Twelve Days of State Brutality: Australia

The term “Lost Generation” is one usually associated with war. We here in the United Kingdom often use this phrase when referring to those who died in the First World War. In Australia they use the idiom “Stolen Generation”, yet you would be surprised to learn that it does not apply to those lost in war. Neither does it apply to those who died due to disease, genocide, accident or ignorance. In Australia, “Stolen Generation” is used to Aboriginal children who were forcibly removed from their families by Federal and State government, due to fears of racial mixing.

The “Stolen Generation” is just one facet of a long history of state brutality on the part of the Australian government against its Aboriginal population. Indeed, whilst many nations have sad histories when it comes to the treatment of an indigenous people (the United States, Canada and South Africa should come to mind), Australia’s is arguably the worst.

Today, Aboriginal Australian’s make up 3% of the nation’s population (a June 2011 census put the number of Aboriginals at 669,900).  No doubt their population would be higher, were it not for the brutal handling that many Aboriginals have had to put up with at behest of their Governments. The evidence of the past few years demonstrates that the treatment of Aboriginal Australians can at best be described as woefully neglectful.

2014 has not been a year that will be fondly remembered by any who would consider themselves concerned with Aboriginal, or even human, rights. In early November, plans were announced by the West Australian Government to close down 100 remote communities, and have those who inhabit the land relocated. The reason? The communities are not “viable” according to Western Australian Premier Colin Barrett. Barrett also cited “the abuse and neglect of young children” as well as various health issues, poor education and lack of jobs. Yet rather than direct money at the problem, Barrett instead chose to close down their health clinic, police station, school shop and turn off the regions power and water supplies. Sadly, this mistreatment was not an isolated occurrence.

In 2009, the UN accused Australia of breeched human rights and being guilty of “entrenched racism” towards its aboriginal minority. In 2011 the people of Oombulgurri were forced to leave their homes after the State Government closed their community down for many of the same reasons cited by Colin Barrett. The case has received widespread attention, and has been accused of breaking international law by Amnesty International. In 2012, a co-ordinator involved in Aboriginal services was sacked after she revealed that A$80m (£44m) was spent on the surveillance and removal of Aboriginal children compared with only A$500,000 (£275,000) that was spent on improving impoverished lives. Finally in October of this year a 22-year-old women known only as Ms. Dhu died after she was locked up for failing to pay A$1,000 (£536) in parking fines

All of the above accounts occurred after February 13, 2008. The significance of this date? It was the day Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formally apologised for the treatment of Aboriginals in a 24 minute speech that received a standing ovation in the Australian Parliament.

The Merriam-Webster English Dictionary defines brutality as ‘a brutal act or course of action.’ The treatment of the Aboriginal people in Australia certainly matches this description, albeit on a more subtle level. The lesson that should be learned from this story is that State Brutality does not always come at the receiving end of a police baton or a soldier’s gun. Sometimes, it comes merely from a lack of empathy or compassion.

By Jonathan Harty

Twelve Days of State Brutality: Central African Republic

The Central African Republic (CAR) is a country that has been crippled by violence for the better part of the last 50 years. Bordering some of Africa’s most intense conflicts, including Sudan and the Congo, it has been a hot pot of political instability, and inevitably, the abuse of human rights. After a turbulent 40 year period which saw violent resistance meet violent resistance, the Central African Republic secured arguably it’s first open and free democratic elections in 1993; however, after a reasonably stable period for the state, violence has returned, but this time with an ever increasing sectarian dimension.

The backdrop of the current conflict stems from the overthrow of the Republic’s government in early 2013 by a coalition of rebel Muslim forces, known as the Séléka. After their seizure of power, Christian populations noticed that they were being targeted, while Muslims were emerging unscathed. As a result, Christian militias were formed, known as the anti-Balaka. The Séléka have since been forced out of power, leaving the anti-Balaka militias to fill the resultant power vacuum.

However, like the troubles of the last few decades in the Central African Republic, it is not the militias or the government that have borne the brunt of the true horrors of the war, but the people. While in power the Séléka were responsible for extrajudicial executions, torture and the burning of Christian villages. On the other side, rather than remaining as local defence forces, the Anti-Bakala have taken the opportunity that the political and social turmoil has presented, and contined reports of the deliberate killing of civilians, sexual violence against women and children, and the destruction and looting of property have emerged.

Sinisterly, reports of ethnic cleansing have been levelled at both sides. Human Rights Watch warned that the Muslim minority population was “being targeted in a relentless wave of coordinated violence that is forcing entire communities to leave the country.” The most deadly attacked occurred in January 2014 in Bossemptele, where at least 100 Muslims were killed. Antonio Guterres, the head of the UN refugee agency, claimed that the country is “falling through the cracks of international attention”.

Currently almost 90,000 have fled to the neighbouring Cameroon, while there is an estimated 200,000 persons displaced as a result of the hostility. There have been efforts to deal with the mass exodus of population especially in the rural areas fleeing what Guterres called “massive ethnic-religious cleansing”. The international community has around 12,000 peacekeeping troops to stem the tide of sectarian violence.

However, as a UN report pointed out “ample evidence exists to prove that individuals from both sides of the conflict perpetuated serious breaches of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity as well as war crimes,” and while those individuals are being brought to justice the need to cater and aid those in the African Republic who are most vulnerable is of vital importance. Camps for the displaced have proved to be a safe haven for those at most risk and while not perfect they have been areas where people can access basic food and shelter. While the political turmoil that has harmed the country for decades continues we cannot allow the civil war in the CAR to become the “forgotten crisis” that UNICEF’s representative, Souleymane Diabaté called it.

The video below helps to show some of the efforts being made to help those that have been affected by what has happened in recent years. It really helps to show how much is being done already to help the of the people Central African Republic, but also the continuing need to create awareness for a situation that can still be salvaged.

by Lawrence Chinamulungu

Twelve Days of State Brutality: Thailand

While currently in the midst of political and social turmoil, Thailand has been plagued for decades by deep and endemic state brutality facilitated by corrupt officials.

In 2004 Kiettisak Thitboonkrong was arrested for allegedly stealing a motorcycle. A week later his body was found hanging from a hut. An autopsy report suggested he had been dragged along the ground by handcuffs, had his testicles crushed, and then been strangled to death. This chilling story exemplifies both the chronic brutality and the endemic nature of state violence within Thailand. In one police station alone in Kalasin between 2003 and 2005 there were over 20 extrajuducial killings.

In the preceding year then-prime minister Thakinsin Shinawatra initiated a ‘war on drugs’ with the disturbing words, “There is nothing under the sun which the Thai police cannot do,” instructing the police that “you must use [the] iron fist and show them no mercy”. This attitude set a precedent for an assault upon the human rights of Thai citizens, and cemented the latitude for police brutality which has characterised Thailand for years. The government’s war on drugs resulted in more than 2,500 extrajudicial killings, with suspects facing unsatisfactory detention facilities. A panel suggested that: “At a brainstorming session, a representative from the Office of Narcotics Control Board (ONCB) Tuesday disclosed that as many as 1,400 people were killed and labelled as drug suspects despite the fact that they had no link to drugs.”

Photo courtesy of seua_yai flickr

Refugees also face continuing human rights abuses at the hands of the Thai state. 140,000 Burmese refugees reside in camps along the Thai-Burmese border and are consisted mainly of political dissidents fleeing the Burmese government’s violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in 1988. With Thailand not being party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, these individuals are not recognised under refugee law or formalised asylum procedures and as a result are left unnecessarily vulnerable to arbitrary and abusive treatment. With their freedom of movement curtailed, those that do venture out of the camps are frequently apprehended and sent to Detention Centres. Those that remain in the camps fare little better, living under horrific conditions in return for $3USD a day.

In the wake of the 2006 coup by the military, Thailand has witnessed an erosion of the right to free speech and travel. The Southeast Asian Press Alliance claimed that Thailand’s media had been one of the freest and most vibrant in Asia, prior to the coup. It referred to the subseqeuent closure of around 300 community radio stations, the blocking of news channels when news on the ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra came up.

Furthermore, there has been a government clampdown on the protests of the ‘Red Shirts’ – supporters of the deposed Thaksin – which has resulted in numerous deaths and widespread casualties. In 2010 the excessive use of force by soldiers led to the deaths of at least 90 people and injuries to more than 2,000. Currently Thailand is subject to martial law as declared by the army, which it has suggested will be ‘indefinite’. Many are facing imprisonment for excercising their human right to freedom of expression and assembly. This is exemplified in the detainment of protesters using the three-fingered salute, inspiried by the novels ‘The Hunger Games’, as a means of protesting against the authoritarian government.

Many in Thailand are subject to frequent human rights violations, whether refugee or protester, in the name of security, enforcing order or simply because it is the culture that has been fostered within the police and the military.

By Hayley McLoughlin

Twelve Days of State Brutality: Brazil

Police brutality has been a common feature of Brazilian law enforcement for many decades. However, with this year’s World Cup and the 2016 Olympics taking place in the developing nation, the eyes of the world have been on Brazil – the result being that citizens (particularly the more vulnerable, impoverished ones) have been experiencing a dramatic spike in overtly aggressive police brutality, as the government feels mounting pressure to ‘cleanse’ the slums, reduce skyrocketing crime rates, and stamp out dissent, in an attempt to improve their global image.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Brazilian police force is now responsible for over 3000 annual deaths, and tens of thousands of injuries stemming from use of excessive physical force, rubber bullets, tear gas and stun grenades, most commonly being used against peaceful protesters and slum-dwellers who have been designated as “troublemakers” by local law enforcement agencies (however the shockingly liberal application of excessive force often results in many innocent bystanders becoming collateral damage). As the result of corrupt local officials and police forces, increased media censorship, heavy police militarisation, and a lack of legal accountability, many of the thousands of police officials who regularly violate citizen’s human rights often enjoy total impunity, therefore very little action is taken domestically or internationally to prevent such actions.

Since the left-wing Worker’s Party of Brazil assumed power in 2003, the police forces of Rio and Sao Paulo alone have been directly responsible for over 11,000 casualties as a direct result of police brutality, many of them taking place in the form of summary executions, often in broad daylight. The vast majority of the victims are slum residents associated with local gangs or even petty crime, and the result is that those murdered or injured are looked upon by the government as undesirable, therefore there is little police accountability and the violence is allowed to continue and expand with seemingly no attempts by the increasingly jaded government to curb it.

Courtesy of Gustavo Basso and Nurphoto

As a matter of perspective, it should be noted that for every 23 arrests made by Brazilian law enforcers, one person is killed – compare this the U.S, where on average one person per 37,000 arrests is killed, whilst the number of extrajudicial police killings in Sao Paulo state alone in 2007 being higher than all of South Africa (according to a UN report) – these figures clearly demonstrate the severity of the situation in Brazil, which is exacerbated by the almost complete lack of condemnation from the international community.

The majority of these killings are written off as being the result of “resistance”, despite the significantly lower level of police deaths. Social tensions rising from Brazil’s staggering income inequality and corrupt officials have led to a spate of mass protests and strikes which have only been met with even more violence, a very recent example from July this year being the use of rubber bullets and tear gas in response to a peaceful strike by metro workers in Sao Paulo, in which scores were injured despite there being very little evidence of any kind of provocation. Most notoriously and widely broadcasted was the response to protesters against the corrosive influence of FIFA and the effect that the World Cup has had on local communities with beatings and lethal force by the excessively militarised Brazilian Police, who were seen utilizing assault rifles, stun grenades, and tanks. However, these examples are certainly not isolated incidents, as the government policy of ‘cleansing’ the slums and low-income neighbourhoods which house the majority of Brazil’s citizens has led to the encouragement of further use of excessive force by those designated to protect civilians, and the ever-shrinking lack of accountability or punishment means that oppression will continue to grow unabated until action is taken by the international community to condemn the Brazilian government for their complacency.

By Adam Smith

Twelve Days of State Brutality

The power of the State over its citizens, whilst having tremendous potential benefits, has too often given those who care about human rights cause for concern. We would like to think that the notion that many governments (including those in the supposedly “civilised” West) treat those they govern with cruelty, ignorance and malice, would be a thing of the past. Sadly, that is not the case. State brutality is endemic to the majority of the nations on this earth. Whether it be curtailing the right to protest or torturing those who speak out against the government, we find that every state has scope to improve the way in which they safeguard the rights of their citizens.

It’s with such a foresight that we thought it to be fundamental to focus our next campaign on raising awareness on some of the grave injustices we see imposed on our fellow citizens of the world. ‘Twelve Days of State Brutality’ is our take on raising awareness on state brutality.

Born out of the same thinking of the ’12 days of Christmas’. Leicester Amnesty International Society will be telling you the often forgotten stories of those who suffer at the hands of their government on account of their race, creed or conscience by posting a blog each day on a specific nation. We hope this will raise awareness and motivate the students of the University of Leicester to further investigate these injustices and help ensure that states are always held accountable by their citizens.

By Jonathan Harty & Bashiru Shardow

Reflections on the Amnesty Student Conference 2014

This month we had the pleasure of spending a weekend at the Amnesty International headquarters in London along with hundreds of other inspired students from across the country campaigning to defend human rights.

We were all given the chance to attend a number of insightful workshops on issues across the world such as preventing sexual violence, the current conflict in Syria, Israel and Palestine and, the My Body My Rights campaign. It was incredible to be at an event where everyone was so passionate about human rights. Those of us who attended came back with lots of ideas for spreading the word about Amnesty and human rights on our campus.

My body my rights: It’s your body! Know your rights

150 million girls under the age of 18 are estimated to have experienced some form of sexual violence. 50% of these sexual assaults are experienced by girls under 16.

My Body, My Rights campaign focuses on control and criminalisation of reproduction, people should be empowered to make free and informed choice about their sexuality and reproduction. This campaign really spoke to us. Our bodies, our health and sexual life are the only thing we have control over and the only thing we can make decisions about. Yet, all over the world, many women are persecuted from making these choices or prevented from doing so at all.

One of the key issues regarding this campaign is in relation to abortion which has always been a very controversial and taboo subject. Amnesty’s policy on abortion is that women who seek an abortion and health professionals who provide abortions should be decriminalised. Women should have access to abortion in cases of rape, incest, if the life and health of the woman is at risk and in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.  During the workshop we attended, discussions took place in regards to the strands of the My Body, My Rights campaign. The general motto was to campaign for better implementation of international standards and commitments and campaigning for concrete changes in people’s lives in five specific target countries: Nepal, El Salvador, Northern Ireland, Burkina Faso and North Africa (Maghreb).

Briefly mentioning the issue in some of these countries:

Every year, thousands of women and girls are denied their human rights by El Salvador’s total ban on abortion. In Burkina Faso, women do not have much control over their sexual health and need to be accompanied by their husbands in order to be given any form of contraception.

In Northern Ireland women often face life in prison for having an abortion. Strict Catholic laws only allow abortion for ‘highly exceptional circumstances’. This does not include rape. Hearing Mara Clarke talk about how women buy unsafe, illegal abortion pills on the internet because their a) desperate and b) can’t afford to travel the European mainland for private abortion really hit home.

How to prevent sexual violence

The second workshop we took part in was preventing sexual violence, specifically the UK taking the lead by introducing the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative this summer launched by William Hague and Angelina Jolie.

Across the world at least one woman in every three has been beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. Sexual violence devastates the lives of millions of women globally and often nothing is done within these communities. This initiative is working on addressing this problem by developing an International Protocol on how sexual violence should be documented and investigated in conflict particularly countries in like Syria or the Democratic Republic of Congo. This will help support the evidence and information used for future prosecutions.

The Initiative also aims to strengthen international efforts and co-ordination to prevent and respond to sexual violence; and by supporting countries.

In Sir Lanka for example, a woman was raped by Sir Lankan soldiers while held in a detention centre. In Somalia a young woman raped by seven men has little access to justice and knows little about her own rights. Whereas in Syria, since the start of the unrest, horrific reports of sexual violence are told by those women being detained for protesting.

However, we’re all aware that sexual violence is not just something that happens in conflict but right here in the UK. Recently, women’s rights activists throughout the country have brought to light to the barbaric issue of Female genital mutilation. Every year thousands of young girls as young as 10 are sent overseas to undergo a procedure which involves the removal of part or all of the external female genitalia.

We make these points because we believe that everyone needs to take part in the effort to reduce violence against women and girls. Often, violence particularly in conflict zones like these is rooted in a global culture of discrimination where women’s equal rights with their counterparts are denied. This legitimizes and reinforces the appropriation of women and their bodies being used and abused.

These are all human rights violations so why aren’t there more of us defending those who can’t defend their rights? Act now.

On a less serious note we had a great weekend mostly dancing. But one of our favourite moments was spending our Saturday afternoon on the streets of Shoreditch collecting 2000 petitions to stop torture equipment trading through the EU. GO Amnesty students across the country!

By Yasmin Adan and Kordu Jallow

Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture and Other Ill-Treatment

About Amnesty UK Blogs

Our blogs are written by Amnesty International staff, volunteers and other interested individuals, to encourage debate around human rights issues. They do not necessarily represent the views of Amnesty International.

Due to the growth of international terrorism, diplomatic assurances are routinely sought by states in an attempt to extradite individuals who pose a threat to their national security. However, this practice is controversial because it engages the states’ non-refoulement obligation under international human rights law which provides that states ought not to extradite a person where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment in the receiving state. Given that, according to human right organisations and scholars, diplomatic assurances are unreliable and inadequate guarantees of safety against ill-treatment, the diplomatic assurances policy has been criticised for circumventing the absolute prohibition of refoulement.

This hostility towards reliance on diplomatic assurances, on the ground that they are inadequate guarantees of safety, is justified given that assurances have proved to be insufficient in the past. This is most evident in the notorious cases of Ahmed Hussein Mustafa Kamil Agiza v Sweden and Mohammed Alzery v Sweden. The former case concerned the expulsion of an asylum-seeker from Sweden to Egypt on suspicion of involvement in terrorism while the latter case concerned the expulsion of Alzery from Sweden to Egypt on assurances of humane treatment. The United Nations Committee against Torture and the United Nations Human Rights Committee both reached the same conclusion – that the assurances were not sufficient to protect the applicants, as the applicants had been subjected to the proscribed treatment in Egypt.

As a result of these cases Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International; human rights advocates such as Thomas Hammarberg; as well as scholars such as Lena Skoglund and Louise Arbour, have opposed to the use of diplomatic assurances on the basis that they are unreliable. Human Rights Watch has claimed that these cases provide “the clearest illustration to date of the inherently flawed nature of diplomatic assurances” and thus, that they should never be relied upon. Due to the fact that assurances have proved to be inadequate guarantees of safety in the cases mentioned above, concerns about the use of assurances are to some extent justified. However, this does not mean that diplomatic assurances are per se ineffective and that they should never be relied upon.

Even though these cases have proved that diplomatic assurances may be insufficient in some circumstances, we should not “deduce from such examples a general proposition that assurances against torture are all inherently unreliable.” It is wrong to deduce from such examples a general proposition that assurances against torture are inherently unreliable, given that the assurances which were accepted by Sweden as adequate guarantees in the two notorious cases did not meet the minimum standards of reliability. Firstly, they did not fulfil the ‘practical effect’ requirement as they could not eliminate the serious risk of torture; and secondly, they did not contain mechanisms for monitoring of their enforcement. What these notorious cases should teach us, is that diplomatic assurances should be treated with caution; that they should be subjected to thorough examination; and that they should meet some minimum standards; before one can conclude whether they can be relied upon.

This is essentially the approach that the European Court of Human Rights adopts. The Court does not seem to agree with the absolute and prejudiced opinion of the majority that assurances are per se ineffective and thus, that they should never be relied upon. Rather, the approach of the Court suggests that in certain circumstances, diplomatic assurances can be considered as a sufficient guarantee of safety against the risk of torture and other ill-treatment. However, the Court in the case of Saadi v Italy made clear that assurances will be accepted as adequate guarantees only when, after careful examination, they appear to fulfil some criteria; when they reach a sufficient level of quality but most importantly, when they provide a sufficient guarantee in practice. This approach seems to be the most plausible one. The Court does not rule out the possibility that assurances might be effective in some circumstances but it is also careful to accept only the assurances which can protect individuals from subjection to torture and ill-treatment in practice. Therefore, in some circumstances, diplomatic assurances can be an effective tool to protect individuals from subjection to proscribed practices – when they fulfil the basic standards of reliability – while at the same time they can be an effective tool to combat terrorism. States can keep faith with the absolute nature of the prohibition but they will no longer be obliged to harbour fugitive criminals and terrorists at the expense of their national security.

By Aristi Volou

School of Law, University of Leicester

Welcome to Amnesty

Welcome to the Amnesty Int. Society’s blog! Keep up to date with what we’re doing at the University and what’s going on within Amnesty International itself.

Fresher’s fair was fabulous! The committee had so much fun meeting everyone and letting you guys know a little bit more about what we do as a society. Thanks to everyone who came to the stall, and showed an interest!

Our opening campaign this year was to raise awareness for victims of torture. Torture has been a severe global issue for decades and Amnesty International works tirelessly to expose governments and regimes that commit barbaric acts upon their own citizens. Since 2009, torture has been reported in over 141 countries across the world. A new global poll has revealed that 44% of people around the world fear being tortured in their own country. That is why we need people like you to join Amnesty International’s campaign to Stop Torture.

What can you guys do? Go over to the website, take action and pressure governments to turn their back on these barbaric acts now! We will also be hosting a film screening of the docu-drama ‘The Road to Guantanamo’ on Tuesday 21st October in Ken Edwards LT2. This award winning film highlights the disheartening fact that torture is not confined simply to dictatorial or undeveloped nations, but remains a persevering issue even within the developed world.

The committee hopes to see as many of you there as possible!
Thanks for reading our first post. Don’t forget, if you have anything you are particularly passionate about something you want to write about, don’t hesitate to contact us.

Mo xx