So, here they are, the seven redacted paragraphs from the Binyam Mohamed case. The UK Government are now okay about them being in the public domain because the US has effectively put them in the public domain and, in any event, the courts have now told them that the information must be released. Despite Mr. Milliband's best efforts to the contrary.

The UK Government is claiming a technical victory in that the "control principle" has been upheld - i.e. where intelligence is shared with the UK by the USA (or indeed any other country) we have to promise not to tell anyone else (unless they say it's okay first). Cross our hearts and hope to die and all that.

And here are the offending 7 paragraphs from the original court decision:

It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and "disappearing" were played upon.

vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews

viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the inter views were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities

Okay, so it's not exactly genital mutilation (which Mr. Mohamed also alleges took place while he was held by the US in Pakistan) but the court was quite clear that such actions would be likely to have amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The USA are signatories to the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The reference above to 1972 is to the 1972 ruling by the UK government which banned the use of hooding, stress positions and deprivation of food, noise and sleep.

Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve is quoted as saying "Today's decision is very welcome, but the paragraphs revealed are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to British complicity in torture - much more is to come."

As Foreign Secretary David Milliband told Parliament: "it's about our values as a nation. It's about what we do as well as what we say". This from the party who promised an ethical foreign policy.

• Torture: Myths & Facts

Labels: Human Rights, News

There has been much discussion here and there on the subject of Liberty's claim that introducing a new Bill of Rights to the UK would be constitutionally awkward.

As the Scotland Act and the Good Friday agreement both have the Human Rights Act 1998 "hard-wired" into them, then introducing a new standard, whether to supplement (Labour) or replace (Conservative) the HRA, would not override the devolved standards.

As the excellent Aidan O'Neill QC points out: "All major claims against the Scottish government for human rights violations have been brought on the basis of the Scotland Act since before the Human Rights Act came into force. Abolishing the Act in Britain would not stop it being used in Scotland."

The Equality and Human Rights Commission warns of the "bizarre situation where there was different set of rights in devolved matters and non-devolved matters, and people in England would have fewer rights than people in the devolved jurisdictions."

It occurs to me that if Westminster were to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, it would be straightforward enough to amend the Bill of Rights (or whatever you'd call it) to refer to that legislation rather than the HRA. That's legally no problem at all even without the consent of Holyrood, though I accept that politically such a unilateral act may provoke some measure of controversy.

Furthermore - there are very many situations in life in which the rights in Scotland are different to those in England and Wales. That's part of grown-up devolution / federalism - not "bizarre" at all.

Fiona Murphy of the Committee on the Administration of Justice is quoted as saying "There is a huge backlash against a bill of rights in Scotland." Really? I can't say I'd noticed. Although Kenny MacAskill did take a pop at the Magna Carter for being too English.

It also seems to me that most people don't have a problem with the rights themselves, just with some of the things that some sections of the popular media reprt under the heading of human rights. And with the fact that bad people (or people we're pretty sure are bad) get to have rights as well.

Perhaps the new Bill of Rights will only apply to nice people (and their pets) and then everyone will be happy. Except bad people. Who have no right to be happy anyway.

The logo used in this post is that of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Labels: Human Rights, News

I note from browsing human rights and anti-terror law blog, The Lift that a report commissioned by the Scottish Government has called for an immediate review of the funding of CCTV cameras. The report reports that the cost of operating the snooping devices over the next three years is more than 40 Million pounds. It also points out that there has been little research into their effectiveness in preventing crime and disorder.

Apparently, there are about 2,200 CCTV cameras in public spaces such as city centres, parks and shopping centres across Scotland (except Aberdeenshire, which has none).

And, according to the Telegraph, in London just one crime is solved a year by every 1,000 CCTV cameras. As the leader quite pointedly asks: "If they do not stop crime or catch criminals, what are they for?"

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Blawgs, Human Rights, Privacy, Scottish Government

The online version of my website review in September's Journal is now available. This month covers the websites of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Website Review (September 2009) "Human Rights Revisited".

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Human Rights, Journal Website Reviews

Scottish Ministers have delayed plans to reform the children's hearing system in following concerns over the proposals, which led to some current children's panel members threatening to resign over the proposals.

The Scottish Government's plans include the creation of a new national body - the Scottish Children's Hearings Tribunal. The new Tribunal structure would cover the 32 local panels and be responsible for training and recruitment nationally.

Cabinet Secretary for Education, Fiona Hyslop MSP, is quoted by the BBC News website as saying "We are seeking to strengthen that system and protect it from the increasing threat of legal challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights."

A revised Children's Hearings Bill is now expected to be laid before the Scottish Parliament early in 2010.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Children, Human Rights, News, Scottish Government

I learn from the online edition of the Jerusalem Post that a group of activists from the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) who disrupted a concert by the Jerusalem String Quartet in Edinburgh during the 2008 Festival have been charged with "racially aggravated harassment".

At a performance in Edinburgh's Queens Hall on 29 August 2009, four members of the SPSC interrupted the concert by shouting at the musicians and audience. It was claimed that the activists caused distress to both the orchestra and members of the audience.

The protesters had originally been charged with disturbing the peace, but at Edinburgh Sheriff Court those charges were dropped in favor of the more serious charge of "racially motivated conduct."

Sofia Macleod, one of those charged, is quoted as saying: "We think it's totally ridiculous. Our actions and campaigning are based on international human rights. We take the allegations seriously, but there is no question whatsoever that any of our actions are racist in any way."

She added that the Palestine solidarity movement was "an anti-racist movement based on anti-racism,".

In a statement put out by the group, SPSC chairman Mick Napier, who is also due to appear in court at a later date, said, "We thank the court for providing us with the forum to explain that opposition to the violent, racist state of Israel is motivated by a commitment to universal human rights. We support the Palestinian people faced with Zionist savagery, and we are contemptuous of attempts to smear such a struggle for justice with the taint of racism. I hope these charges are not quietly dropped and we will have the opportunity to meet our critics in open court."

This brings to mind several questions, including: is being "racially motivated" the same thing as "racism"? As I understand that the string quartet are not accused of personally being involved in any human rights violations, they are being targeted due to their nationality. This is covered in the term "race" or "racial" in UK law. So in that sense, I guess the actions of the SPSC were "racially motivated" - but their support for the Palestinian people through charitable donations might also be described as "racially motivated". Is that always a bad thing?

And is therefore "racially motivated" harrassment quantitively worse than plain old "alcohol motivated" harrassment? On one view, SPSC would argue that their motivations were a mitigating factor to any crime committed - however it may lead them to incur heavier penalties. Should we be prosecuting "thought crimes" anyway? And would this pass the "Nelson Mandela test"?

Labels: criminal law, Edinburgh, Human Rights, News

Comedian Mark Thomas is to join with National Union of Journalists members in an event to highlight the threat of a new UK law that could be used against press photographers taking pictures of the police.

The Counter Terrorism Act allows for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone whose pictures are "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

The union is joining with campaigners to organise a mass picture taking session outside London's police HQ on Monday 16 February, the day the act becomes law.

Mark will be joined outside New Scotland Yard by renowned documentary-maker Chris Atkins, NUJ vice-president Pete Murray and a bevy of photographers.

Photojournalist and NUJ member Marc Vallee said: "The plan is simple, turn up with your camera and exercise your democratic right to take a photograph in a public place."

There have already been cases of photographers stopped from working by police quoting anti terror laws.

John Toner, the NUJ's organiser who looks after freelance photographers, said: "Police officers are in news pictures at all sorts of events, football matches, carnivals, state processions, so the union wants to make it clear that taking their pictures is not the act of a criminal."

"Our members are photographers, not terrorists."

Roy Mincoff, NUJ Legal Officer, said: "Photographers do not want to endanger the health and safety of the police or the public, but it is important in a democracy that they can do their jobs properly without facing unnecessary legal restrictions."

The photo taking will start at 11am outside New Scotland Yard on Broadway, London.

Labels: Events, Human Rights, News

The naked rambler has been jailed for (another) 12 months for a breach of the peace. He was brought into the dock at Glasgow Sheriff Court already naked, having been arrested at the same court just last month trying to leave the building naked, after being acquitted for breach of the peace.

The naked rambler told the court that if members of the public were offended by his nakedness then the problem was with them and not with him. He has spent most of the last two-and-a-half years in prison at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of almost a quarter of a million pounds.

Labels: Human Rights, News

In the same week as the European Court of Human Rights decided that the retention of DNA data by police forces in England & Wales was unlawful (Scotland already had legal limits on DNA retention) comes the disturbing news that the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration has been disclosing personal details of vulnerable children (such as where and with whom they are now living) to ... the very people the SCRA are supposed to be protecting the children from.

Exposing Scotland's most vulnerable children to serious risk of violence, on at least 12 occasions in the past year, secret addresses of children taken from their parents and given new homes for their own safety were accidentally passed to their abusive or neglectful birth parents.

SCRA have admitted their mistake and issued an apology (for all the good that will do anyone). This sort of thing has happened once too often with government bodies for me to describe it as "unbelievable", but this surely represents staggering new depths of incompetence?

Labels: Children, Human Rights, News, Privacy

According to the International Middle East Media Centre, a group of international legal personalities from Ireland and Scotland visited eastern parts of the Gaza Strip on Sunday, mainly in the southern Khan Younis city, observing the damage caused by continuous Israeli army actions in such a border area.

The visit, according to local organizers, was aimed at observing the amount of suffering Palestinian residents face due to the frequent Israeli attacks. The Gaza Youth Development Society, the principal organizer, reported that the delegation talked directly to the local inhabitants.

Emad Asfour, the society's head, called on the delegation to convey what they witnessed in Gaza to their countries, so an international mobility can be maintained for the sake of ending the suffering of Gaza's population under the Israeli blockade and actions. For example, it is reported that the eastern border areas of Gaza adjacent to Israel have been frequently exposed to Israeli army actions such as shooting heavily and razing large areas of farm lands.

Labels: Human Rights, News

Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre returns from Cameroon with news that the government there are supporting efforts to establish the country's first law centre in the region of Bamenda.

After winning verbal support from local ministers, Mr Dailly is working to raise funds for a law centre in Bamenda, to be built and run by local human rights workers. He said: "It will offer people access to lawyers they could not otherwise afford and educate them about their rights to make sure they are less vulnerable to exploitation."

This is also great news for Toto fans, as it gives me another excuse to post a YouTube clip:

Labels: Human Rights, Law Centres, News

Just came across this post on the extradition of the Howes family by/to the USA.

According to the website, the family ran a small business selling chemicals over the Internet from the home in Bo'ness. However two of the substances they sold were iodine and red phosphorus. The former has medical uses and the latter is often used in the manufacture of fireworks and other pyrotechnics.

Their business was perfectly legitimate, had been checked by the Health & Safety Executive and neither substance is controlled under Scots (or UK) law. However, they are ingredients in crystal meth, and as such US enforcement agencies have decided to take action.

Under the terms of the draconian extradition treaty our government has kindly signed with the United States, US law enforment agencies no longer have to provide evidence of a prima facie case in order to secure extradition.

And so, due to our efforts to fight the "war on terror", a Scottish couple running a legitimate business have already spent 7 months on remand and may well end up spending the next twenty years of their lives doing hard time in an Arizona prison.

Which seems a little harsh, doesn't it?

Labels: criminal law, Health and Safety, Human Rights, News

I came across this on another blog and really liked the idea.

IRREPRESSIBLE.INFO is an Amnesty International campaign, which highlights Internet censorship across the globe.

From the site:

"Chat rooms monitored. Blogs deleted. Websites blocked. Search engines restricted. People imprisoned for simply posting and sharing information.

"The Internet is a new frontier in the struggle for human rights. Governments - with the help of some of the biggest IT companies in the world - are cracking down on freedom of expression."

As you may have noticed at the foot of the right hand column, the site allows you to post a widget on your own website, which displays a random selection of snippets from websites and blogs which have been censored somewhere. The campaign site invites you to "undermine unwarranted censorship by publishing censored material from our database directly onto your site". Count me in!

You'll have to excuse me while I go and lie down for a bit ... I suddenly feel quite ... seditious (and I think I like it).

Labels: Freedom of Information, Human Rights, News

The 83 year old protester who was stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act for wearing an anti-Blair t-shirt has had his complaint against police upheld.

John Catt was searched by police at the Labour Party Conference in 2005 in Brighton armed with nothing more dangerous than a sketch pad and felt tip pens.

Three years later, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has upheld his complaint that Sussex Police acted unlawfully by using the Terrorism Act to stop him.

Labels: Human Rights, News

Mike Dailly, principal solicitor at the Govan Law Centre, is travelling to Cameroon next week to provide legal assistance to a human rights project.

He will work as a legal adviser in Cameroon alongside an African Human Rights Commissioner.

Mr Dailly, who has recently expanded the Law Centre project to include the Govanhill area, has an extensive track record in assisting in social welfare reform and expanding the rights of disadvantaged individuals under the law.

Good luck and God speed, Mike!

Labels: Human Rights, Law Centres, News

The High Court has awarded victory to a Sikh schoolgirl who was excluded from school for wearing a religious bangle, upholding a 25-year-old Law Lords ruling allowing Sikhs to wear items representing their faith.

The human rights group Liberty, representing 14-year-old Sarika Singh, successfully argued that Aberdare Girls' School in South Wales breached race relations and equality laws by excluding her since November 2007 for wearing the kara (a plain single bangle widely accepted as a central tenet of the Sikh race and religion).

Liberty filed the legal challenge in the High Court on 19 December 2007 which argued that the Governing Body of the Aberdare Girls' School had indirectly discriminated on the grounds of race contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976; breached the duty to promote equality under s71 Race Relations Act 1976; indirectly discriminated on the ground of religion or belief contrary to the Equality Act 2006; and breached the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 (the right to a private life).

Anna Fairclough, Liberty's Legal Officer representing the Singhs, said: "This common sense judgment makes clear you must have a very good reason before interfering with someone's religious freedom. Our great British traditions of religious tolerance and race equality have been rightly upheld today."

Noting that schools have a role to play in developing principles of religious and racial tolerance in its pupils, Mr Justice Silber said in his judgment: "Without those principles being adopted in a school, it is difficult to see how a cohesive and tolerant multi-cultural society can be built in this country ... I hope that the school will take all possible steps to ensure first that [she] can become quickly assimilated again within the school and second that there will be no bullying of her for racial or religious reasons."

Singh, of mixed Welsh/Punjabi origin, has been raised in the Sikh faith and was the only Sikh at the Aberdare Girls' School. The school's uniform policy prohibits the wearing of any jewellery other than a wrist watch and plain ear studs. When the school noticed that Singh was wearing the kara, she was isolated for two months, including during meals and physical education classes despite her offer to remove or cover the Kara during exercise, before being excluded entirely in November 2007.

The BBC News website has a good summary of recent School and religious symbol cases and, even on a cursory read, is is clear that they lack a cohesive thread. It is difficult to see why a kara bracelet is allowed, but a "purity ring" is not; or why jilbabs may be banned, but hijabs may not.

BTW, I would recommend not searching for the term "kara" on Google images - especially if your employers are interested in the kind of images you view on your work PC. Don't say i didn't warn you!

Labels: Children, Discrimination, Education Law, Human Rights, News

The Inner House of the Court of Session, in hearing an appeal against the decision of a sheriff (who happens now to be the Sheriff-Principal of Glasgow and Strathkelvin) in Glasgow Sheriff Court, has raised concerns about that court's use of conference calls and e-mails.

While being very careful to stress that they were not considering the matter in any detail, Lord Reed went on to make several statements which could only be described as critical.

For example, he stated: "It is a general principle, of constitutional importance, that the administration of justice should take place in open court." He then quoted Lord Diplock in the case of Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] A.C. 440: "If the way that courts behave cannot be hidden from the public ear and eye this provides a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy and maintains the public confidence in the administration of justice. The application of this principle of open justice ....requires that [proceedings in court] should be held in open court to which the press and public are admitted."

Lord Reed even went so far as making reference to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and quoted from the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court (without ever considering the matter in detail, of course).

The Court was evidently concerned that "It is apparent that the discussion in the e-mails passing between the sheriff and the parties' solicitors went beyond administrative matters of the kind which might otherwise have been dealt with by a clerk of court (such as the enrolling of motions, the lodging of pleadings, and the ascertainment of dates when counsel were available). As in the example just mentioned, some of the e-mails contain legal submissions which could have been made at a judicial hearing." As an example, the Court noted "A number of e-mails passed between the sheriff and the parties' solicitors prior to the hearing for further procedure. They illustrate how such an exchange can develop, in effect, into a form of hearing."

Conference calls and e-mail communication are increasingly used in Sheriff Court procedure and can be a quick way of settling procedural matters. However, as the Court noted, such developments "require to be considered with care, bearing in mind that convenience is not the only (or the most important) consideration."

• Read the Anna Jackson v. Hughes Dowdall [2008] CSIH 41 decision in full.

Labels: Human Rights, Inner House, News

In her recently published annual report, the Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People has called for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to be formally incorporated into Scots Law. This move, says Kathleen Marshall, would make the Scottish Parliament's "undoubted commitment to the rights of children more powerful".

Hear, hear!

• Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Scottish Child Law Centre

Labels: Children, Human Rights, News

Former Guantanamo prisoner Moazzam Begg will be visiting Edinburgh on Friday. He will be taking part in a public meeting entitled entitled Look Behind the Wire, being held on June 20 from 6pm at St John's Church on Princes Street. The meeting is part of the Edinburgh World Justice Festival, a two-week long programme of events marking the anniversary of the massive Make Poverty History demonstration held in Edinburgh in early July 2005 at the time of the G8 Summit at Gleneagles.

Moazzam Begg will be in conversation with campaigning lawyer Aamer Anwar, who is currently facing contempt of court charges over statements he made last year on behalf of a client who had been convicted of offences under terrorist legislation. The audience will be encouraged to put their own questions and views to the pair. The meeting is open to everyone and admission is free.

The case of Londoner Binyam Mohamed (a refugee from Ethiopia) is expected to receive particular attention at the meeting. Binyam Mohamed is still being held at Guantanamo Bay. He faces trial by a "military commission" - if convicted he could face the death penalty.

• Edinburgh World Justice Festival

Labels: Events, Human Rights