Amnesty’ Conference 2010 and Troy Davis by Adrianne Wyse

I trekked into the 2010 Amnesty Conference to support a friend. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a member of Amnesty International (AI) and fully support everything that they do. I just haven’t exactly been an active member in recent years. But this year’s National Conference has left me determined to get back involved with the organisation and do everything I can to help.

The moment I arrived I was thrust a blue “I am Troy Davis” t-shirt. We traipsed down to O Connell Street all clad in blue for a photo shoot. I was really surprised by how effective a method of campaigning this was. Numerous people came up to ask questions about Troy, and apparently some people thought we were on a stag…. slightly odd. I guess it made a pleasant change for people, accustomed to being accosted by over enthusiastic campaigners with fliers and leaflets.

I have to be honest at this point and admit, that I had no idea who Troy was before the recent convention. I had asked another member for some background before we had headed down town. Thus, I found out he was a prisoner on death row in the US, who for 20 years has maintained his innocence and fought for a fair retrial but never received one.

The closing portion of the weekend’s events was dedicated to Troy, with his sister Martina addressing the Conference. Naturally I expected this to be interesting, but I think everyone in the audience was unprepared for the effect it would have on us. The theatre had filled up quite a bit with interested parties, members and non-members alike. Martina started, with a film describing the situation that led to her brother’s arrest and eventual conviction.

Troy was convicted of killing a police officer in August 1989. The circumstances leading to his arrest are highly questionable. Amongst other irregularities plaguing the case, 7 of the 9 witnesses used to convict him have recanted their stories.

What struck me most, as Martina began to talk of her journey and that of her brother, was how fresh it all sounded. It has been 20 years. She must have told this story, his story, thousands of times, but still spoke with such conviction and clarity, that most in the audience were moved to tears. To say her tale is moving and powerful is really not doing it justice. Her resilience, courage and determination are simply incredible.

Hearing her talk about her brother, you realise that this strength and determination comes from her love for him. And you cannot but warm to him, when you hear this love in her voice. His tale is truly horrifying. To hear that he has been, three times, within 90 minutes of being executed is unbearable.

The death penalty is abhorrent to me in all circumstances. But to think that an innocent person could be killed in this way is simply horrific. That is not justice, nor could it ever be.

I can’t even begin to comprehend what Troy and his family have gone through. What is even more terrifying is that while I go on living my life, even writing this article, he is still locked up and this nightmare continues for him. I read up on him in the week after. What is clear from letters he has written to people, is that he is not fighting for himself and neither is Martina. Troy sees himself as one of many people who have suffered injustices at the hands of their government and he fights for all of them.

I wonder what I would do in her circumstances. When Martina joined Amnesty, she didn't realise that the life she would end up fighting for would be that of her brother. I like, Martina, have joined Amnesty, to fight for the rights of other, of distant people. Like Martina, I have a brother that I love dearly. But a brother who could, in Martina’s words, “be in the wrong place at the wrong time”. I can only hope that I would have the same resilience and strength as Martina to keep on fighting for him. And in the meantime, I will fight for Martina’s brother, Troy Davis, and hope that one day he will be free.

Jack Bauer and Cruel and Unusual Punishment by Sharon Dolan

So this week I’ve been learning about International, European, and Irish Human Rights law: In particular the European Court of Human Rights. Established under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in 1950, to monitor respect of human rights by the states in Europe.

Learning and reading of the cases the courts hear, and have ruled on (did you know that over 50% of the cases heard are brought against the Russian Federation) has had me thinking about the concept of justice, and fair and open trails.

After all the legal system exists because mankind created it. It continues to exist because we continue to see it as the ‘best’ form of ‘justice’.

Traditionally, to us in the west, the image of Lady Justice sits as a mascot to the judiciary. Justice is depicted as a goddess equipped with three symbols of the rule of law: a sword symbolising the court's coercive power; scales representing the weighing of competing claims; and a blindfold indicating impartiality. And it is the last one, which is most universally known: justice is blind.

You do not have to prove innocence; you simply have to prove reasonable doubt.

As Amnesty, are all too aware, the death penalty, is a ‘punishment’, often handed down by courts in certain countries. Amnesty International is whole-heartedly, and one hundred percent, against the death penalty.

To me this is a black and white issue. The death penalty should never be used. It doesn’t prevent crimes and it essentially, in my view, contradicts what we most believe in. What if an innocent person is executed? How can you ever be 100% certain?

And in my learning, and through discussions with others, I discovered that when it comes to certain issues, such as torture, the group, if not each individual, is completely divided.

Yes torture is wrong. Of course it is. Debate over. Never to be discussed again. However then you read cases where torture has been used to extradite a confession, with the resulting effect that the lives of 10s, or maybe even 100s of people are saved? And someone says the inevitable: Well if it was your child in danger, you wouldn’t just ‘condone’ the torture; you’d probably do the torturing yourself.

So that’s my question today! Where do we draw the line with things like torture? Who gets to decide? And is one life just as important, or even more so, than 2 or 4 or 10 or 100 or 1,000,000.

We may know, or we strongly suspect, that a lot, if not all, of the world’s security services have used torture as a means of eliciting confessions.

We can never be sure, but we can be fairly sure they have, do, and probably will in the future. We are also aware that the information has been used to prevent terrorist atrocities, and further loss of life.

The European Court have heard cases like this, and in many cases they have ruled that the treatment endured was torturous, or cruel, or deliberate, and have on occasion ruled in the plaintiff’s favour.

In December 1977, there was a landmark case that marked the first time a government had taken another government to the European Court. And it was our very own government who took a case against the United Kingdom. The Court ruled that the government of the UK was guilty of "inhuman and degrading treatment", of men interned without trial, during the Northern Irish troubles. The Court found that while their internment was an interference of the convention rights, it was justifiable in the circumstances; it however ruled that the practice of beating prisoners, and the techniques used, constituted inhumane and degrading punishment in violation of the convention, although not torture.

Yes torture is wrong, and yes the torturers should be held accountable for what they have done, but where I reach my sticking point is: the life saving results of the torture. If one life is saved then that is two parents, numerous siblings, a whole family and a whole gaggle of friends who are saved from suffering. If it were your parent, sibling, friend, child or lover, would you consent to someone being tortured to save his or her life? Because it is a question I just can’t answer.

Why do I have to learn algebra?

Article 26: We all have the right to education

It’s in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It’s the Millennium Development Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education. We are told repeatedly of the value of education. It has been said often; and it has been said loud. It changes lives.

But we all wake up some, or most, mornings and wish we just didn’t have to go to school. We do not like that teacher. We do not like this subject. We do not want to get up at 7 o’clock in the morning. Some days we just can’t be bothered. And how on earth will algebra ever be of benefit?

For like all things that we have, and can have: we take it for granted.

The right to education in the west is, often, a non-issue. We are all required to attend school until we are 16 years of age, because years ago a government decreed that that was the way it was to be.

But in many countries throughout the world the obstacles that can hinder, a child’s, opportunity for education can range from the insurmountable, to the seemingly insignificant and minute. The list is literally endless. The school is too far away; they have to work; free and compulsory education does not exist in their country; they cannot afford schoolbooks; they can’t attend school because there is no clean lavatory.

To be educated is often times the only way to better yourself. JK Rowling, her of Harry Potter fame, once said that even though, at one stage, she was unemployed and living on benefits, she knew that she would be fine, and would avoid ‘the poverty trap’, because she had one thing going for her: she was educated.

There are very few of us, who will ever be able to attain an adequate standard of living as adults, without first being educated. Imagine for a moment that you couldn’t read, or that you couldn’t do simple maths? What job could you do? If you were sick you couldn’t even read the instructions on a medicine bottle. You would, in effect, have a disability.

Education may allow us to read about, and question, many theories and ideas, but the fact that we can even read them, in the first place, means that we have been educated.

In India last week, eight years after they amended the constitution to make education a fundamental right, the government implemented a historic law to provide free and compulsory education to all children from 6-14 years of age.

The 86th Constitutional amendment making education a fundamental right was passed by Parliament in 2002. Both the Constitutional amendment and the new law came into force on the 1st of April. And hopefully this will be no April fool’s joke.

The new law makes it obligatory for the state governments and local bodies to ensure that every child gets education in a school in the neighbourhood.

The problem of child labour in the world’s largest democracy is a major human rights issue.

Many children under the age of fifteen work in carpet making factories, glass blowing units and making fireworks with bare little hands. According to the statistics, given by the Indian government, there are 20 million child labourers in the country, while many other organisations claim that the number to be nearer 50 million.

If the new law is to be rigidly enforced, it could mean that we see a major decrease in the problem of child labour in India.

So the next time it’s raining; or the next time you just can’t be bothered getting out of bed, when you look at your alarm clock and see that its 7 o’clock. Perhaps, remember that the only reason you know it’s 7 o’clock, is because someone taught you how to tell time.

Anti Homosexuality Bill – Uganda by Philip Dalton

The African nation of Uganda proposed an Anti – Homosexuality Bill on the 13^th of October 2009 that would, if enacted later this year, punish homosexuality by introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions, are HIV - Positive, or engage in same sex acts with people under 18 years of age. The bill also includes a clause that if a Ugandan engages in same-sex sexual relations outside of Uganda, that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda. It also includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organisations, or non - governmental organisations that support LGBT rights. The bill is to be discussed in Uganda's parliament in Spring 2010.

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”- Article Three, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On January 3^rd 2010, The New York Times published the article: Americans’ Role seen in Uganda Anti – gay push. Upon reading it I was instantly horrified, but yet, unsurprised. Uganda, after all, like everywhere is bound to have a tremendous amount of people with very conservative attitudes and opinions. What did surprise me about the article is the spark that started this forest fire of a situation:

Last year a group of American Evangelical Christians had spoken to Ugandans about the “threat” of Homosexuality.

From the 5^th to the 8^th of March 2009, a workshop took place in Kampala, the capital of Uganda, which featured three prominent American evangelical Christians

The theme of the conference, according to The New York Times, was the " gay agenda": "how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how 'the gay movement is an evil institution' whose goal is 'to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity' ".

A special motion to introduce anti – homosexual legislation was passed a month after the two-day event.

In Uganda it is already illegal to be a homosexual but the bill proposes increasing the jail term, from up to fourteen years, to life imprisonment. The bill also proposes that if a person who has been in prison for seven years but repeats the “crime” they will be tried on “aggravated homosexuality” for which the sentence is death by hanging.

Other offences that reach “aggravated homosexuality” status are, “if the person against whom the offence is committed is under the age of 18 years”, “the offender is living with HIV”, “the offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed” and other such “offences”.

I personally, do not look on this as a gay rights matter, I do not look on any situation as a gay rights matter, for in my opinion it is not gay rights. It is a human issue and an issue of what we all are entitled to.

Everyone is born with a sexual preference. It is as much a part of who we are as the colour of our eyes. There is no doubt in my mind that every person has the right to choose to marry and every person has the right to adopt or foster a child: as long as they can financially and lovingly support the child.

If this bill is to become law in Uganda I fear this tenuous decision could affect the rest of Africa, nay the rest of the world.

Most recently gay marriage laws were passed in Mexico City, but as tends to be the case in most battles regarding basic human rights and religious moral issues, its one step forward and two steps back. Also as is the case in most African countries the separation of church and state is a concept we may not see for many, many years.

But in such an egregious act of persecution, we all must stand strong, we must not back down, for each small victory is another brick in the wall of justice we are building. We must make the Ugandan authorities and people see that when the rights of one are violated the rights of all are compromised.

The Death Penalty – Neil Moran and Emily Walker

Once you die, that’s it. Game Over. You don’t get another chance. People don’t usually want to die; most are scared of old age and especially – Murderers

Death Penalty

Amnesty International describes the death penalty as the ‘ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment’.

This makes total sense. The death penalty is nothing more then the premeditated, and cold – blooded killing of another human being. And how can this method of punishment be justified? There is no statistical evidence to support the claim that the death penalty acts as an effective deterrent – in fairness gang members and drug dealers live under the daily threat of getting ‘whacked’ by the opposition. The death penalty is ‘legal murder’ – if such a concept can possibly exist.

There are so many problems with the death penalty that it is hard to contain them to one blog post. However, I have highlighted some of the biggest problems below.

1. What if an innocent person is executed? The death penalty is, by its very nature, final. There is no coming back, no issuing of an apology. Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, and at least if a person is found innocent whilst in prison they can be released to try and reclaim their life. No such option exists if the accused is simply killed.

2. What about rehabilitation? The criminal justice system, especially in developed countries, is based on three principles. Retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. It is well established that social factors have a huge influence on the likelihood that an individual will offend. By executing those who do commit crimes the state is ignoring this third principle.

3. What about the right to life? Article 3 of the Declaration of Human Rights states that: ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person’. Surely a practise of judicially sanctioned execution violates this most basic right?

4. Humane execution? This phrase seems like a bad joke. All known methods of execution cause pain, and problems have even been reported with lethal injections. This is supposedly the most humane form of execution there is.

In Indiana in the United States of America, in 1996, Tommy J. Smith took an hour and nine minutes to the be pronounced dead. Because the prisoner had very small veins he writhed in agony for over an hour before the state managed to finally kill him. .

The death penalty appears to be an unnecessary and unethical punishment. It goes against basic Humans Rights and in my opinion it should be abolished worldwide.

At the start of the 20^th century, only 3 countries had abolished the death sentence.

Today, ten years into the 21^st century, over half the countries in the world have abolished it in law or in practice. Over the past decade an average of 3 countries have abolished the death sentence per year, and it is seldom reintroduced. As mentioned above the death penalty is simply not an effective way to achieve the stated aims of its supporters, leading me to wonder why these people support it in the first place?

In dreams and in love there are no impossibilities.

‘I think being a woman is like being Irish. Everyone says you're important and nice, but you take second place all the same’. Iris Murdoch

Well dear Iris should have known, being as she was both a woman, and Irish, and trying to make her way in the male dominated academia of Oxbridge.

If I asked you to define yourself, what words would you use? White? Black? Western? Eastern? Catholic? Protestant? African? Muslim? Female? Male?

Write the words down. Now look at them again. How many of them could result in you experiencing some form of discrimination, in some part of the world. None? All of them? Some of them?

There is one that guarantees you will never experience discrimination: Heterosexual. Wherever in the world you go, that is not only universally accepted, but often an absolute default setting.

For Iris was not only Irish and a woman. She was openly bisexual.

All over the world, to deviate from the ‘default setting’ that is heterosexuality, can often result in lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people being criminalised, tortured or ill treated because of their sexuality.

Amnesty International works to expose these human rights abuses. We challenge governments and state authorities to fulfil their responsibility to protect LGBT people from such abuses.
I am proud to be associated with such an organisation. However the news from home, and abroad, does little for my pride in humanity.

The happenings make for grim reading.

Recently Amnesty learned that two young Malawian men, in their twenties, had been arrested for holding a traditional engagement ceremony. If they are convicted, of this ‘crime’ they face up to 14 years in prison with hard labour.

Just this month a new Lithuanian law, came into force. It defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and effectively means that any public promotion of same-sex partnerships, or advocacy for equality in marriage, is prohibited.

Even here on our own Island, there have been vocal opposition to the Civil Partnership Act.

I, as a heterosexual (as far as I am aware anyway) can go out with whom I like, and I will be able, eventually if I so wish, to marry whom I like: whether that be once or ten times. It is not required that my marriage be a ‘bond of love’. I can marry someone for money, or status. If I wanted to I could get married because I’m bored, and fancy the party and a lot of presents.

The point is: no one will interfere with my choice. Whatever my choice and whatever my reason for that choice, I will not be jailed or persecuted for it. It wasn’t fought for; and it wasn’t earned. It is a right. Should all humans not be afforded the same ‘privilege’?

Equality is a difficult concept because in an absolute form, it has often been aspired to, but never achieved. As humans we crave power and that very instinct, perhaps, erodes the very possibility of complete equality.

But one thing I am sure of. Surely, if I can choose to marry for money, or cake, or presents, then so should anyone else. But what if two people, any two people, want to commit to each other for the most noble of reasons: love. Well then they should not only be permitted to do so. They should be revered.

Right to Protest: You're Not Welcome Here No More by Ciarán O'Carroll

On the 15th of March 2010 the Israeli Army, once again, raided the Palestinian West Bank villages of Bil’in and Nil’in. The soldiers went from one end of the village, to the other, posting a document on shop fronts and homes.

This document declared that Israeli, and international activists, were strictly prohibited from entering the villages between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm every Friday and declared them to be closed military areas until August 17th.

Israel’s illegal “Separation Wall” cuts through both villages, restricting the residents from their work, agricultural land, and water resources.

This declaration is a violation of the right to peaceful protest. It is an attempt to repress, and destroy, the village's resistance against the occupation and the annexation of its land.

Earlier in the day, Iyad Burnat, the head of the Bil’in Popular Committee, received a phone call from the Israel Security Agency. He was ordered to report to an office the next day for questioning which he refused to do, as he had done nothing wrong.

Despite the International Court of Justice finding Israel’s “Separation Barrier” contrary to international law, and saying it should be removed, its construction continues. Residents in Beit Jala have this week obtained an order to stop work on the separation wall.

Approximately 70 olive trees have already been uprooted. One families septic system was broken leaving raw sewage spewing out below their home; and a playground was bulldozed. If the wall is finished it will stand only several meters from some of the homes.

There is very little the Palestinians can do to change their situation alone. They are virtually unarmed, with a few rockets and some stone-throwing kids, and they face the fourth most powerful army on this earth.

With relations at a ’35 year low’ between Israel and the USA, International pressure at this pivotal moment could bring about monumental changes for justice and human rights in the Middle East.

Contact the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and demand construction of the “Separation Barrier” ceases and the removal of illegal settlements on Palestinian land. There has never been a more important time to take action.

Write to:

Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister
Office of the Prime Minister
3 Kaplan St.
Hakirya,
Jerusalem 91950
Israel

*The Separation Barrier

Constructed by the State of Israel. It consists of a network of fences, walls and trenches. The barrier is built mainly in the West Bank and partly along the 1949 Armistice line, or "Green Line" between Israel and Palestinian West Bank.

The Israeli government prefer the name ‘security fence’; while for the Palestinian’s the preferred name is the ‘apartheid wall’