Britain is leading the charge against basic human rights

[Syt]

... Amnesty claims

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-leading-the-charge-against-basic-human-rights-amnesty-claims-10067989.html?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=20150225135600&utm_campaign=Amnesty

Britain is leading the charge against basic human rights, Amnesty claims

Increased surveillance in Britain, along with the reduction of access to justice, have contributed to one of the worst assaults on human rights in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall, according to a damning assessment by Amnesty International.

In its annual State of the World's Human Rights report published today, Amnesty  says the Coalition had rushed through legislation such as anti-terror measures and invasive surveillance powers without adequate time for parliamentary debate.

The NGO condemns David Cameron for not only "leading the charge" in attacking the European Convention on Human Rights, but also for passing legislation that, while designed to increase public safety, has come at the cost of basic civil liberties.

The Prime Minister has confirmed that a future Conservative government would also repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, with a view to limiting the influence of the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the Convention.

Amnesty's report warns that those draft proposals threaten significant restrictions on rights. At the same time legal aid cuts "continue to restrict access to justice".

In its assessment Amnesty says the influence of "nationalist, thinly veiled xenophobic attitudes" was particularly evident in increasingly restrictive migration policies and anti-EU tirades, with human rights a particular target.

The report says: "The UK and Switzerland led the charge, with ruling parties in both countries openly attacking the European Court of Human Rights and discussing withdrawal from the Convention system. In short, at no time since the fall of the Berlin Wall had the integrity of, and support for, the international human rights framework in the Europe and Central Asia region appeared quite so brittle."

Referring to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which came into force last July, extending the reach of authorities' interception powers, the report says "sufficient safeguards were not in place to ensure that such surveillance was authorised and carried out in conformity with the rights to privacy and freedom of expression".

Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International UK, said: "The UK is going in the wrong direction on rights, protections and fairness. Public safety is paramount, but not at the cost of basic civil liberties.

"Twice this year GCHQ spies have been rumbled breaking the law. We should all be concerned about waking up in a surveillance state, without having a proper public debate about it first. The UK talks the talk on the global stage on human rights but this year's summary shows they need to tend to their own garden."

The shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan, told The Independent: "The belligerent attitude of the Tories towards human rights, access to justice and the rule of law is doing real damage to our international reputation."

The global report also condemns world leaders for failing to intervene in conflicts such as Syria, Gaza and Ukraine, in what it calls a "catastrophic year" for millions of people caught up in violence.

Amnesty called on the UN Security Council to renounce its veto power – wielded solely by the five permanent members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the US – to make it easier for peacekeeping forces to be deployed to prevent genocide or mass atrocities.

[Valmy]

The global report also condemns world leaders for failing to intervene in conflicts such as Syria, Gaza and Ukraine, in what it calls a "catastrophic year" for millions of people caught up in violence.

Amnesty called on the UN Security Council to renounce its veto power – wielded solely by the five permanent members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the US – to make it easier for peacekeeping forces to be deployed to prevent genocide or mass atrocities.

You know what each of those situations needed?  NATO airstrikes and UN peacekeepers.  That never fails.

[Admiral Yi]

Shark has been jumped.

Thank God the ACLU is sane.

[CountDeMoney]

Thank God the ACLU is sane.

That's because it's all lawyers.

[Admiral Yi]

That's because it's all lawyers.

I think it's because they have an agreed upon text, the Constitution, that guides their positions.  Amnesty can just make up whatever shit they want to.

[Jacob]

Shark has been jumped.

How so?

If there is a lack of legal aid, that certainly could hamper the access to justice for people who do not have money. That seems a reasonable thing to decry if you're a human rights organization.

The proposed British Bill of Rights to replace the current bill of Human Rights coupled with a withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights seems to be just what they're saying, an attempt to undermine the European Convention on Human Rights. That too seems quite reasonable for a group like Amnesty International to call problematic.

Criticism of anti-terror and surveillance measures seems pretty solidly within AI's remit, and not particularly outlandish either.

That anti-immigration and anti-EU sentiments shades into xenophobia at times does not seem particularly outlandish either, and if both sentiments are on the rise then it seems reasonable enough for AI to point it out in their report. That's the kind of thing their report is supposed to be about.

As for millions of people suffering in Syria, Ukraine, and indeed Gaza that seems pretty factual; for an organization like AI to call for world leaders to work towards preventing that kind of suffering seems pretty standard.

Where's the shark jumping, exactly?

[Jacob]

Syt's thread title - or rather the Independent's headline which he quoted - is a little misleading, also. The actual quote (from the article):

"The UK and Switzerland led the charge, with ruling parties in both countries openly attacking the European Court of Human Rights and discussing withdrawal from the Convention system."

Unlike what the headline implies, the report is not saying that the UK is somehow ahead of Russia or Iran or Qatar in abusing human rights; they are talking about undermining the existing international human rights legal framework, which the current UK government is in fact looking to disassociate themselves from.

[Valmy]

As for millions of people suffering in Syria, Ukraine, and indeed Gaza that seems pretty factual; for an organization like AI to call for world leaders to work towards preventing that kind of suffering seems pretty standard.

What a bullshit spin.  That is not what that said.

They were calling for military intervention.  Asking that the UNSC remove the veto so we could send in more peacekeepers?  In war zones?  You send in peacekeepers when the war is over.  And if they are talking about a Chapter VII intervention...well do I really need to elaborate?  Do you see why that would be insane in all three of those scenarios?  But maybe the article is being misleading on what AI was actually asking for.

[Admiral Yi]

How so?

Fair enough, a lot of it is Independent spin. 

But you have to admit that the idea of ending the UNSC veto so that peacekeepers could rush to Ukraine and Syria is deeply, deeply retarded.

[Valmy]

Syt's thread title - or rather the Independent's headline which he quoted - is a little misleading, also. The actual quote (from the article):

"The UK and Switzerland led the charge, with ruling parties in both countries openly attacking the European Court of Human Rights and discussing withdrawal from the Convention system."

Unlike what the headline implies, the report is not saying that the UK is somehow ahead of Russia or Iran or Qatar in abusing human rights; they are talking about undermining the existing international human rights legal framework, which the current UK government is in fact looking to disassociate themselves from.

Yeah I was going to address that separately.  The title of the article is not what AI said, it said the Brits and the Swiss are leading the charge opposing the ECHR.  So bullshit clickbait title.

[Jacob]

As for millions of people suffering in Syria, Ukraine, and indeed Gaza that seems pretty factual; for an organization like AI to call for world leaders to work towards preventing that kind of suffering seems pretty standard.

What a bullshit spin.  That is not what that said.

They were calling for military intervention.  Asking that the UNSC remove the veto so we could send in more peacekeepers?  In war zones?  You send in peacekeepers when the war is over.  And if they are talking about a Chapter VII intervention...well do I really need to elaborate?  Do you see why that would be insane in all three of those scenarios?

Given the Independent's spin in the headline, I don't think we should judge what Amnesty's report said based on last paragraph in the article.

In fact... looking at the actual report, this is what it says re: the Veto:

The above list - as this latest annual report on the state of human rights in 160 countries clearly shows - barely begins to scratch the surface. Some might argue that nothing can be done, that war has always been at the expense of the civilian population, and that nothing can ever change.

This is wrong. It is essential to confront violations against civilians, and to bring to justice those responsible. Amnesty International has welcomed the proposal, now backed by around 40 governments, for the UN Security Council to adopt a code of conduct agreeing to voluntarily refrain from using the veto in a way which would block Security Council action in situations of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The report is here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report-201415/

[Jacob]

So it seems it's the Independent that has jumped the shark, not Amnesty International.

[Admiral Yi]

Much more reasonable. 

However, who gets to decide if a certain situation involves genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity? 

[Valmy]

Given the Independent's spin in the headline, I don't think we should judge what Amnesty's report said based on last paragraph in the article.

Agreed I said that in the edit.  I was explicitly going on what the article said AI said.  And so were you, you were calling it 'pretty standard'.

In fact... looking at the actual report, this is what it says re: the Veto:

The above list - as this latest annual report on the state of human rights in 160 countries clearly shows - barely begins to scratch the surface. Some might argue that nothing can be done, that war has always been at the expense of the civilian population, and that nothing can ever change.

This is wrong. It is essential to confront violations against civilians, and to bring to justice those responsible. Amnesty International has welcomed the proposal, now backed by around 40 governments, for the UN Security Council to adopt a code of conduct agreeing to voluntarily refrain from using the veto in a way which would block Security Council action in situations of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The report is here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report-201415/

That seems straight forward that they think UN Chapter VII interventions are the way to go.

[Valmy]

Much more reasonable. 

Does it?  What sort of Security Council action should have been taken in those circumstances?  Besides that this idea would almost certainly lead to the total elimination of the UN, and I still think it has its uses.

However, who gets to decide if a certain situation involves genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity? 

And why every 'genocide' protocol doesn't work.  Unless somebody able and willing to do something about it unilaterally declares it such.  Not sure what the solution is to that.