Anti-terror stop and search powers to be scrapped
Home Secretary Theresa May is to halt searches of individuals without reasonable suspicion after the European Court of Human Rights rules the power unlawful. Leah Borromeo reports
(more…)
Defining bona fide protest
Narrow definitions of a bona fide protester smack of Victorian ideals of the deserving poor — Index defends everyone’s right to protest, writes Jo Glanville
Brett Lock’s despair at Index’s lack of sophistication raises of one of the great ironies for free speech activists. Many of the landmark free speech cases have been fought in defence of individuals whose ideas, beliefs and attitudes are singularly unattractive. Take the famous Skokie case of the 1970s, when the American Civil Liberties Union fought for the right of neo-Nazis to march through a Jewish neighbourhood. Or the celebrated Oz trial of the same decade. The Oz Schoolkids issue which was prosecuted for obscenity could never be called great literature, but the ultimate success of the case was an important milestone in protecting the freedom of expression of all writers. It is the principle in these cases that matters and that needs defending.
Brian Haw may have some questionable beliefs, but his longstanding presence in Parliament Square became a symbol of protest and of the defence to the right to protest under the last government. Would our critics prefer that Index choose only the most deserving cases? How does one decide who is or isn’t a bona fide protester, worthy of the support of a free speech organisation? Rather than pick and choose the apparently desirable causes and victims, it’s important for Index to be consistent and defend Haw and the Democracy Village. New Labour brought in a chilling number of laws that infringed the right to protest — including the freedom to demonstrate around parliament, and the use of stop and search counter-terrorism legislation — and the coalition government’s commitment to repeal the restrictions around Westminster is to be applauded. The removal of Brian Haw at the state opening of parliament was therefore a worrying moment so early in the life of the new government.
As Bibi van der Zee pointed out in her piece for Index last week, the British have a long tradition of pitching their tents in protest — from Heathrow to road bypasses — on public and private land. And what could be a better spot for making your voice heard than opposite parliament? The legal argument around this case pitches the protesters’ right to free expression against the public’s rights and freedoms to access Parliament Square. But it is surely not the worthiness of the protesters’ cause that should be the central issue here.
Jo Glanville is editor of Index on Censorship and a member of the Ministry of Justice working party on libel reform
Tibetan environmentalists jailed by China
Three prominent environmentalists have been jailed by the Chinese authorities amidst allegations of torture, judicial bias and harassment. Karma Sandrup, one of Tibet’s wealthiest businessmen, who used the profits of his antiques business to fund several small-scale environmental projects on the Tibetan plateau, was given a 15 year sentence on 24 June for dealing in looted relics. Sandrup’s wife has accused the police of fabricating evidence and assaulting him while in custody. On 3 July, Karma’s elder brother Rinchem Sandrup was charged with “endangering state security” and sentenced to three years in prison, after he failed to register a small local ecological group. The family’s youngest brother, Chime Namgyal, is serving a 21-month sentence for organising litter collections, tree plantings, and patrols to prevent the hunting of endangered animals. Namgyal, who is disabled, has been in hospital since 11 June after receiving serious injuries whilst in custody. None of the three are on record as having criticised the Chinese government or engaging in opposition activism.
Scapegoats? Officers to hang for Iran's prison murders
This week an Iranian military court convicted a number of officers accused of torturing and killing three men detained during the protests that followed last year’s controversial presidential election. The officers were accused of murdering Amir Javadifar, Mohsen Roohol-amini, and Mohammad Kamrani. Ramin Aghazadeh also died as a result of injuries he sustained in the detention centre, located south of Tehran. However, the Iranian authorities denied they were responsible for his death.
The prison was closed on the order of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after details of torture, rapes and murders leaked into the public domain. At the time officials denied allegations of abuse and the only reason given for closing Kahrizak was “non-standard” conditions.
Now one year on, a military court in Tehran has issued verdicts on 12 officers who were accused of beating prisoners to death. Two of them were sentenced to death and nine other officials were sentenced to jail. Those found guilty will be lashed and forced to pay blood money fines. One man was acquitted. The verdicts are designated “not final” and can be reconsidered in the court of appeal.
So do the sentences satisfy the victim’s family and the opposition movement? Certainly not. They have a number of questions about the trial.
First, why were the trials held in secret? Was it to ensure the victim’s family and reporters could not take part? Second, why were the soldiers’ names and ranks not mentioned in the verdicts? Third, what about the commanders who gave the orders?
A special committee of parliament has already declared that former Tehran prosecution attorney Saeed Mortazavi was in charge of moving these prisoners to Kahrizak. However, nothing was mentioned about him or the chief of police during the trial. As details of the charges against the officers are not known, it is still not clear what happened there, and why.
Opposition websites call it a “dummy trial” with “unreal convicted officers”; they regard it as an attempt to placate the anger of society. Other activists and journalists say: ignore the crimes the officers committed, if we oppose the death penalty we must oppose their execution. They are tagging their blogs and Facebook pages: “Say no to the execution of Kahrizak criminals!”
Those who oppose execution refer to Parvin Fahim. Her 19-year-old son, Sohrab Arabi, was killed in last year’s demonstrations; yet she says she does not want her son’s murderers to hang. She doesn’t want scapegoats. She wants justice and for the senior officers responsible for her son’s death to be exposed.
Not all the other families agree. Ali Kamrani, father of Mohammad Kamrani, wants to see the execution of his son’s killers. He does not want blood money as he says it cannot bring his son back..
So this trial has opened up a much wider debate than expected. Fighting to stop executions in Iran is one of the big challenges for the opposition now. Maybe it’s time to stand firm against the death penalty even if this time the rope is around our enemy’s neck!
Maral Mehryari is a freelance journalist living in Iran, writing under pseudonym