http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin News items connected with the bulletin Copyright 2010 2010-02-15T19:00:45+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/romanian_discrimination_against_roma_population/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/romanian_discrimination_against_roma_population/ Amnesty International released a report this week highlighting the plight of Roma across Europe particularly in Romania, entitled ‘Treated like waste: Roma homes destroyed, and health at risk, in Romania’. The report focuses on an incident in 2004 where over one hundred Roma were evicted from their homes in central Miercurea Ciuc and forced by local authorities to relocate into ‘temporary’ settlements next to a sewage plant. ‘The houses fill up with that smell,’ explained Ilana, a resident at the settlement, ‘at night the children cover their faces with their pillows’. Defying Romanian law, the municipal authorities have placed the Roma within a 300 metre protection zone around the sewage plant, a law designed to protect public health. Moreover, there is desperate overcrowding, offending the human dignity of Roma. Erszebet, another resident complained that, ‘it is tight, when the whole family goes to sleep we don’t fit in. We cannot take a bath; we cannot clean ourselves. It is too small. We don’t want the older girls to take a bath in front of their father.’ Miercurea Ciuc is not an isolated case, but an example of widespread discrimination against Roma across the Balkans. As Halya Gowan of Amnesty International said that ‘this pattern of forced evictions, without adequate consultation, adequate notice or adequate alternative housing, perpetuates racial segregation and violates Romania’s international obligations.’ Although official census figures place Romania’s Roma population at 535,000 or 2.4% of the population, Amnesty International believes that there are 2.2million Roma in Romania constituting 10% of the population. Whereas 24% of Romanians live in property, the proportion of Roma living in poverty is believed to be 75%. The report adds to the growing evidence of segregation and discrimination against Roma. Europe’s Roma population live on the fringes of society and often struggle to be integrated into mainstream society. Some live as legal tenants but the vast majority live on land that is not protected by the law, consolidating their vulnerability. Violence against Roma has accelerated recently as the far-right’s appeal becomes stronger against a bleak economic backdrop. An unexpected effect of this was a surge in asylum applications in Canada from Roma in the Czech Republic who are fleeing discrimination. 2010-02-15T18:00:45+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/zanu_pf_land_seizures/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/zanu_pf_land_seizures/ One year into Zimbabwe’s unity government, President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party is continuing its policy of confiscating land owned by white farmers. One million farm workers have also now been made both landless and jobless; 100,000 of which have found employment in farms in South Africa. Three major estates have been confiscated by ZANU-PF since February 2009. This is in contradiction to a ruling by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) which in November 2008 declared the planned expropriation of land from 78 white farmers as discriminatory on the basis of race, and therefore illegal. This week, the Chipinge Magistrates Court ordered another four white farmers to leave their farms. Nehanda Radio labelled the ruling, ‘an act of legal vandalism of the highest order’. This comes amidst reports by Commercial Farmers Union that soldiers have been deployed across the country to pressurise white farmers into packing their bags. When land redistribution started in 2000, ZANU-PF promised an improved standard of living for farm labourers. However, the situation quickly deteriorated. A former farm labourer described the situation: ‘some ZANU-PF youth went around hitting and raping farm workers and beating them to death. Farm labourers were thrown out of the farms with their employers and some farmers ran away without paying anything to farm workers’. Despite promises of resettlement, 60,000 displaced persons are now living in makeshift camps waiting for the government to resettle them. The children of these of these families are receiving no education. The most disadvantaged are members of Tsvangirai’s MDC who are unlikely to receive compensation. Landless people in Zimbabwe have called on the government to take the land from members of ZANU-PF and redistribute it to smallholders. Meanwhile, there is a small but growing call in South Africa for the government to seize land from mostly white landowners. ‘I see in South Africa, the land is currently in the hands of whites,’ said Johannesburg based academic Stephen Greenberg, ‘you need to have a move here towards taking control of the economy, and then once the economy is in blacks’ hands, move towards the land’. 2010-02-15T17:57:09+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/israel_attacks_on_new_israel_fund_critical_groups_threaten_civil_society/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/israel_attacks_on_new_israel_fund_critical_groups_threaten_civil_society/ Human Rights Watch has drawn attention to increasing Israeli government repression of non-governmental organisations, including the New Israel Fund, a group which supports various Israeli civil rights and social welfare groups. The group has been investigated by a government commission, on the basis of its ‘harming the national interest of the state of Israel.’ New Israel Fund (NIF) was thought to have been supplying information which was used in Justice Richard Goldstone’s UN report and fact-finding mission abuses during the Gaza conflict in winter 2008/9. Daniel Sokatch, Chief executive officer of NIF appealed for support against growing official hostility towards its operations. He argued that an active and critical civil society is vital if Israel is fit to describe itself as a Middle Eastern democracy. Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch commented: ‘what we’re seeing in Israel is a greater official intolerance of dissent’. NGOs are finding it increasingly difficult to operate in the West bank and some have been denied access to Gaza. Top Israeli officials have publicly described NGOs as threats to national security, and hundreds of Arab Israeli demonstrators protesting against the Gaza operation have been subjected to arrest and harassment.  Whitson commented further that: ‘One of Israel’s outstanding strengths has been its vibrant civil society and its flourishing public debate, so these developments are particularly worrying.’ 2010-02-15T17:50:11+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/refugee_camp_for_palestinian_refugees_closes/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/refugee_camp_for_palestinian_refugees_closes/ The UN refugee agency has closed the Al Tanf Refugee camp, situated between the Iraqi and Syrian borders. The camp had been accommodating Palestinian refugees from Iraq for almost four years. The remaining sixty camp residents have been transferred to a separate camp in Syria’s interior. Al Tanf camp was opened in May 2006 in response to a greater flow of Palestinians fleeing persecution in Iraq. The conditions in the desert camp were harsh, with little access to healthcare, extreme temperatures and an infestation of snakes and scorpions. The dangerous circumstances were highlighted by the death of a nine year old boy, Mohamed Kamal Ibrahim, in September 2008 in a road accident outside the camp. The closure of Al Tanf was undertaken by the Syrian government with assistance from UN agencies, the Palestinian Red Crescent and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. Phillipe Leclerc of the UNHCR commented: ‘today we were able to close this camp and this is a very important step and achievement in responding on a humanitarian basis to the situation of people who were stranded there as a result of fleeing persecution.’ Palestinians have fled Iraq due to threats, torture and detention. There are currently over two thousand Palestinian refugees from Iraq currently living in refugee camps in Syria supplementing the 747,000 refugees from Iraq currently in Syria. Although the UNHCR has praised the ‘generous attitude’ of the Syrian authorities, life is difficult. The state turns a blind eye to informal employment but formal employment is prohibited. In the last four years, approximately one thousand Palestinians formerly living in Iraq have been relocated to third countries, mostly in Europe and South America. ‘We just want a place that welcomes us and recognizes us as human beings’ said Abu Mohanned, one of the refugees. The UNHCR (UN’s Refugee Agency) has said that it will continue to advocate for a dignified solution. 2010-02-15T17:37:28+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/fines_for_the_parents_of_rapist_for_failures_in_upbringing/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/fines_for_the_parents_of_rapist_for_failures_in_upbringing/ A landmark ruling in Milan resulted in the mothers and fathers of five teenage boys who repeatedly raped a young girl being ordered to pay the victim compensation of €450,000 due to their failure as parents to give their sons an ‘education in feelings and emotions’. The rapes took place over a two year period. The victim was a twelve-year-old girl, and her attackers were two or three years older. Judge Bianca La Monica awarded the damages against all the boys’ natural parents, including those who had separated from their partners and no longer had custody of their sons. On damages against parents no longer directly involved in the upbringing of their sons, she said that the law gave the non-custodial spouse not just the right, but the duty, to monitor the upbringing of a child. The judge stated that the five boys appeared to have no understanding of the gravity of what they had done, and it was only when they had been pressed to think about the effect of their behaviour on the victim that they had shown ‘glimmers of awareness’. The judge said this demonstrated that the accused had not been brought up ‘in a context of respect for the feelings, wishes and bodies of others’. In their defence, the boys’ parents had told the court that they had made sure their sons came home by a certain time. They testified that their children were brought up to be good Christians, and provided evidence of having ensured the boys attended sex education classes at school. In some instances, the point was been made that a boy involved had not shown any apparent interest in girls. The judge said that none of these claim in defence proved otherwise the fact that there was ‘no trace in the minors’ behaviour of an upbringing that provided for entering into non-physical relationships with others.’ 2010-02-15T17:29:36+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/high_court_rules_a_planned_ba_strike_unlawful/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/high_court_rules_a_planned_ba_strike_unlawful/ Mrs Justice Cox, sitting in the High Court, agreed with British Airways (BA) that Unite, the union representing cabin crew, had not correctly balloted its members on the proposed strike. This was because the ballot for a proposed twelve-day strike included workers that had already accepted voluntary redundancy. Around nine hundred cabin crew were balloted despite taking voluntary redundancy, which meant they would not be working for the airline at the time of any industrial action. Cox ruled that the balloting error breached the 1992 Trade Union Act. The injunction means the twelve-day strike, in protest over job losses and a pay freeze, cannot now go ahead. BA said it was delighted by the decision while Unite, which organised the ballot, said it was a ‘disgraceful day for democracy’. It said it would poll members again for industrial action after Christmas. A second ballot would take at least a month to organise. Mr Simpson and Unite’s other joint general secretary, Tony Woodley, said the dispute was ‘far from settled’. ‘While we have never wanted this dispute, it is a disgraceful day for democracy when a court can overrule such an overwhelming decision by employees taken in a secret ballot,’ they said. The original ballot saw 92.5% of those balloted vote in favour of industrial action. Industrial relations experts said Unite might struggle to secure a second big mandate from members for industrial action. A number of cabin crew questioned the length of the planned strike and Mr. Simpson, Unite’s joint general secretary, had said earlier this week that it was ‘probably over the top’. Because the union does not have a duty of care towards passengers, they have no right to sue the union, said Mark Meryon, industrial relations partner at the law firm Bircham Dyson Bell. ‘The threat of a strike is not enough to trigger a liability,’ Meryon said. BA’s ability to sue the union was also limited, he added 2010-01-26T08:01:39+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/cases/gillan_and_quinton_v_united_kingdom/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/cases/gillan_and_quinton_v_united_kingdom/ Facts: Mr Gillan and Ms Quinton lodged an appeal against the UK government claiming that the stop and search powers used against them where in violation of Articles 5 (right to liberty), 8 (right to a private and family life), 10 (right to freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  While on their way to a demonstration close to an arms fair, the claimants were both stopped and searched for over 20 minutes according to Articles 44 and 45 of the 2000 Terrorism Act. They applied for judicial review in the High Court, claiming that the use of stop and search powers during a demonstration such as the arms fair, were contrary to the legislative purpose of the Statute and that the use of these powers constituted a disproportionate interference with their rights protected under Articles 5, 8, 10 and 11. The case went up to the House of Lords, which rejected the appeal on the ground that the statute was drafted so as to allow the use of such powers when considered expedient ‘for the prevention of acts of terrorism’.  Lord Bingham held that a search did not constitute an infringement of the right to a private and family life. He further held that the statute was lawful. Lord Hope also added that the scope for intrusion allowed by the search powers was narrow, thus legitimate for the purpose of protecting the public from terrorism. Article 5: The Court held that even though the stop did not last for more than 30 minutes, the applicants had been completely deprived of their right to liberty under Article 5 during that time, since non -compliance with the stop and search order would have lead to criminal proceedings. There was however no need for the Court to express a final judgment on that point, as the decision was to depend on whether there was an infringement of Article 8 of the Convention. Article 8: The claimants submitted that the stop and search powers used by the police on them were qualitatively different from similar powers used in airports, since no prior notice nor agreement was given and since the search was conducted in a public place. As a result, they argued, there was an infringement of their right to autonomy and privacy under Article 8. The Court held that the stop and search powers allowing vigorous search in a public place constituted an infringement of Article 8. Did the infringement comply with national law in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention? Relying on its previous case law, the Court held that despite the existence of certain restraints to the power conferred onto the police by the 2000 Act, these restraints were too limited. This lead to a clear risk of arbitrariness, as police officers had a very broad discretion in the exercise of their powers.  The Court concluded that the powers of authorisation and confirmation, as well as those of stop and search under sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act, were neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. It held, therefore, that they were not “in accordance with the law” and that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 2010-01-25T20:24:41+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/unlawful_refusal_to_perform_civil_partnership_ceremonies/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/unlawful_refusal_to_perform_civil_partnership_ceremonies/ In a landmark case, the Court of Appeal upheld the previous ruling of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that Islington Council was right to expect its employee Ms Ladele to perform same sex civil partnerships in her role as Registrar. Ms Ladele’s religious beliefs consider same-sex partnerships as ‘contrary to God’s law’ and she refused to officiate in these ceremonies following the Civil Partnerships Act 2004. The Employment Tribunal initially ruled that she was the victim of religious discrimination, but this decision was overturned by the Employment Appeals Tribunal last December. Andrew Copson, of the British Humanist Association commented that the judgment made clear that in the context of public service providers, the rights of the individual employees do not ‘trump’ those of service users. They must ‘service users equally, with dignity and respect’. Mike Jones of the Christian Institute accused Islington Council of ‘making gay rights more important than religious rights’ and went to say that ‘this case will help squeeze out Christians from the public sphere because of their religious beliefs on ethical issues’. After the ruling he pledged to take the case to the Supreme Court. The Tribunal in July 2008 accused Islington Council of ‘trumping’ gay over religious rights. Conversely, gay rights group Stonewall welcomed the judgment and expressed pleasure that ‘the Court of Appeal has upheld the right of lesbian and gay people to receive public services from public servants.’ Liberty’s Corinna Ferguson hailed the ruling as a ‘common sense judgment’ and drew a line between this and examples of religious discrimination against people who are doing no harm. Liberty is representing Nadia Eweida next January when she argues that she was unfairly dismissed from British Airways for wearing a small cross while working on a check-in counter in an airport. The ruling in this case was also welcomed by the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association. Further Reading: Christian Telegraph Anglican Mainstream Pink News christian.org 2010-01-25T20:01:05+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/japan_urged_to_press_turkmenistan_on_human_rights_record/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/japan_urged_to_press_turkmenistan_on_human_rights_record/ Human Rights Watch has urged Japan to take advantage of the three-day state visit of Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov and press for concrete improvements in the state’s human rights record. Holly Cartner of Human Rights Watch described the Turkmen regime as ‘one of the most repressive in the world, on par with Burma and North Korea’. Japan’s official development aid (ODA) charter stipulates plainly decisions on aid should take into account the human rights record of the recipient country. Japan is only known to have invoked this principle in its decisions on aid to Burma and Zimbabwe, however. There are five points which Human Rights Watch feel should be particularly pressed on: the release of the large political prisoner community; transparency in the judicial process; lifting the ban on activists and easing the current travel restrictions; freedom of expression for activists and civic groups, and ensuring access for human rights monitors and UN officials. Turkmenistan is of strategic importance to western states because of its vast natural resources. Its former ‘self-declared president-for-life’, Saparmurat Niazov, died in December 2006, prompting hopes that the new regime would lose some of its authoritarian features. The new President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov did reverse some of the measures previously imposed, such as the previous dictator’s decision to change the names of the months to those of his family members, but stopped short of establishing any genuine human rights reforms. This was highlighted by the arrest of political dissident Gulgedy Annaniazov who returned to his home country in June 2008 from Norway (where he holds refugee status) only to be arrested the next day and sentenced to eleven years in prison. There are, however, fears that human rights will be dwarfed by other issues during the visit, especially by that of energy resources and supply. Japan currently imports 90% of its crude energy resources from the Middle East. Russia recently stopped importing from Turkmenistan following a row which is costing Turkmenistan 1$bn a month, pushing Turkmenistan closer to other European and Asian countries. This visit comes soon after the Turkmenistan Oil and Gas forum in late November during which European oil companies competed for contracts. 2010-01-25T19:34:51+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/un_reveals_profound_rape_problem_in_afghanistan/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/un_reveals_profound_rape_problem_in_afghanistan/ Rape in Afghanistan is under-reported, concealed and “a human rights problem of profound proportions.” This was revealed by Norah Niland, the United Nation’s human rights representative in Afghanistan, at a 16-day activism conference against gender violence in Kabul. Rape of women and children is rampant across all Afghan communities and social groups. The problem is propagated by the fact that the Afghan penal code contains no provision criminalizing rape. In March this year, Afghan president Hamid Karzai was accused of passing a bill which “legalizes” rape, to rally electoral support from Afghanistan’s minority Shia community. This law “negates the need for sexual consent between married couples” and tacitly approves child marriage. It is common for rape victims to be prosecuted for committing adultery. The under-reporting of cases can also be explained by the social attitude that it is more shameful to be a rape victim than the perpetrator. Gender violence has also extended beyond rape to target women in public life. This is “an indicator that women’s roles in decision-making processes are not valued or fully acknowledged in Afghan society.” According to Niland, “democracy and peace in Afghanistan is dependent on the elimination of violence and the full participation of women...in decision-making processes that affect their lives and the future of the nation.” Afghanistan is a deeply conservative Muslim society where religious and cultural laws often supersede civil laws. Although the situation has improved since the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban government, which instituted policies forbidding women from leaving their homes without a male relative, more needs to be done to prevent widespread gender violence. The United Nations has made recommendations for Afghan penal legislation to specifically address issues of rape.  2009-12-26T06:23:02+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/swiss_minaret_ban_criticized_for_violating_right_to_religious_freedom/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/swiss_minaret_ban_criticized_for_violating_right_to_religious_freedom/ UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has criticized the Swiss ban on building minarets as an act of religious discrimination, putting it “on a collision course with international law.” In a referendum held on Monday, 57.5% of the Swiss population voted in favour of the constitutional ban, effectively barring any construction of the iconic mosque towers. The referendum was initiated by Swiss nationalist parties and originally sponsored by the anti-immigration Swiss People’s Party. The ban raises questions of whether fundamental human rights like that of religious freedom should be subject to popular vote. While the Swiss nationalists have argued that they are not specifically targeting Muslims and merely want to foster better integration. There has been significant backlash from the Muslim community. Leading Islamic scholar Sheikh Yousuf al-Qaradawi has urged Muslims worldwide to rally around their brethren in Europe in response to a most “racist ban”. In Cairo, once dubbed the City of a Thousand Minarets, the Swiss vote has also been criticized as an attack on religious freedom. Sheik Mohammed Abdel Aziz, secretary-general of Al-Azhar’s Fatwa Council, which releases religious edicts, argues: “European countries are supposed to be democratic and free. If there is freedom, why ban the construction of minarets? Will they also ban church bells?” While tension is mounting, there have not been calls for a boycott of Swiss products as yet. Controversy is expected to mount as Muslims in the Swiss town of Lagenthal are standing behind their minaret plans. If the case is brought before the European Court of Human Rights, it is not absolutely clear whether the Court will force Switzerland to lift the ban on the basis of violation of the right to religious freedom.  2009-12-25T06:19:10+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/swiss_vote_to_ban_construction_of_minarets_on_mosques/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/swiss_vote_to_ban_construction_of_minarets_on_mosques/ A proposal to ban the construction of new minarets was approved by 57.5% of Swiss voters who voted in a referendum on 29 November. Only four of the twenty six Swiss cantons opposed the ban and the high turnout of 53% and result came as a surprise to commentators. The result of the referendum came despite strong opposition to the ban from numerous bodies. The Swiss national president, the mainstream political parties, government, the churches, newspapers and powerful business groups all opposed the proposed ban; arguing that it violates the right of freedom of religion and incites hostility towards Muslims. This referendum was instigated by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) and ultraconservative groups, and was set into motion when almost 115,000 citizens signed a people’s initiative in favour of the ban. This was handed to the Swiss parliament last year and was enough to force a federal initiative under the Swiss constitutional system. A government statement said ‘The federal council respects this decision’ and ‘the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted’. The article of the Swiss constitution regulating relations between the state and religion will be amended to include the statement: ‘The construction of minarets is forbidden’. The campaign to ban minarets was described by the country’s justice minister as a “proxy war” for drumming up conflict between ethnic Swiss and Muslim immigrants. Although the Swiss Federal Council is bound by the outcome, it may be overturned by the Swiss Supreme Court or the Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. There is a likely test case for the ban; the pending planning permission for the construction of a minaret in Langenthal, a canton of Berne. The Muslim community in Langenthal intends to take their case to the Federal Supreme Court and, possibly, further to the Strasbourg Court. Ulrich Schlüer, the SVP MP who led the ban campaign, pointed out that the European Court of Rights had recently ruled against permitting crucifixes in classrooms of Italian schools. “It now appears that Christian towns are not supposed to use Christian symbols,” he said. “But we’re supposed to have Muslim symbols.” The SVP has insisted that going to the Strasbourg court would breach the popular sovereignty that underpins the Swiss democratic model and tradition. The SVP has roundly dismissed arguments of freedom of religion, asserting that minarets are a political and not a religious symbol. It expressed concern that allowing the construction of new minarets would be the start of a process bringing Sharia law into Switzerland, with forced marriages, ‘honour’ killings, female genital mutilation and the oppression of women. The result looks likely to cause tension, adversely affect Switzerland’s investment and trade with the Muslim world and damaging the country’s image abroad. According to Muslim and Berne University academic Farhad Afshar, Muslims are well-integrated into Swiss society and ‘The result is unworthy of Switzerland’s tradition and history’. The result of the referendum has already subjected the Swiss government to criticism from foreign governments and human rights organisations across the world. The Council of Europe has questioned whether the fundamental rights of individuals, protected by international treaties, should be subject to popular votes. The Swiss Green Party has already put forward a proposal making popular initiatives invalid if they violate fundamental rights. The verdict raises concerns about direct democracy, which is an almost sacred institution in Switzerland, a country in which both federal and cantonal initiatives are very common.  2009-12-24T07:10:54+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/german_murderers_sue_wikipedia_claiming_right_to_privacy/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/german_murderers_sue_wikipedia_claiming_right_to_privacy/ Two German men convicted for the murder of an actor in 1990 are suing the charity behind the online encyclopaedia ‘Wikipedia’; claiming that its inclusion of the details of their identities infringes their right to privacy. The legal fight pits German privacy laws against the US Constitution’s First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech. According to Stopp, the lawyer representing the two men, German courts allow the suppression of a criminal’s name in news accounts once he/she has paid his debt to society. He added: “They should be able to go on and be resocialised, and lead a life without being publicly stigmatised” for their crime. The two men were sentenced to life in prison in 1993 and were subsequently released in 2007 and 2008. Their lawyer has already successfully obtained the removal of the killers’ names from German publications, including from online coverage. German editors of Wikipedia have also removed their names from the German language version of the article about the victim, Walter Sedlmayr. Now the men are demanding that the Wikimedia Foundation, the American organisation that runs Wikipedia, do the same with the English version of the article. In contrast to US courts, German courts strike a different balance between the right to privacy and the public’s right to know. Stopp has won a default judgment in a German court against Wikimedia, which held that the names and images of the killers could no longer be used in any publications regarding Sedlmayr’s death. Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer commented that “once you’re in the business of suppressing speech, the quest for more speech to suppress is endless.” Wikimedia’s current policy is not to edit content at all unless it has received a court order from a court of a competent jurisdiction. It supports the choice of the English-language editors to include the names of the killers in the article. Wikimedia informed Stopp that it questioned the relevance of any judgments from the German courts, since it has no assets or operations in Germany. 2009-12-24T07:01:22+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/cases/ahmet_oztekin_and_celal_aygen_and_others_v_turkey/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/cases/ahmet_oztekin_and_celal_aygen_and_others_v_turkey/ 13 January 2009 In this case Mr Ahmet Öztekin (1st applicant) and Mr Celal Aygen (2nd applicant) claimed that their detention in police custody for a period of seven days was a violation of their right under Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Article 5 covers the right to be heard before a judge or officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power in a prompt manner.  The applicants were taken into custody for allegedly participating as members of the Kurdistan Islamic Revolution Movement, an illegal organisation in Turkey. In order to avoid a trial, the government of Turkey made a declaration offering a settlement totaling two thousand Euros to each applicant, for non-pecuniary damages and expenses. The applicants accepted this friendly settlement, thus waiving their claim against the Turkish government. The European Court of Human Rights found that there were no policy reasons to continue examining the application and therefore struck it from its list of cases. Whilst friendly settlements might reduce the case load of the Strasbourg Court and allow for more serious cases to be heard, the concept of states paying off their abuses of human rights leaves a sour taste, particularly since this rationale necessitates ranking one human right over another. 2009-12-24T06:24:01+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/cases/grainger_plc_v_nicholson/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/cases/grainger_plc_v_nicholson/ Tim Nicholson brought an action against his former employer, the large property company Grainger Plc, claiming that his redundancy last year was due to discrimination against him over what he asserts is a philosophical belief about climate change and the environment. The question was whether a belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a ‘philosophical belief’ for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations. The Regulations set out in paragraph 2(1) that: i. “religion” means any religion. ii. “belief” means any philosophical belief. iii. a reference to religion includes a reference to lack of religion, and iv. a reference to belief includes a reference to lack of belief. As Lord Nicholls said in R. (on the application of Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment UKHL 15 [2005] 2 A.C. 246 it is not for the judge to decide whether the belief is “valid” by some objective standard, only that it is made in good faith. However the belief asserted here was not one of religion but a philosophical one, so a cross examination was needed and it was not done correctly by the first judge in the regional court. Three main questions were set out by the judge: 1. How far, if at all, does the ‘belief’ have to be similar to a ‘religious belief’ in order to qualify for protection under the Regulations? 2. What limits of any should be placed on the words ‘philosophical belief’? 3. Are the authorities in relation to the ECHR relevant or even persuasive in this field? Mr. Justice Burton relied on ECHR jurisprudence, in particular Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom [1982] 4 ECHR 293 and previous cases decided by the EAT, including McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs [2008] IRLR 29 in which Elias P suggested that the test for determining whether a belief is philosophical or not is to determine whether this belief has sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and whether it is worthy of a democratic society.  He concluded that Nicholson’s belief fell within the ambit of the 2003 Regulations, meaning that he will now be able to take action against Grainger Plc. Grainger Plc v Nicholson raises a new area for concerns for employers: environmental convictions will now have the same protection as religious beliefs under employment law.  2009-12-23T20:57:35+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/lord_steyn_iraq_inquiry_should_publish_an_interim_report_before_the_general/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/lord_steyn_iraq_inquiry_should_publish_an_interim_report_before_the_general/ Writing in the Financial Times newspaper, former law lord Lord Steyn expressed strong opinions on the Iraq inquiry. The inquiry, Steyn said, should publish an interim report before the next general election declaring the war illegal. Sir John Chilcot, the chairman of the inquiry, has the right to issue an interim report before he publishes his final conclusions towards the end of next year or in 2011, but he has said that he is unlikely to do so. Chilcot has also stated that the inquiry will not discuss the legality of the war until the new year. Lord Steyn insisted that the inquiry should be considering the legality of the invasion now.  “There is no reason grounded in the public interest to avoid considering and ruling on the legality of the Iraq war now or very soon. The public interest favours transparency now, avoiding the issue being kicked into the long grass for party political reasons until after the election,” Steyn wrote. Steyn supported his argument by echoing the words of Kofi Annan, former secretary-general of the United Nations who argued that in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq, it was illegal. On the Prime Minister’s selection of the members of the inquiry, he said “I have no doubt all five members are persons of independence, competence and integrity. But the method of selection was not calculated to inspire public confidence”. He found it “odd” that there was not any military figure on the inquiry “even though the majority of the evidence concerns military matters”. On the similar lack of lawyers, he remarked “perhaps it is not surprising, given that lawyers are paid to probe.” Last Monday the Iraq inquiry took evidence from Sir Peter Ricketts, the head of the Foreign Office, and Edward Chaplin, the Middle East director at the Foreign Office from 2002 to 2004. 2009-12-23T06:22:05+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/xenophobia_in_south_africa/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/xenophobia_in_south_africa/ Human Rights Watch has released an eighty-nine page report entitled ‘No Healing Here: Violence, Discrimination and Barriers to Health for Migrants in South Africa’. It exposes the plight of refugees and migrants in South Africa. The report, based on interviews with over one hundred people, illustrates how asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in South Africa are being denied the basic healthcare and treatment that nationals receive. The lack of support for these disadvantaged groups compounds the existing problems of poverty and discrimination that are prevalent among the migrant communities. This is in spite of the South African constitution which stipulates that refugees have a right to care. The report stipulates four courses of action to be undertaken by the South African state: (1) protection from deportation; (2) protection against xenophobic attacks; (3) protection against discrimination; and (4) ensure better data collection of the migrant population in South Africa, its health needs and the cost of care for the state. Rebecca Shaeffer of Human Rights Watch commented: ‘migrants to South Africa are abused in transit, attacked upon arrival, and then denied care when they are injured or ill’. Shaeffer went on to say that ‘discrimination against foreigners is institutionalized in South Africa’s health care system’. South Africa’s health service is struggling to cope with the twin problems of the AIDS epidemic and the additional strain of migrant workers, many coming from Zimbabwe. The UN Refugee Agency recently estimated that there are over sixteen thousand Zimbabwean refugees living in South Africa. The hardships suffered by this community were highlighted by the case of Tsitsi Makwiyana, a Zimbabwean refugee whose flight from her home country resulted in her being raped and left without money, documentation or resources in South Africa. Such stories are common, and many rape survivors report being unwilling to seek emergency medical treatment as this requires them to file a police report, something they are reluctant to do for fear of deportation. 2009-12-23T06:21:46+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/new_evidence_of_uk_complicity_in_torture/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/new_evidence_of_uk_complicity_in_torture/ A 46- page report was published by Human Rights Watch providing further evidence of UK complicity in torture in Pakistan. The report, ‘Cruel Britannia: British Complicity in the Torture and Ill-treatment of Terror Suspects in Pakistan’ condemned the UK government as being in a “legally, morally and politically invidious position”. The report is largely based on evidence collected from suspects and their lawyers and also members of the Pakistan Intelligence service, the ISI.  Although stopping short of accusing the UK government of directly torturing terror suspects it does provide evidence of complicity. The report details accusations made against the UK government of supplying questions to be asked to terror suspects. Although the official government policy is that it does not condone torture, it has consistently failed to investigate the source of the intelligence used by the Pakistani ISI.  The UK government responded to Human Rights Watch’s report, saying: “There is no truth in the more serious suggestion that it is our policy to collude in, solicit, or even directly participate in abuses of prisoners. Nor is it true that alleged wrongdoing is covered up.” This report adds to the mounting legal and moral pressure on the UK government to set up an independent judicial inquiry into intelligence practices in the “War on Terror”. Ian Cobain, a Guardian journalist and campaigner, described the report as “uncomfortable reading for the government”. Practices of security forces in Pakistan have also been highlighted by the trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui which opens this week in New York. In a letter to the Guardian in February, foreign secretary David Miliband said that the government takes allegations of mistreatment “very seriously”.  2009-12-22T06:30:51+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/high_court_rules_against_use_of_secret_evidence_in_denial_of_bail/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/news/high_court_rules_against_use_of_secret_evidence_in_denial_of_bail/ The High Court held that the government is no longer allowed to refuse bail to terror suspects solely on the basis of secret evidence. The judgment came in response to the denial of bail to two suspects, known as U and Xc. U is an Algerian national and Xc is a Pakistani student, both arrested in April as part of anti-terrorism Operation Pathway. The government is seeking to extradite these men, who were described by Home Secretary Alan Johnson as “threats to national security”. Mr Johnson condemned the court ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Laws and Mr Justice Owen, as “unhelpful”. He said he was “surprised and disappointed” by the decision, but pledged to “do everything possible to keep this country safe” as part of his “sole objective” of protecting the public. The High Court ruling follows a House of Lords ruling in June this year which held that suspects under control orders are entitled to a ‘core irreducible minimum’ of information on the case against them in order to prepare a defence. The High Court also ruled that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is not immune from judicial review, as contended by the government. This should lead to greater transparency in the UK immigration system. The ruling was welcomed by human rights group Liberty whose director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: “Yet again it takes a senior judge to point out what most people already know – if the Government is going to lock you up, it needs to tell you why.” 2009-12-21T20:02:33+00:00 http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/cases/zaunegger_v_germany/ http://www.uclshrp.com/bulletin/cases/zaunegger_v_germany/ Facts: The applicant Horst Zaunegger, a German national, has a daughter born out of wedlock (1995), who grew up with both parents until their separation in August 1998. From that time until January 2001 the daughter lived with the applicant. After the child had moved to live with her mother, the parents reached an agreement with the help of the Youth Welfare Office, according to which the applicant would be in contact with his child on a regular basis. Pursuant to Article 1626a § 2 of the German Civil Code, the mother held sole custody of the child. As she was not willing to agree on a joint custody declaration, the applicant applied for a joint custody order. The Cologne District Court dismissed the application, holding that under German law joint custody for parents of children born out of wedlock could only be obtained through a joint declaration, marriage or a court order which requires the consent of the other parent. In 2003, the Cologne Court of Appeal upheld the decision by the District Court. Both courts relied on a judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 29 January 2003, which had found that the relevant provision of the Civil Code was constitutional with regard to the situation of parents of children born out of wedlock who had separated after 1 July 1998 (on this date an amended Law on Family Matters entered into force). On 15 December 2003 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint. Claim: The applicant complained under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for family life) that the German Federal Court’s application of Article 1626a § 2 of the German Civil Code amounted to an unjustified discrimination against unmarried fathers on sexual grounds and in comparison with divorced fathers. Held: The Court noted that by dismissing the applicant’s request for joint custody without examining whether it would be in the child’s interest, the German courts had treated Zaunegger differently in comparison with the mother and in comparison with married fathers. In order to assess whether this treatment was discriminatory for the purposes of Article 14, the Court first considered whether the German legal provisions pursued a legitimate aim. It found that they did, because the provisions were aimed at protecting the welfare of a child born out of wedlock by determining its legal representative. This should avoid disputes between parents over custody issues. The court considered further that there could be valid reasons to deny the father of a child born out of wedlock participation in parental authority if there was no communication between the parents. However, these considerations did not apply in the instant case, because Zaunegger continued to take care of the child on a regular basis. The Court did not share the Federal Constitutional Court’s assessment that joint custody against the mother’s will could be assumed to be contrary to the child’s interest. While it was true that legal proceedings concerning custody matters could unsettle a child, German law provided for judicial review of the attribution of parental authority in cases where the parents were or had been married or had opted for joint parental authority. The Court did not see sufficient reasons why the situation of the instant case, where there was no marriage, should be exempt from judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, there was no proportional relationship between the general exclusion of judicial review of the initial attribution of sole custody to the mother and the aim pursued, namely the protection of the best interests of a child born out of wedlock. The Court therefore held by 6 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 8. The Court further held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.  2009-12-21T19:53:11+00:00