Karuna Amman

A Sri Lankan commander was deported back to Sri Lanka from the United Kingdom after serving a nine month prison sentence for immigration offences. This is despite allegations of numerous human rights abuses being levied at Karuna Amman; in the end The United Kingdom authorities seem unable or unwilling to bring charges against him.

Karuna Amman rose to the rank of commander in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) before leaving the LTTE to become the president of the TamilEela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP) in 2004. The TMVP is also known as the ‘Karuna faction’.

In June 1990 under the command of Karuna Amman, between 400-600 police officers who had surrendered, were bound, and gagged with the Muslims amongst them being massacred, in one of the worst incidents of the countries civil war. In July 1990 a convoy of 75 Muslims were massacred, this included men, woman and children. The following month a further 200 civilians were massacred.

More recently armed forces under Karuna Amman have been accused of ‘involuntary disappearances’ of civilians in the town of Jafna and its surrounding areas. UNICEF has also accused the Karuna faction of forcibly recruiting child soldiers. Between May 2006 and November 2006, UNICEF reported 135 cases of child recruitment, including numerous cases of child abduction and disappearances. The statement also concluded that the Karuna faction was operating with the support of the Sri Lankan government.

The list of offences that Karuna Amman has been accused of is long and shocking. Offences include mass murder (verging on genocide), abduction and the recruitment of child soldiers. However despite being imprisoned in the UK for nine months, the authorities were unable to bring a prosecution against him.

Bringing charges against a foreign warlord is not unprecedented in the UK. As in 2005 Faryadi Sarwar Zardad, an Afghan warlord, was convicted by UK courts for acts of torture and hostage taking in Afghanistan.

After arriving back in Sri Lanka, Karuna Amman said “the LTTE are now only maintaining a defence line. They can't launch any offensive. They are very weak now.” This seems to suggest he has unfinished business with the LTTE and the list of offences against him will grow.

Sweden Wire

After a heated debate in the Riksdagen, a bill was narrowly (143-138) approved to significantly extend the use of wiretapping in Sweden. The vote was approved amidst large numbers of demonstrators. Some of whom were handing out copies of George Orwell’s dystopia “1984”.

The bill has led some to comment that Sweden has now joined nations like China, Saudi Arabia and the US, with there highly controversial eavesdropping program. The law allows security services to intercept calls, email and faxes. The government insists that this law will only apply to international calls. This is despite one of the countries leading telecommunications companies, TeliaSonera, suggesting that the filtering of national and international calls would be impossible.

By way of comparison, in the United Kingdom wiretapping is covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). This requires the security services, GCHQ, police and customs to seek authorisation from the home secretary. The interception warrant must specify one person or one premise as the subject of the interception.

The new law in Sweden, which is due to come into force in January 2009, goes far beyond anything else in seen in Europe, and it is highly likely that this law will be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights. As the UK is well aware, any interruption of a person’s personal life that is not in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society will fall foul of their convention obligations. Furthermore, it is not just personal privacy that is at risk. Journalists believe this new law will prevent sources from talking to them. This is due to the risk of their conversations being taped, and used against them, thus affecting the ability of the press to hold the government accountable.

However, it will take years for a case regarding this law to reach Strasbourg, in which time many number of people are likely to have their privacy invaded.

Mosquito Banned

Kent Council has become one of the first councils in the country to ban the use of the controversial ‘mosquito’ device. The device emits a high pitch sound and is meant to warn off anyone under the age of 25 (yes, that includes new-borns) from an area. Kent Council said the reason for the ban was to protect children’s human rights, and the decision was reached after discussions with their youth members. Cabinet member Mike Hill said: 'These devices are abhorrent and give completely the wrong message to our young people.' This is despite the Association of Convenience Stores supporting the device.

Human Rights or Environmental nuisance

Although the council framed their reason in terms of human rights protection, it is probable the device is contrary to environmental law. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) a local authority has a duty to investigate “noise emitted from a premises” that is a nuisance, and a duty to issue an ‘abatement notice’ if a nuisance is found. Public nuisance can be defined as that “which inflicts damage, injury or inconvenience on all the Queen's subjects or on all members of a class who come within the sphere or neighbourhood of its operation”.

The human rights angle is also a weapon to challenge local authorities. The device is likely to be a disproportionate interference with Article 8. That is the right to respect for private life, which includes the right to respect for bodily integrity. This can be taken in conjunction with Article 14, the right not to be discriminated against. This is due to the device only affecting young people.

Even more seriously, or though less likely to succeed than the other suggestions, is a claim under Article 3, the prohibition of torture. This states that no person should be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Kent council are said to be planning to lobby for a nationwide ban. Existing campaigns by the children’s commissioner and Liberty will almost certainly try to capitalise on this decision.

Well Done the Netherlands

The Netherlands became one of the first countries to pass the United Nations Human Rights Council examination. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is meant to be an interactive and cooperative dialogue between the UN and States. The process will examine the human rights record of all 192 States; this is due to be completed by 2011.
The reason for the UPR was due to the criticisms of the Human Rights Council's predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. The latter was accused of allowing perpetual rights violators a free pass, this essentially allowed them immunity from any sort of criticism. This was especially so if the country was powerful, or if the country itself was friends (normally economic, normally involving oil) to a powerful country.

The 47 council members receive a report from the government and input from relevant stakeholders, such as NGO's or UN bodies. There is then a three hour session in which government officials are quizzed on this input. Approximately three months later a report is published on the council’s findings.
It seems that the Netherlands have done well. There were thirty recommendations for improvement issued by the council, most of which have been accepted by the Netherlands. However Egypt’s recommendation has been rejected. This called on the Netherlands to consider introducing the death penalty. Fortunately the Netherlands are constitutionally barred from introducing such a grave violation of individual’s human rights.

It is unlikely that Bahrain, the first nation to step before council members in this UPR process will fair so well. A country with a majority Shi'ite Muslim, Bahrain is ruled by a Sunni royal family and has been for more than two centuries, as such Shi'ites often claim discrimination. A report form two NGO's, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and the Bahrain Human Rights Society, cites problems including torture; discrimination against women, migrant workers and Shi'as; and restrictions on freedom of association, including limits on the right of human rights NGOs to operate freely (according to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights they were officially shut down in 2004.) Other accusations included a lack of dependence in the judiciary and the trafficking of workers. On top of this the NGO's were banned from leaving the country, by the government, in order to attend the meeting.

These initial sessions are of such importance if the newly established Human Rights Council body is going to have any impact on human rights across the globe. The world should wait to see how they cope with this unprecedented mechanism.

42 day deal

It seems that the government, in order to secure their ‘terror plans’, has 'bought’ the DUP in order to push through their plans for 42 days pre-charge detention. All nine DUP MP’s supported the government plans, with the government winning by nine votes.

So what is in it for the DUP and what does the 42 day pre-charge (with amendments) mean?

The DUP

The DUP’s chief whip released a statement after the vote. This said that all their MP’s voted with their conscience. However he also said “In future elections we must seek to further strengthen the hand of the Democratic Unionist Party to maximise the influence of Northern Ireland in Westminster.” Even before the vote was taken, rumors spread that a deal were in place in order to persuade the DUP MP’s. So what was in these deals? Although it is impossible to say exactly what was in the deal, any negotiation needs to begin with each side having clear objectives. The governments are clear, support the 42 day proposals.

As for the DUP in their 2007 manifesto pledged a Solution for Water Charges (at page 38). The system at present consists of newly introduced water charges, rating system (related to the price of the property in 2005) and an increase in rates, has meant, according to the DUP and a campaign group, that some people are paying twice and even three times for their water. The solution, the treasury will relax charges, equivalent to £200 million.
In Northern Ireland abortion remains illegal except in certain specific circumstances. The DUP, as a religious party, does not want the 24 week upper limit (Human Embryology and Fertility Bill) applied to Northern Ireland. As such it wants to be exempt from any law which would impose this.
Furthermore to strengthen Northern Irelands budget, a deal to give them proceeds from the sale of Army bases in Northern Ireland, could result in a £1 billion windfall.

These issues are all important to Northern Ireland, and most need to be debated and solutions implemented, but not on the back of any deal to take away fundamental liberties.

As a write this Gordon Brown, in his press conference the morning after the vote, has emphatically stated that no deal was done with the DUP or any MP.
Although none of these plans has been made public, the PM is visiting Northern Ireland on Monday. Let’s see if a deal is done then. I am sure if these proposals are implemented the PM will say they were already in the pipeline and the deal was in place before the vote.

42 day pre-charge

The House of Lords will have the opportunity to look at these proposals and it is likely that the government will again face a tough time. It is probable that they will be defeated or amended in this setting.

The pre charge detention essentially means that a person can have their liberty (that is there freedom) removed for up to 42 day before they are told exactly why they are being held.

Under current proposals if a suspect is held beyond the current 28 days the home secretary will make a statement to parliament explaining why. A debate will then be held and votes taken. Any discussion will have to restrict itself from jeopardising any future trial. If the court feels their has been an unfair prejudice to the defendants case, the individual may be set free as no fair trial can take place. Imagine the uproar in the tabloids if this is the case!

This is just one of the ammendments, I will obviously return to this issue when the House of Lords has had their say.

Nearly 800 years ago, on the 15th June 1215, the barons wrestled some power from King John, forcing him to sign the Magna Carta. Some elements of which are still in force, including the writ of Habeas Corpus which states;

“No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

Lets hope the Counter-Terrorism Bill does not repel this fundamental British right.