UNITED KINGDOM: CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME

This week 1worldinternational deviates from its usual themes of human rights, global affairs and international development to highlight some fantastic causes supported by the law firm of Overburys Solicitors based in the East Anglia region of England.

It is perhaps an understatement to assert that the concept of capitalism has taken a bruising battering in the last few months, what with Jamie Dimon’s JPMorgan Chase & Co embroiled in a billion dollar trading scandal, the Barclays Plc LIBOR rate fixing scandal which brought to an end the reign of its pugnacious CEO Bob Diamond and the dark clouds enveloping the private security firm G4S which somehow managed to muck up its own side of its contract with the British government by failing to provide the numbers required to secure the Olympic venues. The founding fathers of capitalism must have heard the shrill screams emanating from the public’s unease from the comfort of their graves as a result of these developments. One is almost certain that the parents of capitalism are somewhat ecstatic at the fact that they are not alive to face the public’s wrath at this time.

Coming to the rescue of capitalism is the super hero in the form of the aforementioned East Anglia based firm which hosts a quarterly open microphone event called OUTSPOKEN. The funds raised from each of the events go to a different nominated local charity. The charities tend to be less well known and smaller in size than those which attract national attention.

The event has various aims which include raising money for local charities which do not benefit from national or government funding, raising the profiles of these organisations which perhaps do not have the financial might to publicise their work in the mass media, supporting local businesses where the event is held and also providing a platform for up and coming local singers, song-writers, poets and writers to showcase their talent.

The third instalment was organised for the benefit of the Norfolk & Norwich Association for the Blind (NNAB), a 207 year old charity which provides assistance to the partially sighted. The well attended event was held within the ambient surrounds of HOUSE Café in Norwich on 27th July 2012 and was also a fantastic event. The event featured singer-songwriters such as the inimitable Cara Winter, Peter Appleyard, Emily Hirst and the talented Tom Cox. Poets and writers including Hilary Stanton, Tish Kerkham, Peter Goodrum and Sarah Walker wowed the audience with their impressive verbal gymnastics. Perhaps even more important than the money raised on the night was the publicity which the charity benefited from on the night.

The moral of the story is that whilst no charity is, for want of a more suitable word, ‘better’ than the other at least in the view of the writer although the writer very much welcomes a debate on the subject, it is vitally important that we continue to support our smaller local charities. Our support for organisations of a size similar to the likes of Amnesty International and Save the Children et al should not be at the expense of the charities located a stone’s throw away from our door steps.

In a lot of cases these charities lack the financial muscle which Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have hence their inability to effectively publicise the good work which they carry out in the community. Against the background of austerity measures being waged by the present government, the task of survival for these organisations has become even more arduous than it ever was. To sound off, one is certainly not overstating matters in surmising that we are all a bad decision away from losing our self sufficiency and when this happens, we will have no option other than reverting to the assistance of the charities which we neglected to support when we had more than enough resources to do so.

UNITED KINGDOM: CPS DECIDE AGAINST CHARGING PERSONS INVOLVED IN MIGRANT’S DEATH

Last week’s decision reached by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against prosecuting three security guards over the death of Angolan refugee, Jimmy Mubenga was met with howls of derision. The men who work for the much maligned private security firm G4S – currently embroiled in the Olympic Games security fiasco and also contracted with the Home Office to shepherd deportees to their home countries – will not now face charges of manslaughter.

Mubenga resided with his family in the United Kingdom for 16 years after being granted leave to remain in the country. After a conviction in 2006 for actual bodily harm (ABH), he was sentenced to two years in jail and then detained at an immigration centre before the fateful attempted deportation.

Confusion surrounds the series of events which led to the death. G4S and the Home Office insist that Mubenga had taken ill on the day of the aborted deportation, 12th October 2010 which in turn led to the airline carrier’s return to London. His wife, Makenda Kambana on the other hand points to the fact that some on the flight had borne witness to the fact that “he was crying for help before he was killed”.

The CPS for their part insist that there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges of gross negligence manslaughter. Its Senior Crown Advocate, Gaon Hart highlighted that experts unanimously concluded that Mr Mubenga’s physiological condition and agitated state prior to his death may have contributed to his demise. Hart continued that a combination of additional factors including “adrenaline, muscle exhaustion or isometric exercise” could not be ruled out as a cause of the death.

Needless to say more than a couple of eyebrows were raised following Hart’s pronouncements. Frances Webber, former Barrister & Vice-Chair of the Institute of Race Relations wrote in the Guardian that Hart’s line of reasoning would mean that no murderer whose victim struggled could be charged if they exhibited the same characteristics highlighted by Hart as potential causes of death. More importantly, he raises the long abiding principle of the “eggshell skull” doctrine, which ensures that one still bears legal responsibility for the death of another, even if the latter had a pre-existing medical condition, whether diagnosed or not.

In addition to these, the CPS appear to have neglected to consider public interest matters in deciding against prosecution, not least because of the government’s rapidly expanding privatisation programme. Even more questionable is Hart’s assertion that there were shortcomings in the standard of training received by the men and that there was a “breach of duty”. Surely even one with only the most basic legal knowledge would appreciate that this finding may not have been arrived at without the acquisition of sufficient supporting evidence.

It is not unfair to assert that the CPS appear to have assumed both judicial and prosecution roles in this sad debacle. The decision also comes against the background of the acquittal of PC Simon Harwood over the death of Ian Tomlinson. Statistics also suggest that over 1,440 individuals have lost their lives whilst in the hands of the Police since 1990. Staggeringly only one individual has been successfully prosecuted following a charge of manslaughter in that time.

Perhaps the CPS should have left it to the Court to decide the issue of “beyond reasonable doubt” the men’s innocence or guilt. The greater damage however has been done to the reputation of the much vaunted British legal system as the decision not only sends the message that the life of a migrant is not worth as much as the country’s own citizens, but also that the country’s security personnel are no different to those of authoritarian states in being above the law.

ETHIOPIA: GOVERNMENT WAGES FURTHER ASSAULT ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

The principles of freedom of speech and expression came under serious attack in the past week in the East African country of Ethiopia where journalists, opposition politicians and bloggers were sentenced to terms in jail for allegedly conniving with rebels to overthrow the government. The prison sentences imposed on the said individuals ranged from between eight years to life imprisonment.


2009’s Anti-terrorism law

The assault on freedom of speech and expression in the country has slowly gathered steam over the last few years but has intensified since 2009 when an anti-terrorism bill was passed by its parliament. One of the by-product of the provisions of the law would see individuals jailed for up to 20 years if found to have published information which could ‘incite’ terrorist activities. This provision appears to stretch the definition of ‘terrorist activity’ to include the work of journalists, bloggers, artists et al which have the temerity to criticise the government when it falls short of maintaining international human rights standards.


The ‘Convicts’

Needless to say unrelenting opprobrium has been heaped on the decision since the verdicts became public knowledge not least because the Ethiopian government has serious form when it comes to incarcerating individuals who voice any forms of dissent against it. Amongst those jailed in this latest onslaught on freedom of speech were Andualem Arage, an opposition politician from the Unity for Democracy and Justice Party (UDJ) who was jailed for life, along with Berhanu Nega and Andargachew Tsige who also received life sentences in absentia.

Probably the most well known of the individuals jailed is blogger and journalist Eskinder Nega who was sentenced to 18 years in jail. Nega appears to have offended the authorities by having the audacity to challenge the government’s decision to arrest, under the aforementioned anti-terrorism legislation, Debebe Eshetu, an actor in the country who has also been a constant thorn in the government’s flesh. In addition, the said individuals and others who received similar sentences were accused of being members of the US-based opposition group Ginbot 7, which the government has classed as a “terrorist organisation”.


Prime Minister Zenawi

The country is led by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary democratic Front (EPRDF) who is currently serving a fourth 5-year term in power following an election victory in May 2010. As has been the case with elections held on the continent, opposition groups refused to accept the decision on the grounds that the elections were not free and fair while international observers chorused in unison that the elections failed to adhere to international standards. Zenawi is said to have been one of the writers of the country’s constitution which was created in 1994. Zenawi has also been the country’s only Prime Minister since multi-party elections were first held in 1995.


Criticisms of the latest convictions

The European Union (EU) has voiced strong concerns about the sentences. The organisation’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton averred that the principle of freedom of expression enshrined in the Ethiopian Constitution is somewhat compromised by “a lack of clarity with regards to what constitutes a terrorism offence”. The prominent Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), Amnesty International added: “The Ethiopian government is treating calls for peaceful protest as a terrorist act and is outlawing the legitimate activities of journalists and opposition members”.


Sound-off

The detainees’ legal representatives appear to have already set plans in motion to appeal the decision of the authorities. Whilst trying to avoid being labelled a ‘prophet of doom’, it is highly unlikely that the appeals will result in the release of any of the convicted persons. One notes that the country is highly dependent on foreign aid for its economic stability as was the case with the East African country of Malawi where democratic ideals were also threatened by the government in similar circumstances. In Malawi threats of withdrawal of foreign aid and the West’s follow through of the threat was sufficient enough to check the excesses of the government. In the same vein it is unlikely that any measures taken by the West, short of those implemented in Malawi, will be effective as a means of preventing further strangulation and stifling of freedom of speech and expression by the Ethiopian government.

LIBYA: LIBYANS ELECT PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN THE POST-GADAFFI ERA

Most would agree that there was no bigger global news in the past week than that of the Libyan people going to the polls in what is the country’s first free and fair democratic election in six decades. The polls will determine members of its National House of Assembly who will then be tasked with responsibility for selecting the country’s Prime Minister and a cabinet. Parliamentary elections are also due to be held in the country next year.

The historic elections come just under a year since the capture and killing of the country’s erstwhile dictator, Muammar Gadaffi during the country’s 8-month long civil war. Most will recall that the now deposed dictator ruled his people with iron fists during the course of his 42-year rule. Amongst Gadaffi’s first deeds upon assuming power in 1969 was the abolishment of direct elections on the grounds that they were anti-democratic.

Despite the unprecedented set of events which took place in the country last week, there were real fears that the elections may be overshadowed by pre-election violence. Aside calls for the boycott of elections on the grounds that resources were unfairly skewed towards Tripoli, several cities and towns in the country such as Benghazi and Ras Lanuf were said to be the scenes of the violence. At the time of writing it is reported that some polling stations had been stormed by protesters and ballot boxes destroyed.

Nevertheless the elections are said to have passed off relatively peacefully. The country’s Muslim Brotherhood party, buoyed by its namesake’s recent victory in Egypt, is currently tipped as frontrunner in the elections. In spite of the negative reports it appears that threats of boycotts and violence will simply not be enough to dampen the enthusiasm of the 6 million people inhabiting a nation which has been deprived of democracy for over half a century. Observers will continue to watch the country’s affairs intently not least as a result of its status as a test case of the validity of the much debated and much maligned, in some quarters, concept of “humanitarian intervention”.

SUDAN: THE ARAB SPRING’S LATEST VICTIM?

Protests continued in the North African country of Sudan in the past week leading observers to pronounce that the Arab Spring may be about to claim another victim being the Sudanese Government.

The protests began about two weeks ago following the Government’s imposition of harsh austerity measures which have seen the average man on the street and the most ardent of the government’s supporters raise their voices in protest. The Government’s hands have somewhat been forced by its conflict with neighbouring South Sudan – developments in this regard have been addressed extensively by 1worldinternational – which has resulted in a significant drop in its oil revenue in a country where oil is the main source of revenue.

Both countries have been in a state of ‘semi-war’ over the last few months following a disagreement over oil export fees which Sudan expected to receive from South Sudan for transporting oil via pipeline laid in the Sudan. South Sudan subsequently shut down all oil production which has severely paralysed both countries’ economies since January. In addition, spiralling inflation rates for food and goods have also exacerbated matters in the Sudan and this is expected to worsen in the coming weeks and months. Also, sanctions imposed by the U.S government and corruption have compounded the worsening economic crisis.

The country’s Finance Minister Ali Mahmoud has shot down any hopes that the austerity measures could be reversed by asserting that it was imperative that the nation’s $2.4bn deficit was redressed. In a press conference with the media last week Mahmoud stated: “If international oil prices go up, we'll increase fuel prices. We will not retreat from the decision to lift the subsidies."

As expected, the President Omar Hassan al-Bashir-led government’s response has so far replicated that of regimes ousted by mass revolt during the Arab Spring. The use of teargas and the might of the Police have so far been employed in order to quell the protests. Several activists have also been arrested including the leaders of human rights groups and senior members of opposition parties. The protests, which initially originated in mosques and university campuses located in the Sudanese capital city of Khartoum, has worryingly for the government spread to regional cities.

Al-Bashir who has headed the ruling National Congress Party since 1989 has unsurprisingly batted away suggestions that his government may be toppled by the populist fervour which has seen to the recent overthrow of governments in North Africa and the Middle East. Al-Bashir, who has also been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, has labelled the protesters as enemies of the nation and called for the country’s citizens to resist the protesters’ calls for revolt.

Although protests of this scale against the government are unprecedented, observers generally do not consider that the current protests have the capacity to morph into anything similar to those which toppled the Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian governments amongst others. Needless to say stranger things have happened and the said observers, one is certain, will happily eat their words if the reverse proves to be the case.