday Lexiter” is Niall, a 50 year-old Glaswegian running a social enterprise.

1. Describe your political outlook/background/loyalties.

Traditional celtic lefty with a strong belief in ‘from each according to their means to each according to their needs’ with an emphasis that everyone, no matter their needs is expected to also make a contribution. My socialism considers public sector mandarins to be on the same side as the capitalist elite and that genuine accountability needs to be as local as possible.

 

1.2 Describe, in two or three sentences, your political utopia: what would your ideal community look like, and how would it function?

Everyone should make a valued contribution to their community in accordance with their abilities and everyone should be supported by their community in accordance with their real needs.  Accountability is held at as local a level as possible. People are entitled to use their talents and effort to gain advancement and wealth but must be regulated to avoid exploitation. Society should value fairness and appreciate tax as a means of creating happiness. The class that a person inherits should not be the defining factor in their capacity to accumulate wealth and power.

 

2.  What was your main reason for voting for Brexit? Do you remain happy with your decision?

I experience the EU’s primary objective as the facilitation of global capitalism. The labour laws, regulation and social ‘development’ policies of the EU, while on the face of it progressive, were shown to be a façade by the EU response to Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain when the financial crash happened. Essentially I feel that wealth, power and influence were increasingly being concentrated in the hands of big business, big finance, big politics and big bureaucracy.

 

3.  Were you influenced by any politicians? Friends, family, colleagues?

Definitely not, I found the politicians on both sides of the argument nothing short of disgusting and the framing of the debate as appalling. Family and friends were universally remainers, largely in reaction to the racism and Brit nationalism of the Brexit campaign. They all felt uneasy about my arguments and while they could agree with many of my criticisms of the EU they felt obliged to vote remain.

 

4.  How do you feel a Labour-led Brexit would differ from a Tory one?

Not sure, I no longer trust the Labour party as a result of the fact that, when in power, they sided with the rich and powerful and were apparently content for everyone else to get by on credit and welfare. No matter who is leading Brexit, I think that we need to expect and prepare for any deal with the EU to be difficult as the EU elites have a huge investment in Brexit being a failure. We should therefore anticipate fiscal contraction and use it as an opportunity to empower communities to take more responsibility for their wealth, welfare and well-being.

 

5.  How do you see the UK in five years’ time? How do you see Europe?

I hope and expect that the UK will be more federal, if there has not been Scottish independence. I expect that its international status will have declined and that we can use our strengths and talents to serve our communities rather than being obsessed with projecting power.

I don’t believe that the EU is sustainable in the long term but do expect it to be resilient in the short and medium terms. Without fundamental, cataclysmic change then the imbalance between the rich north and poor south will continue to grow, leading to increasing resentment.

 

6.  On that note – how did you vote in the Scottish independence referendum?

I was an initial no voter as I despise nationalism, however I became a yes voter as the indyref campaign went on. The independence vision being put forward was politically progressive and fundamentally civic rather than tribal. I would definitely support a much more federal structure with as much power being devolved as possible.

 

7.  What would have to change about the EU, or the UK’s relationship with the EU, for you to support continued or renewed membership?

Whatever I say to this question would be unrealistic and sound naïve. It is in the nature of organisations that power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few and they are unlikely to agree to reforms which would make subsidiarity genuinely meaningful as evidenced by the contradictions within the Maastricht treaty; reasserting the rights of member states while creating economic and monetary union. How did that work out for the Greeks?

 

Sideboxes
Country or region: 
UK
EU
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

Dmitry Borisov, convicted in Russia's 26 March Case, has been released

$
0
0

Borisov was convicted for raising his foot in the air as police carried him off during a 2017 anti-corruption protest in Moscow. 

Dmitry Borisov at court. Source: Irina Yatsenko.

This article is part of our partnership with OVD-Info, an NGO that monitors politically-motivated arrests in Russia.

We have published a new set of useful instructions setting out what to do if you have been fined for taking part in a protest in Russia, what difficulties you might encounter if you want (or don’t want) to pay the fine, and how to avoid these difficulties.

Dmitry Borisov, convicted in the 26 March Case, has been released. Hooray! He had been sentenced to one year in a prison colony for raising his foot in the air while four police officers were carrying him during the 26 March 2017 anti-corruption protest in Moscow. He was found guilty of using violence against a police officer. 

You can read our guide to the case here. In it, we tell about each of the accused, the charges on which they were convicted and the discrepancies in the prosecutions.

"No to the fan zone". Source: Telegram. A student at Moscow State University has been suspected of criminal vandalism. According to the investigation, Dmitry Petelin, a first-year student in the faculty of philology, wrote the phrase “No to the fan zone” on a cardboard sign put up outside the university. For this, if convicted, he  faces a penalty ranging from a 40,000 rouble fine to three months in prison. Two other students, arrested as they were sitting exams, are witnesses in the case.  

Moscow City Court has upheld the decision to remand five defendants in the “New Greatness” case in custody
. The case of one of the defendants was returned for review to a lower court. Maria Dubovik, 19, had waited for the video link to come live from 9 am in a cellar — and all that time she had nothing to eat and was very cold. The case of 18-year-old Anna Pavlikova was sent back to a lower court since she had not been told in advance of the court hearing.

“New Greatness” is an organisation that was set up, judging by the case materials, by police officers who infiltrated the burgeoning movement. Ten people have been charged with organising the activities of an extremist group. However, the charges are based on evidence given by three men who were not arrested. One of them has said that he had been ordered to infiltrate the group.

Film director Oleg Sentsov has been on hunger strike for 25 days.

- Four people were arrested for holding single-person pickets in his support. One of those arrested was jailed for nine days.

  • - Antifascist activist Aleksandr Kolchenko, convicted in the same case as Sentsov, has ended his hunger strike in support of Sentsov. Kolchenko stated that he ‘overestimated his own strength.’ Kolchenko’s lawyer has said his client is very weak and has already begun to lose consciousness. During his hunger strike, Kolchenko’s weight fell to 54 kg (Kolchenko is 1 m 90 cm in height). 

  • In Tomsk, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been subjected to searches and interrogations. Subsequently, a local resident was arrested. About 30 people were questioned, including an 83-year-old woman. During the interrogations, which continued until 2 a.m. at night, ambulances were called on more than one occasion to treat the detainees. A total of 19 people have been arrested in nine regions on charges of belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Texts

“We fear he won’t survive until the end of the investigation.” We have spoken with Anastasia Pavlikova about the health of her sister Anna, held on remand, and about how the investigation in her case is proceeding.

“A secret witness in contemporary Russia is a great find for an investigating officer who has fabricated the charges.” We publish the third chapter of the book by Bolotnaya Square defendant Dmitry Buchenkov. While under house arrest, Buchenkov fled Russia and is writing a book outside the country, Fabrication of Criminal Cases in the Russian Federation. The book will be on public sale from next week.

We consider who might be on the so-called “Sentsov List”. Film director Oleg Sentsov has declared a hunger strike, demanding the release of all “Ukrainian political prisoners” held in Russia.

“Police officers have disappeared from the streets of Yerevan”. We investigate how the bloodless revolution in Armenia took place, and the role played by Facebook and Telegram in the events.

Thank you

We need money to assist all those who need our help. Without your support, we cannot make our hotline available 24/7, pay for lawyers, create online legal services, write news reports and articles, analyse violations of citizens’ rights in contemporary Russia, or disseminate information. You can support us here.

 

Sideboxes
'Read On' Sidebox: 

OVD-Info is a crowdfunded organisation. Find out how you can help them here.

Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

To restore trust in technology, we must go further than GDPR

$
0
0

Privacy controls are a step in the right direction but more must be done to tackle misinformation.

A laptop with its webcam taped overA laptop with its webcam taped over. Image: Santeri Viinamäki, CC BY-SA 4.0 CC BY-SA 4.0 During the past five years, a trend has emerged that can be spotted in most cafés, libraries and corporate headquarters – the covering up of cameras on our personal devices. Once deemed a paranoid precaution, placing a sticker or tape over cameras on our laptops, tablets and even smartphones has now become a relatively commonplace measure. Over a third of Americans now cover up at least some of the cameras on the devices they own, according to a survey published by YouGov last year. The webcam sticker’s rise to ubiquity can be traced back to Edward Snowden’s NSA-leaks in the summer of 2013, after which an unprecedented public discussion of digital surveillance and privacy took place. Among the headlines were stories of how Edward Snowden and Mark Zuckerberg put stickers on their webcams, which led to a decline in public trust in the little eye above our screens. It was the first time that reports were published on how the American intelligence service, with its GUMFISH plug-in, could monitor people by hijacking their webcams. Since then, the webcam sticker has become a symbol for a growing distrust with technology and our attempt to uphold a sense of privacy. It has come to represent a physical means of protection against an unknown evil in tools we use everyday.

Last month, a landmark piece of privacy regulation came into effect in the European Union, which could have wide-reaching implications not just for how our data is used online but also for our privacy. Several years in the making, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) arrives only months after the Cambridge Analytica revelations. Both news stories have – in each their own way – thrown new light on how little control we have over our data and devices. An extensive 2014 Pew Research survey revealed that there is a widespread sense of powerlessness over digital privacy: while 74% of Americans believe that being in control of their data is very important to them, only 9% feel like they have “a lot” of control over how much information is collected about them online. Is there any hope that we might regain a sense of trust and empowerment, or are we heading towards total alienation and apathy?
In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there has been an uptick in digital activism aimed at reasserting control over the online services which collect our data. On the 19th of March, just two days after the first articles about the scandal appeared in the Observer and in the New York Times, #DeleteFacebook began trending on Twitter. The hashtag was catapulted into the spotlight when Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, deleted the Facebook pages for both his businesses, which had around 2.6 million followers each, in support of the movement. Activists were split over #DeleteFacebook, with some criticising the movement for ignoring the many businesses or communities that rely on the social network and accusing it of being only for the privileged few.
 
“Most people simply can’t throw [their computers] away and move into the forest to become a self-sufficient farmer,” argues out Brandt Dainow, a researcher at the Computer Science Department at Maynooth University, Ireland. Dainow knows a thing or two about how our data gets used online. Late in the 1990s, he set up a software company to develop tracking software, “doing exactly the sort of stuff that, you know, everybody is now worried about.” He goes silent for a few seconds, then adds: “We just thought it was a way to get services delivered to people in a way that fitted their needs better. We never really thought about how it could be misused.”
The problem is it's being presented as a data breach by one company and it’s not – it's business as usual.

Perhaps wishing to atone for his earlier contribution to online tracking, Dainow is currently working on a PhD in data ethics. His research focuses on the concept of digital alienation, which he suggests is the fault of tech firms. “Facebook has said ‘we're an advertising company’, so the end-user is the advertiser. There is no point in Facebook spending time and money building features that don't earn it any money, or which might even reduce its profits. It's a profit-making business. And that’s the alienation. It means that the social network in which you live is not designed for you.” As long as we aren’t the end-users, that sense of alienation is unlike to change. The huge interest in collecting personal data in order to target advertising will prevail, commodifying us, the obvious users, along the way. But the question remains: does the public actually care? “I don't think that this [Cambridge Analytica] controversy is making very much difference to people,” says Dainow. “See, the problem is it's being presented as a data breach by one company, as if it's an isolated incident. And it’s not – it's business as usual.”

The business in question is the data broker industry. Hidden behind your acceptance of a website’s use of cookies are literally hundreds of companies tracking you around the internet. Some of those companies are widely known, like Google and Facebook, but most are not. A study by Yale University’s Privacy Lab from November 2017 found hidden trackers in 75% of all Android apps, and an examination of more than 144 million websites by the tracking blocker company Ghostery found that 77% of all websites had trackers mapping users’ time spent on websites, their clicks, preferences, purchases and behavior. On a website as seemingly innocuous as Weather.com, Ghostery lists 18 different companies trying to track you.

 
A list of companies tracking you on Weather.comA list of companies tracking you on Weather.com, according to Ghostery. Image: Jens Renner, CC BY-SA 4.0.
It’s not just websites that are collecting our data, the practice has also become integral to political organising. The Interactive Advertising Bureau, an organisation for online advertisers, published a report in 2012, praising the use of micro-targeted advertising during the Obama campaign. The conclusion: “Micro-targeting may have been instrumental for some campaigns in 2012. Micro-targeted advertising should – and almost certainly will – become part of a more data analytics-driven culture in successful political campaigns of the future – especially larger campaigns, such as the contest for the White House.” While micro-targeted political ads might not be new, we are only just beginning to understand the unscrupulous methods used to obtain the data needed for them. The data used by the Obama campaign was obtained from consenting supporters through an app. However, the data used by the Trump campaign was first obtained by Cambridge Analytica from users who had no knowledge of how it was going to be used. It remains unclear whether the practice of micro-targeting has a significant impact on elections.
 
The free reign that tech companies once had over collecting and tracking our data may soon be coming to an end – in the EU at least. From May 25, companies within the EU, or companies handling data from within the EU, will have to follow a new set of regulations. Some of the hidden data collectors on the internet today, like AppNexus, Datalogix and DoubleClick – the trackers snooping in on my weather-checking habits above – will have to establish a direct relationship with me, in order to ask me for permission to do so. This means no more opt-out checkboxes and stupefying long privacy policies. It also means the right to have everything a company has on you erased for good. Among skeptics it is argued that the regulations will further strengthen the monopoly of advertising companies like Google and Facebook, which already have a direct relationship with their European users and thus a higher chance of getting explicit consent to continue the collection of personal information. But proponents of the legislation are equally outspoken, and have maintained that it hands users agency over their information and offers a model for the rest of the world.
The internet shouldn’t be perfect. It can’t be. The physical world isn’t either. 
Control over our data might not be enough, however. For one, it does not address a far larger problem – the deluge of misinformation online. Technological advances are making it increasingly harder for us to distinguish between what information is false and what isn’t. Last year, researchers at the University of Washington developed an algorithm that can transpose audio onto a 3D model of Barack Obama’s face, giving them the power to create hyper-realistic fake videos of the former US president. The potential risks of such seamlessly doctored videos are alarming. In a recent interview with Buzzfeed, Aviv Ovadya, a chief technologist for the University of Michigan’s Center for Social Media Responsibility, outlined a scenario where a fake video of Kim Jong-un declaring nuclear war reaches the person in charge of pushing the button to retaliate. “It doesn’t have to be perfect — just good enough to make the enemy think something happened that it provokes a knee-jerk and reckless response of retaliation,” he told the website.

Despite his warnings of a possible “info-apocalypse”, when I speak to Ovadya he is relatively optimistic about the possibility of positive change. “The internet shouldn’t be perfect. It can’t be. The physical world isn’t either. Facebook and Google developed from a state of nothing, and though they haven’t done that good of a job, they haven’t done that bad either. Ethically they’re not where they should be, but they’re not very far away either. I think they could get there.” Ovadya believes that both companies could eventually get to the point where they are serving the public good. They have acknowledged their role in the fake news crisis, for a start. For Ovadya, change must come from the companies themselves, he is skeptical about the impact of activism. “Social movements are often slow or coarse, but the problems of technology move very fast. I’m not sure that we can count on public movements to drive nuanced change.”

Although GDPR has its limitations, for now Europeans have gotten more choice and thus more power to influence the terms with which they use their technology. But our relationship with data is more complicated than ever before and changing faster than legislation can keep up. Until it does, it might be better to keep our webcams covered.
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

‘I’m a first aider’ said man who helped restrain and handcuff Rashan

$
0
0

Rashan Charles inquest, Day Three: A ‘confused, shocked and panicked’ police officer. A ‘member of the public’ who intervened ‘without thinking’. Jury asks: Who was in charge? 

Rashan Charles with his daughter (Family)

An inquest jury heard evidence on Tuesday from the man who helped a police officer restrain and handcuff young black Londoner Rashan Charles. 

Rashan, who was 20, died after being restrained by the police officer and the man described by police as a “member of the public” on Saturday 22 July last year. At around 1:45am the officer followed Rashan into a convenience store in Hackney, East London, grabbed him from behind, threw him to the ground and restrained him.  

The court heard that before that day Witness 1 did not know Rashan or the police officer, who is known in court by the cipher BX47. Witness 1 said he was a frequent visitor to the shop, and had stopped by that morning to buy a sandwich and a drink. He was outside the shop when he saw BX47 run inside. Witness 1 said he walked into the shop and saw Rashan on the floor, pinned down by the police officer as several bystanders looked on.

Once on the floor BX47 tried to retrieve something from Rashan’s mouth while pinning him down. At this point Rashan was still moving and wriggling beneath him. CCTV footage show his legs kick against a tall drinks fridge.

Witness 1: “Do you want a hand?” Officer BX47: “Yes.”

During questioning Witness 1 said that “without thinking” he offered to help. He told the court: “The officer and Rashan Charles both didn’t look comfortable. So I thought I would step in to defuse any resistance and struggle between the two.”

He said the police officer had appeared “panicked”, “confused” and “in shock”. 

Witness 1 said that both Rashan and BX47 “seemed to be in an awkward position”. And: “I wanted to assist both parties.”

He told the court that he tried to offer support when it became clear that Rashan was unwell and unresponsive.  

CCTV footage of the restraint showed Witness 1 walking into frame, then getting himself astride Rashan and trying to grab hold of the young man’s arms.

The jury was shown BX47’s body worn camera footage, which included sound. Before Witness 1 joins in the restraint, he asks BX47, “Do you want a hand?” The officer replies: “Yes.” 

Coroner: “Were you resting on him?”

Witness 1 told the court that he then knelt down with one knee on the floor, wedged between the drinks fridge and the right hand side of Rashan’s body. During questioning he said his other knee was on the other side of Rashan’s body. In CCTV footage shown to the court, Witness 1’s leg appears to be resting on Rashan’s upper thigh for quite some time before another officer and paramedics arrive on the scene. 

The coroner asked him, “Were you resting on him?” Witness 1 replied: “I was resting on my elbow and my knee.” 

Working together, Witness 1 and BX47 are seen to handcuff Rashan, who is face down on the floor and, by now, completely still. 

Witness 1 takes Rashan’s limp right hand and passes it for BX47 to apply handcuffs. He remains kneeling on Rashan’s limp body.

In court Witness 1 said that after the handcuffing he put his right hand “under Rashan’s face to support it”.

In body worn camera footage shown in court Witness 1 says, “Just relax, it’s alright.” Then BX47 says: “Turn him to his side” and “He’s got something in his mouth.”

Witness 1: “He’s just putting it on.” BX47: “No he’s not” 

Other voices and background noise can be heard. Over the din, BX47 says: “Breathe, breathe, breathe.” Then, in a louder voice: “I think he swallowed something.” Someone says, “Open your mouth.” BX47 radios colleagues nearby, giving his location. 

At one point Witness 1 says: “He’s just putting it on,” to which BX47 replies, “No he’s not.” 

The coroner asked Witness 1 what made him say that Rashan was “putting it on”. “I don’t know,” he said. “I thought that he might have gone into a fit. Maybe prior to me coming in. Maybe there was a struggle.” 

The jury heard that it was only after the cuffs went on that Witness 1 realised Rashan was unwell. He can be heard on the body worn camera footage saying, “Come on mate, we want to look after you.” BX47 says: “We are not fussed about the drugs.”

Witness 1 told the court more than once that he thought Rashan was in shock or having a fit. Under questioning, Witness 1 said that Rashan showed no sign of strength, response or struggle. 

Come on mate, we want to look after you.

The coroner questioned Witness 1 about what he did next, which was to pinch Rashan’s nose and hold his cheeks. Witness 1 said he hoped that by pinching Rashan’s nose he could force the young man’s mouth to open.

“What was your aim in holding his cheeks?” the coroner asked. Witness 1 said he wanted to prevent Rashan’s face from hitting the floor and to keep his mouth open. He said that Rashan’s movements were “not right and his body wasn’t responding”. 

“What was Rashan doing at that point?” asked the coroner. “Clenching his teeth,” said Witness 1. Could you tell if that was intentional or an involuntary reaction, asked the coroner. “It’s hard to say, said Witness 1. That is why I was asking for assistance.” He said he wanted someone — either BX47 or bystanders — to check Rashan’s mouth to see what if anything was inside, blocking his airway.

On the body worn camera footage Witness 1 can be heard asking for something to put in Rashan’s mouth. When questioned, Witness 1 told the court that he wanted to use an object to keep Rashan’s mouth open until emergency services arrived. 

A one-day first aid course six years ago

The jury heard that Witness 1 had taken part in a one-day first aid course in 2012. (On the second day of the inquest, police officer BX47 told the court that he allowed Witness 1 to assist because the man said he knew first aid. Another police officer, known as BX48, who arrived on the scene just before paramedics arrived, also told the court that she allowed the man to stay at the scene because he was a first aider. She said she could tell his first aid training was historic, but he was supporting Rashan’s head so she didn’t ask him to leave.) 

Once Rashan is cuffed, Witness 1 can be heard on the body worn camera footage: “I’m a first aider,” he says. “I’m trying to help you stay breathing.”

He also says: “Stop biting my finger. I’m trying to help you.” The coroner asked Witness 1 to clarify because it was not clear from the footage that Rashan was in fact biting him. There is no movement of Rashan’s jaw, she said. Instead, Witness 1 appears to be holding Rashan’s cheek with his fingers and thumb when he tells Rashan to stop biting him.

I’m a first aider, I’m trying to help you stay breathing

Witness 1 replied that he had used his forefinger to push Rashan’s mouth open. Later the coroner asked again if he was certain that Rashan was trying to bite him at this stage. Witness 1 said he could not be “one hundred per cent certain”.

He added that he wasn’t sure but that at the time he felt the “sharpness of teeth” and thought this was Rashan biting. 

“Do you think Rashan was still conscious?” the coroner asked. “I don’t know. Not one hundred per cent. I was to the side of him. I was not sure whether he was conscious. But I noticed he was not responding soon after. I assumed he was not conscious,” he said. Witness 1 told the coroner that Rashan stopped responding when police officer BX48, arrived on the scene. BX48 then started CPR.

When did Rashan lose consciousness?

Jude Bunting, the lawyer representing Rashan’s mother and grandmother, challenged Witness 1’s recollection of when Rashan may or may not have lost consciousness. 

Bunting reminded Witness 1 that in statements made to police investigators he had said he noticed Rashan losing consciousness before BX48 arrived in the shop, therefore, said Bunting, some time before BX48 arrived Rashan “was not struggling, he was not responding and he was not able to lift his head up”. The lawyer suggested that Witness 1 had noticed Rashan lose consciousness earlier than he had just told the court. When asked if he agreed with this version of events Witness 1 said “Yes”. 

“The officer was panicking”

The court heard that in two statements Witness 1 made after Rashan’s death he told police investigators that BX47 was in shock and panicking. This quote from Witness 1’s 22 July statement made at 7.15am at Stoke Newington police station was read out in court: “The officer was panicking so I asked if he required assistance.”

About the sequence of events, the court heard that in his statement Witness 1 said that after the initial restraint and once Rashan is handcuffed, “The male officer was panicking.” 

Witness 1 confirmed to the court that he was referring to BX47 in the statement. Asked to explain, Witness 1 said BX47 “was sweaty and in shock”.

He seemed to be in shock, confused like everyone else.

The family’s lawyer read out sections from a second statement Witness 1 gave to Independent Police Complaints Commission investigators (since renamed Independent Office for Police Conduct) on 24 August last year.

“The officer seemed pretty shocked and shaken,” Bunting read from Witness 1’s statement. BX47 “was just sort of sitting there on his knees”. And: “I suppose he was confused as well.” It was only when BX48 arrived “that things started to calm down”.

“Looking back, would you say that BX47 was in a state of shock?” asked Bunting. “Very much so,” replied Witness 1. He added: “It is just the sweating and he seemed uncomfortable and just in shock I suppose.”

Under further questioning from Bunting, Witness 1 said several more times that BX47 was “just in shock” and “It seemed to me that he was in shock and tired” and “He seemed to be in shock, confused like everyone else”.

Witness 1 on BX47: “He was not himself”

Witness 1 told the court that he was overwhelmed and wanted more direction on what to do. Bunting asked Witness 1 if he felt that BX47 had assisted him. “I feel 47 was not one hundred per cent. He was tired. He was not himself,” said Witness 1. “I didn’t expect any more directions after that.”

He added that BX47 froze. About the bystanders, he said: “I couldn’t understand why there was so many people present and no one lent an extra hand that would have been so vital at that time.”

Bunting said to Witness 1 that it is clear “you were disappointed with how everyone else reacted”. He added: “Are you also a little bit disappointed in yourself? ... That you didn’t take your weight off his body?” 

Witness 1 said: “I wouldn’t say any weight was on him.” He added that he was disappointed in himself for not doing more to clear Rashan’s airway and sit him up. “But I blanked out and lost confidence when no one else was assisting until officer BX48 arrived,” he said. 

Counsel for police: officer’s focus is Rashan’s wellbeing

John Beggs QC, representing the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and Neil Saunders, the lawyer representing BX47 and BX48, questioned Witness 1’s account of what officer BX47 did.

In the body worn footage BX47 can be heard to say, “Come on mate, we’re not fussed about the drugs.” Beggs suggested to Witness 1 that it was obvious that BX47 was focused on Rashan’s wellbeing rather than capturing potential evidence. Witness 1 responded: “Yes.”

Beggs suggested that Witness 1 was trying to open Rashan’s mouth to “fish out” whatever was there, if anything. He asked whether when Witness 1 says “stop biting my fingers” it was because “you honestly believed that he was biting your fingers?”  Witness 1 said: “Yes. I was in shock.”

Rashan Charles (Family)Saunders asked Witness 1 about the scene when he entered the shop. He suggested one of the reasons it was confusing was because of items knocked off the shelves. He asked Witness 1 if the general debris was caused by Rashan resisting arrest. Witness replied: “Yes. That’s why I stepped in to offer my assistance to defuse the situation.”

Saunders suggested that it was difficult for BX47 to restrain Rashan alone. Witness 1 replied: “To a certain extent.”

Then Saunders asked if Witness 1 stepped in because he saw BX47 doing anything wrong. Witness 1 said: “I didn’t see the officer doing anything wrong. I saw the officer holding Rashan’s left arm with both hands.”

Noting that BX47 had urged Rashan to breathe, Saunders offered Witness 1 an interpretation: that this was not because Rashan wasn’t breathing, but rather, “because you are asking him to carry on breathing”. Witness 1 replied: “Yes.”

Saunders asked Witness 1 if there were any obvious signs that Rashan was choking, such as “struggling to breath, coughing, spluttering”. Witness 1 replied that there were not. 

Witness 1 again said that he didn’t receive instructions on what to do until BX48 arrived. 

Saunders then asked Witness 1 if he agreed that there was dialogue between himself and BX47, that BX47 had given instructions and there was no question that Rashan was having a fit or choking. Witness 1 agreed.

Alluding to Witness 1’s later statements, Saunders said: “Only later when you understand that Mr Charles has passed away that you are thinking how on earth did that happen?”

Witness 1 said, “Yes. It was shocking.” 

During questioning Witness 1 told the court that after the paramedics had arrived he and BX47 had assumed Rashan was alive. 

I wish I could have done more.

Saunders repeatedly asked Witness 1 to confirm that there were no signs of choking or struggling from Rashan, and right up until the paramedics arrived breathing checks were undertaken.

Witness 1 agreed with him.

Saunders added it is only when BX48 arrives that there is concern about consciousness and rescue breaths are administered. Witness 1 agreed.

Saunders suggested that Witness 1 did everything he could to help save Rashan. Witness 1 replied: “I wish I could have done more.” When asked if the police officers did all they could to save Rashan Witness 1 said, “As far as I could tell.”

Jury: why did Witness 1 stay on top of Rashan for so long?

Once questions had been asked by lawyers and the coroner, the jury had questions for Witness 1. These were put to him by Coroner Mary Hassell.

“At any point did you think that BX47 was hurting Rashan?”

Witness 1 said: “Not at any point. I was there to assist the officer as well as Rashan.”

The jury wanted to know when Witness 1 was asked to step aside. He said: “Soon after BX48 came in and took control of everything.” 

The jury asked who was making the first aid decisions. Witness 1 said: “I would say BX47 was giving instructions. There were moments where there was a lack of support from other parties.”

The jury asked more than one question about Witness 1’s position on top of Rashan. They asked why he remained on Rashan for so long. “My arm was supporting his face,” he said. He added that all his weight was in his elbow and that he remained “to the side of him”. 

In response to this, the jury asked: “If there was little to no weight on your left knee, why was your leg over Rashan?”

Witness 1 said: “I was in a very awkward position. I was trying to put it around him.” Witness 1 told the court that he was in pain and discomfort.

The jury asked Witness 1 if he thought that BX48’s medical experience allowed her to take over while “BX47 was panicking”. Witness 1 said “Yes”.

Who was in control, BX47 or Witness 1?

The coroner then questioned Witness 1 on the discrepancy in his account of who was in control before BX48 arrived. In evidence Witness 1 said that BX47 gave him instructions. He also said that BX47 froze and did very little. “He was giving instructions to the best of his ability, but I just feel that he also needed extra help,” said Witness 1. 

The jury asked the coroner to ask Witness 1 again if he thought BX47 was making decisions or not. “I don’t know,” Witness 1 replied. Then he said again, “I don’t know. I don’t know.” 

The inquest continues. 


Edited by Clare Sambrook for Shine A Light.

 

Sideboxes
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0

The “safeguarding of morality” in Nizhny Novgorod is turning into an attack on the city’s Protestant community

$
0
0

In this World Cup host city, two students involved in local Protestant life are facing deportation after interference from the security services. RU

Nosisa Shiba. Source: YouTube. All rights reserved.As the opening of 2018 FIFA World Cup approaches, security issues in Nizhny Novgorod, one of Russia’s host cities, are hotting up. And the clinical symptoms of this “fever” are shocking even those who have long since ceased to be amazed.

In May, Nizhny Novgorod’s Sormovsky district court charged Nosisa Shiba, a citizen of Swaziland in her final year at Nizhny Novgorod Medical Academy, with an administrative offence for publicly singing hymns at an Easter service in the city’s Embassy of Jesus Pentecostal church. The local police and legal authorities interpreted this behaviour as missionary activity, incompatible with Shiba’s stated aims when entering the Russian Federation. As it turned out, Shiba’s actual “offence” took place in 2017, but her trial has only just concluded. The outcome was a fine of 7,000 roubles and deportation from Russia, but the court has shown some leniency and deferred her expulsion until 30 June, after Shiba’s final exams and degree conferral.

The trial established that the charge, based on article 18.8 of part 4 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law of the Russian Federation, was put forward by Major Tatarov, a Senior Special Inspector of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Immigration Control Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and that it was, in fact, the second time Shiba had been charged with a breach of residence regulations.

The charge, of which I have a copy, reads that Nosisa, having come to study in Russia, “effectively took part in a missionary conference called ‘To Save One More Soul’”, organised by the Russian Association of Christians of the Evangelical Faith (RACEFP) in Nizhny Novgorod. In other words, the inspector concluded that, by singing about Jesus, she was engaging in religious activity. This activity included the fact that Shiba sang about Jesus at a public concert.

The case documents show that Major Tatarov didn’t take an interest in a foreign student singing in church off his own bat. The documents include a file sent to the Regional Immigration Control Department by the FSB on 18 April, in which Lieutenant-Colonel Malyshev, the deputy head of an FSB department in the Nizhny Novgorod region, informs his senior officer that “in the course of FSB operations in the Nizhny Novgorod region it was discovered that a foreign national had breached Russian residence regulations” – Shiba had engaged in activity incompatible with the stated aim of her coming to Russia. In his file, Malyshev states that the “unlawful religious activity” engaged in by Nosisa Shiba could be seen on a YouTube video.

Drawing up the charge, Major Tatarov mentions the fact that Shiba had already been charged earlier under the same article, and that she had been fined and required to leave Russia by 30 June.

While Nosisa Shiba was prosecuted for publicly singing about Jesus, Kudzay Nyamarebva, another foreign student at the Nizhny Novgorod Medical Academy and member of the Embassy of Jesus church, was threatened with prosecution for reposting a video in which her fellow-parishioners and friends talk about how God had helped them.

The police, again at the instigation of the FSB, charged Nyamarebva with an administrative offence, in this case a breach of the law concerning Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Religion and Religious Associations.

lead Kudzay Nyamarebva. Source: YouTube. All rights reserved.The public outcry about Nyamarebva’s prosecution, however, evidently led the police to announce that legal time limitations meant that the case could no longer go ahead. Kudzay was earlier prosecuted for inviting people to come to an event at the Embassy of Jesus via her social media page. Nyamarebva too has been required to leave Russia by 30 June, after receiving her degree.

It’s worth mentioning that the two articles under which Shiba and Nyamarebva were charged form part of the so-called “Yarovaya law”– a package of amendments passed in 2016, supposedly designed as anti-terrorism measures but which civil rights campaigners believe violate privacy and freedom.

“The law is intended as a means of combating terrorism, but so far has only affected Protestant churches and anyone connected with them”, says the Embassy of Jesus press officer Yulia Ermoshina. “The amendments to the earlier, 1997 law ‘On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations’ are very vague, and in practice the Law has turned into a very convenient tool for the law enforcement bodies to use against Protestant churches. And now it has the ‘Embassy of Jesus’ in its sights.

It’s worth mentioning that the two articles under which Shiba and Nyamarebva were charged form part of the so-called “Yarovaya law”

“This church has been around for over 20 years, during which it has carried out an enormous amount of social work throughout the Nizhny Novgorod region: rehabilitating alcoholics and drug users, rehousing the homeless and supporting children’ homes, families living in poverty and other socially vulnerable citizens as well as disabled people. And all without any state support.”

Since the “Yarovaya Law” was passed, Ermoshina tells me, Russian security services have been subjecting the Embassy of Jesus to numerous inspections: “We are being charged with new offences by the courts and threatened with cumulative fines of over a million roubles (£12,015). We are accused of failing to put information on a video about faith in God. Just think: they want to take a church to court for incomplete listings on a video talking about Christian values such as faith, love and mercy,” she says angrily.

How does the court respond on the matter? “These things are essential for the protection of the foundations of our constitutional order, ethical basis, health, the rights and interests of others and our country’s defence and state security.”

We should remind ourselves here that all this is taking place in a city where earlier this year the police removed Russian citizenship from Al-Tbahi Visam Mohamed Farhat, a father of seven children.The court took the side of law enforcement: it seems that 17 years ago, when the Palestinian man received Russian citizenship, the head of the police directorate, whether by accident or design, failed to sign one of the necessary documents.

All this needs to be borne in mind not only by the football fans who are risking a trip to Russia to watch the World Cup, but also by young people who choose to go to Russia to receive their higher education: they can’t rely that their civil rights will be observed or their safety guaranteed in a situation where the FSB spends its time searching social networks for possible signs of dissidence.

 

Sideboxes
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0
Viewing all 21780 articles
Browse latest View live