29 March 2011
Free to protest? I can still be arrested if my placard reads: 'Nick Clegg, oh dear'
Even Tony Blair's most illiberal measures have survived Clegg's promise to repeal all the laws that inhibit our freedomv George Monbiot
Guardian Monday 28 March 2011 21.00 BST
It could have been worse: at least the police didn't try to kettle half a million people. But as footage obtained by the Guardian from the great march on Saturday shows, the glorious tradition of impartial policing and respect for peaceful protest remain undimmed. The film shows senior police officers assuring members of UK Uncut who had peacefully occupied Fortnum & Mason that they would not be confused with the rioters outside, and would be allowed to go home if they left the store. They did so, and were penned, handcuffed, thrown into vans, dumped in police cells and, in some cases, left there for 24 hours.
Isn't all that supposed to have stopped? Haven't we entered a new era of freedom in which the government, as it has long promised, now defends "the hard-won liberties that we in Britain hold so dear"? No.
In May 2010, after becoming deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg pledged that the government would "repeal all of the intrusive and unnecessary laws that inhibit your freedom" and "remove limits on the rights to peaceful protest." The Queen's speech firmed up the commitment by promising "the restoration of rights to non-violent protest". So how did this grand vision become the limp rag of a bill now before parliament?The Protection of Freedoms Bill, currently in committee, is a change for the better. It limits the period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects; reforms the measures that allow police to stop and search anyone they please; regulates CCTV and council snooping; and prevents the police from holding the DNA records of innocent people indefinitely.
All this is welcome, but it scarcely grazes the mountain of repressive legislation that has piled up since Margaret Thatcher was in power. It doesn't even acknowledge the intrusive and unnecessary laws in the 1986 Public Order Act, the 1992 Trade Union Act, the 1994 Criminal Justice Act, the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act, the 2003 Antisocial Behaviour Act, the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act and the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. In fact the new bill contains not a single clause restoring rights to non-violent protest.
Here are just two of the dozens of repressive measures these acts contain, which have been used repeatedly to criminalise peaceful protest. Neither, as far as I can see, has ever been mentioned by Clegg, Cameron or their ministers.
When the Protection from Harassment Act was being debated, campaigners warned that a bill whose ostensible purpose was to protect women from stalkers was so loosely drafted that it could be used by the police however they wished. The warnings were ignored, and the first three people arrested under the act were not stalkers but peaceful protesters. The police used the law, among many such instances, against protesters outside the US intelligence base at Menwith Hill, who were deemed to have harassed American servicemen by holding up a placard reading "George W Bush? Oh dear!"; and against a protester in Hull, on the grounds that he had been "staring at a building". Notoriously, the act was used to obtain an injunction against villagers in Oxfordshire, protesting against a plan by RWE npower to turn their beautiful lake into a fly ash dump. If they went anywhere near the lake, they would be prosecuted for harassing the burly men guarding the site.
Still more pernicious, because the penalties are so severe, are the measures contained in sections 145-149 of the same Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. These are aimed at animal rights protesters, which might be why you have heard so little about them. Because some have used violence, intimidation and arson, hardly anyone seems prepared to defend the far greater number who support the same causes peacefully. The act prohibits "interference with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisations". The definition of harm includes causing "loss or damage of any description".
If, for example, you were to send a newspaper article about how one of these businesses treats its animals to a client or a shareholder, you'd be in danger of prosecution under the act. This would be bad enough. But police and prosecutors have cast the net even wider and made the law even vaguer by prefacing it with "conspiracy to".This was the charge on which a young man called Sean Kirtley was convicted in 2008. He had not intimidated or threatened anyone, or even interfered in a contractual relationship: he had merely updated a website with details about authorised and peaceful protests. Because some of the people who attended these protests used abusive language, and because this language was classified by the Crown Prosecution Service as an attempt to interfere in contractual relationships, Kirtley was alleged to have conspired in the commissioning of an offence. He was sentenced to four and a half years. He was acquitted on appeal, but not before he had served 16 months.
If the government was serious about repealing "all of the intrusive and unnecessary laws that inhibit our freedom", would it not have begun with measures like this? Instead it has published a bill that, it initially promised, would allow "members of the public to protest peacefully without fear of being criminalised", but makes not a single move towards this end.
I don't believe Clegg's claim, which seems to have gulled the usually sceptical Observer journalist Henry Porter, that this act is the beginning, not the end, of the coalition's reforms; and that, in Porter's words, "there may even be a great repeal act down the road that would look at some of the laws not addressed in this bill". Perhaps he is unaware that the original title of the current legislation was the freedom (great repeal) bill.
17 March 2011
Mis cometarios en Twitter – 16/17 marzo de 2011 sobre #EducaciónCol
El modelo universitario que busca el gobierno Colombiano es el que se aplica en Estados Unidos y se quiere aplicar en Inglaterra en este momento. La diferencia es que mientras EEUU/Inglaterra tienen grandes universidades que se pueden beneficiar del sector privado por sus dotaciones académicas ya existentes etc. en Colombia las universidades necesitan inversión nacional para que lleguen al nivel que les permita por lo menos mejorar la situación nacional de educación terciaria y también competir a nivel mundial.
En Inglaterra (Escocia, Gales e Irlanda del Norte operan diferentes sistemas en este momento) la educación fue subsidiada por el estado. Pero aun así, y hasta hace poco tiempo, el acceso universitario por parte de la población británica no superaba el 30% como máximo. En este momento el Reino Unido tiene uno de los más altos índices de acceso general a educación terciaria, pero el porcentaje de la populación con educación universitaria no llega a más del 40%. Sin embargo hasta el año 1997, el sistema educativo era universal y gratuitito y esto permitió que Gran Bretaña desarrollara el segundo sector universitario mas prestigioso del mundo. Y vale anotar que en el país donde nació la revolución industrial y el capitalismo solo existen, (hasta el momento) 3 universidades privadas.
Presentemente el gobierno Británico de coalición esta empujado a las universidades hacia el sector privado y esta forzando a los estudiantes a pagar mucho mas por su educación (de £6,000 a £9,000 por año - esto se refiere al costo de pensiones para estudiantes nacionales, el costo de pensiones es tres veces mayor para estudiantes extranjeros) Igual, el 26 de este mes estamos en marcha contra estos incrementos y otros cortes presupuestales.
Tampoco podemos olvidar las inequidades del sistema de EEUU y el infame desperdicio de talento que ese sistema genera En EEUU solo el 20- 24% llegan a una universidad y de este porcentaje menos del 5% son de la clase trabajadora Norteamérica – dadas las grandes inequidades sociales que existen en EEUU (en comparación a otros países desarrollados) ese no puede ser el modelo de una Colombia que ya contiene tantas inequidades y discriminación.
La ironía es que las mejores universidades del mundo se beneficiaron de filantropía y/o del gobierno - no se hicieron a punta de ayudas del sector privado. El sector privado solo llega cuando las cosas están hechas y el beneficio puede ser cuantificado a nivel industrial, científico, comercial, etc. o a nivel de pagos y otros servicios estudiantiles. Por eso es tan importante construir un modelo que se informe y se beneficie de las experiencias externas, pero que fundamentalmente sea un modelo nacional que trate específicamente con los graves problemas de educación terciarias en el país. Si el modelo es copiado, es como si a un niño de cinco años le dieran el sastre de un hombre de 1.90 de estatura y esperáramos que le quedara bien y le sirviera; cuando es obvio que eso así, no funciona J
15 March 2011
DERECHO A ACCESO DE LA JUSTICIA EN COLOMBIA
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
6 March 2011
El DAS espió a la ONU
Fotos, correos electrónicos y órdenes de trabajo hacen parte de las evidencias en la Fiscalía
Agencia Prensa Rural / Sábado 5 de marzo de 2011
La Fiscalía adelanta investigaciones sobre los seguimientos ilegales que se habrían hecho desde el DAS a Naciones Unidas.
Fuentes cercanas a la investigación señalaron que en el proceso reposan hasta fotografías del
Igualmente señalaron que hacen parte del proceso varios correos electrónicos de funcionarios del
Como parte de las operaciones de seguimiento del DAS a organismos defensores de derechos humanos hay evidencias del ’caso Naciones Unidas’, que habría incluido seguimientos a funcionarios en eventos del organismo.
Naciones Unidas ya había manifestado su preocupación por los seguimientos ilegales a políticos de la oposición, magistrados y periodistas, entre otros.
Incluso, había exhortado al Gobierno colombiano a hacer reformas urgentes en su agencia de inteligencia (DAS) porque, dijo, "existe un peligro" derivado del "vacío de control democrático", por lo que el Estado colombiano debe "establecer mecanismos de control sobre el servicio de inteligencia".
La declaración se produjo a finales de febrero pasado, durante la presentación del informe anual sobre Colombia.En ella, el representante del Alto Comisionado de Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, Christian Salazar, aseguró en Bogotá que se continuaron "recibiendo informaciones sobre interceptaciones de correos electrónicos, seguimientos, hostigamientos y amenazas, robos de información, alteración de páginas de Internet e ingresos ilegales a oficinas y domicilios de distintas organizaciones de la sociedad civil".
En el informe , la ONU concluye que la información que ha recibido le permite "confirmar la existencia de un patrón de escuchas, seguimientos y hostigamientos sistemáticos realizados por funcionarios del DAS (Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad), bajo órdenes de sus superiores, a quienes informaban de los resultados".
Asimismo, advierte que el avance de las investigaciones parece indicar que los grupos de la central implicados, entre ellos el de Observación Nacional e Internacional (Goni), "fueron estructuras formalmente constituidas al interior de la institución".
"Estos hechos, como los denunciados en 2009, siguen en la impunidad", aclaró la ONU.
Salazar apuntó a que el Gobierno y demás instituciones colombianas, como
Además exhortó al Gobierno a que "las investigaciones avancen para condenar a los responsables del DAS por sus crímenes".
Feminism's global challenge: With one voice
This Tuesday, International Women's Day will focus our attention on the struggle that millions still face against injustice and discrimination. In an impassioned essay, Mariella Frostrup argues that the fight for women's rights is far from over.
In the western world the greatest triumph of spin in the last century is reflected in attitudes to feminism. Our struggle for emancipation and equality has been surreptitiously rewritten as a harpy bra-burning contest while elsewhere, in less affluent parts of the world, the response is altogether different. From Mozambique to Chad, South Africa and Liberia, Sierra Leone to Burkina Faso, feminism is the buzzword for a generation of women determined to change the course of the future for themselves and their families. At female gatherings all over sub-Saharan Africa you'll find enthusiasm and eager signatories to the cause.
Not, they're quick to point out, that they're fans of the strident man bashing we enthusiastically took part in during feminism's second wave. Theirs is a quiet, dignified and entirely implacable determination to make equality not just an aspiration but a reality, in the areas of life where it most counts, from government to enterprise. And they're achieving it, too. Under the banner of Gender is My Agenda, with the encouragement of the African Union, which has named this the Decade of African Women, small women's groups across the African continent are coming together to lobby, draw strength, learn leadership and conflict-negotiating skills and support each other in creating and sustaining small businesses.
Conversely, in the UK there are more blokes called Dave and Nick in government than there are women MPs. Women continue to hover at a steady 19% in the chamber, put off perhaps by a testosterone-fuelled climate where the last two prime ministers' wives have given up high- flying careers to support their husbands or simply to satisfy the perceived demands of middle England. Meanwhile, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, instead of receiving praise, was drowned in a chorus of derision for attempting a degree of shared parenting with his working wife Miriam.
In the face of such continuing inequities, do a straw poll in a room full of modern Brits and you'll find that those willing to commit to the F word are few and far between. But, Top Gear presenters aside, I wonder if members of either sex actually disagree with what feminism set out to achieve, which is the social, economic and political equality of the sexes (see any definition for confirmation of those goals). Better yet, it's a battle we've all but won. Time for a pat on the back to all concerned, and special thanks to Emmeline Pankhurst, Germaine Greer and the rest.
The myth of equality, or near enough, was one I fell for like so many others until I was asked to participate in a debate at the Royal Geographical Society a few years ago. "We're All Feminists Now" asserted the motion – and faced with the literary might of the likes of Howard Jacobson and Tim Lott I was initially struck dumb, fearing it was going to be a tough challenge to argue the opposite. A quick Google put me straight. Two-thirds of children denied school are girls, 64% of the world's illiterate adults are women, 41m girls are still denied a primary education, 75% of civilians killed in war are women and children, causing Major-General Patrick Cammaert, the former UN peacekeeping commander in the Democratic Republic of Congo, to declare in 2008: "It is now more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in modern conflict."
These are staggering statistics, and yet not powerful enough to make arguing for women's rights a respectable pursuit, rather than the aggressive histrionics of popular perception. International Women's Day, the one day a year when we're encouraged to celebrate what we've achieved and highlight what still needs to be done, conjures less bile than the F word, but also more apathy. When women are allowed to vote, work, choose when to have babies and dress in whatever fashion pleases them, what on earth do they need their own day for as well?
The fact that 700,000 people will experience domestic violence in the UK, and 90% of them are white British females, that there are sex slaves imported daily to this country who live lives of abject terror, that equal pay is still not a reality nearly four decades after the act enshrining it was passed, that the conviction rate in rape cases still hovers around 6.5%, that only 12% of the UK's boardroom seats (as compared to Norway's 32%) are occupied by women, are just a small smattering of reasons why women's rights should remain a priority even here in the UK.
Saving women's lives in childbirth and protecting them from HIV infection must remain a priority, but if those women have no rights or opportunities, you are also sentencing them to a life of unadulterated hardship. Yet try to tell the stories of the inspirational groups of feisty femmes currently creating havoc with the status quo in the developing world, or make a programme highlighting the quantifiable difference to a country's GDP that comes with educating girls, or celebrate the small business women across Africa who keep that continent alive, and interest evaporates.
Gender-based violence causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war. Basically it's safer to spend Friday nights chain smoking on the M1 with a bag of Congolese mosquitoes, in fog, than to be a woman in large swathes of the world. It's not possible to have a daughter (as I do) and ignore the fact that every year, 60 million girls are sexually assaulted at or en route to school. One in five women will become a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime.
One in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in her lifetime – many of these on a number of occasions. Women who experience violence are up to three times more likely to acquire HIV. Indeed, it is now among women and children, not the men spreading it, that Aids is most prevalent. Among national governments, 29% lack laws or policies to prevent violence against women. Women hold only 19% of the world's parliamentary seats, perfectly echoed in our own chamber. Have you had enough yet? I certainly had.
Rage is a powerful motivating force, I discovered, and I decided to see for myself what was happening out there. I visited Internally Displaced Peoples camps in Chad where women refugees from Darfur were being raped daily when they ventured out to gather firewood so they could cook for their children. In Mozambique I cried frustrated tears as the 12 women farmers gathered around me raised their hands in shame and in unison to indicate that every one of them was a victim of domestic violence, a crime they were campaigning to have outlawed. And yes, this was only last year.
So forgive me if I struggle to find sexist jokes funny in a country where sex slavery is on the rise and 16- and 17-year-old girls from countries around the world have been abducted, raped and forced into prostitution. Though I might chuckle a bit if those jokes were being told by a Bangladeshi businesswoman celebrating her daughter's Cambridge degree… Is it triumphalist to applaud when a woman over 50 takes on the discriminatory ageism of a giant corporation and wins, as in the case of TV presenter Miriam O'Reilly? And we are the lucky ones, living in a society where the possibility of justice, if not always the reality of it, exists.
That's why a group of us set up Great – the Gender Rights and Equality Action Trust. That's why individuals like Annie Lennox and President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf became active patrons. But it's not just "sisters that are doing it". Bono and Damon Albarn have joined our ranks – this is not a women's issue any longer; this is a human issue. There's a new wave of support sweeping from the developed to the developing world through women joining forces and rolling up their sleeves to lend a hand. Weareequals.org is a coalition of NGOs large and small, which have joined forces to pursue gender equality as a tool for economic empowerment. Countries where girls are educated and women play their part in government are places where peace reigns and economies begin to flourish, and women are more interested in ending wars than starting them – there are endless statistics that prove this to be the reality.
The emancipation of women is the only possible future for the developing world, as it was and continues to be for us. There are too many people on this planet for us to be able to afford to leave nearly 50% of them in penury, uneducated and without a voice. Making women equal partners makes sense for both sexes. My profound hope is that we can, men and women alike, work together to create the circumstances in which International Women's Day can become the cause for celebration it should be. Once that's been achieved we'll work on creating that International Men's Day, too – promise.For more information about Great, go to thegreatinitiative.com
2 March 2011
The business press must prove its economic literacy
The media reported the financial crisis and stimulus poorly. Now the story is deficit and cuts, is it equal to the task? Anya Schiffrin
The drama of Wisconsin and the fights down in DC about the state of government finances are a chance for US journalists to write about an economic story that affects everyone. It would be good to see more articles on the big picture questions of what sort of policies make sense, rather than just ones about the political processes of what sort of legislation will get passed.
Five months after the stimulus passed, the unemployment rate was still climbing. (It was 8.2% in February, 9.4% in July and 9.7% in August 2009, and today stands around 9.0%, depending on how it's counted.) That led to a spate of articles about whether or not the stimulus would work or had worked. These articles mostly said it wouldn't and mostly didn't mention the fact that the majority of the money had still not been spent. Instead, a number of the articles argued that since the stimulus had failed, the US government should not consider a second one.
A recent report in the Christian Science Monitor was a good example of the kind of drill-down coverage we need more of. By contrast, it's been disappointing to see the news pages (though not the opinion columns) of the New York Times report on the deficit as though there is no room for debate about whether cutting spending is even a good idea right now.
Business and economics journalism is not that different from other forms of journalism. Reporters and editors mostly cover events that have already happened, not write about what could happen. They also have a tendency to rely on official and business sources, rather than on person-on-the-street interviews. This is partly because most of the people who read business news are from the worlds of money and business. Historically (the first business news sheets date to the 16th century), they relied on the business press for information that will help their investments. Sadly, this means that press reports about business and economics are often not much help to the ordinary reader trying to understand these subjects.
In recent weeks, there have been a lot of stories about how normal people would be affected by the budget cuts, and the media have certainly voiced the argument that reducing government spending is a bad idea while unemployment is above 9%. But there is room for more reporting about the larger macroeconomic picture, so I hope the media will learn from their lacklustre coverage of the 2009 stimulus package.Business and economics journalism is not that different from other forms of journalism. Reporters and editors mostly cover events that have already happened, not write about what could happen. They also have a tendency to rely on official and business sources, rather than on person-on-the-street interviews. This is partly because most of the people who read business news are from the worlds of money and business. Historically (the first business news sheets date to the 16th century), they relied on the business press for information that will help their investments. Sadly, this means that press reports about business and economics are often not much help to the ordinary reader trying to understand these subjects.
A study I did at Columbia University last year with Ryan Fagan ("Are We All Keynesians Now? Press Coverage of the US Stimulus Package", forthcoming) looked at press coverage of the $787m American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We analysed 718 articles about the stimulus in the months before and after it was passed. We looked at all the key mainstream US publications including the New York Times, Barron's, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Time magazine and others. The coverage was not bad, but it was in no way innovative or forward-looking. Instead of discussing the likely effectiveness of the stimulus, for example, most of the articles before passage simply focused on whether or not it would pass.
"The concept of a Keynesian stimulus is not immediately intuitive. It would have been nice if there had been more in-depth explanations. As it was, there was more of 'what happened yesterday' than 'what are the long term implications?' but that's not unusual," said one national economic reporter, describing the press coverage.Five months after the stimulus passed, the unemployment rate was still climbing. (It was 8.2% in February, 9.4% in July and 9.7% in August 2009, and today stands around 9.0%, depending on how it's counted.) That led to a spate of articles about whether or not the stimulus would work or had worked. These articles mostly said it wouldn't and mostly didn't mention the fact that the majority of the money had still not been spent. Instead, a number of the articles argued that since the stimulus had failed, the US government should not consider a second one.
Later, after the stimulus money was spent, there was some coverage about what it was used for and what difference it had made (especially Michael Grunwald's pieces in Time magazine), but there was certainly room for more detail about what the money was used for and why this kind of spending makes a difference.
This time around, journalists have the chance to write more economic stories about what is actually an economic story. Let's hope they do.Pakistan has abdicated its responsibilities
Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti's murders are a grim warning to those who dare to speak out against injustices
Pakistan has lost another brave heart. Two months after the Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer, my father, was assassinated for speaking out against Pakistan's cruel blasphemy laws, Shahbaz Bhatti was shot dead by unknown assailants. Bhatti was one of Pakistan's progressives.
Bhatti introduced a prayer room for non-Muslims in the prison system, and started a 24-hour crisis hotline to report acts of violence against minorities. He began a campaign to protect religious artefacts and sites that belong to minorities. This is the man we have lost.
The majority of Pakistani dignitaries fell silent after my father's murder, but Bhatti spoke out and condemned it. Many times. I will never forget that. He continued to support the revisions to the blasphemy law knowing he was up against a clerical tsunami. I salute his bravery. But the frontiers of free expression have shrunk drastically. In a country that calls itself a democracy, one wonders if there is space any more for dissent and debate.
Taseer and Bhatti's murders are a grim warning to those who dare to speak out against injustices.
Bhatti's killers left behind their pamphlets signed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Punjab , their warning "from the warriors of Islam to all the world's infidels, crusaders, Jews and their operatives within the Muslim brotherhood".
The document from the Punjabi Taliban continues: "In your fight against Allah, you have become so bold that you act in favour of and support those who insult the Prophet. And you put a cursed Christian infidel Shahbaz Bhatti in charge of [the blasphemy laws review] committee. This is the fate of that cursed man. And now, with the grace of Allah, the warriors of Islam will pick you out one by one and send you to hell, God willing."
The blasphemy laws were foisted on to Pakistan by the draconian General Zia ul-Haq in 1986. Since then, more than 500 Muslims, 340 Ahmadis, 119 Christians, 14 Hindus and 10 others have been charged under the laws.
Thirty-two of those accused – and two Muslim judges – have been mowed down by Islamist vigilantes. Since 4 January, the day my father was assassinated, there have been 16 known cases in which 23 people have been affected. Once a law is made in the name of religion, no one can touch it.
The state has abdicated its responsibilities. The majority of our dignitaries and government officials are spineless. There is no will to implement existing laws. Why were four armed men allowed to drive around the capital city? Why did they carry Kalashnikovs? Why are guns given out so easily? And why did these men feel justified taking the law into their own hands?
The state has failed to provide a viable alternative in terms of economic and educational opportunities to those who resort to extremism. The madrassa system – spewing venom and hatred left, right and centre – is not monitored and the extremists are freely raising another generation like them. Or worse.
Moreover, the state mollycoddles and divides them into "good Taliban" and "bad Taliban". The "good" ones are armed, funded, and taken care of. But now the knives are turning inwards.
If there is one thing made abundantly clear by Taseer and Bhatti's murders it is this: the chickens have come home to roost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)