HRE

A lesson on human rights in a school in Woolwich

"Do [Amnesty International's] lesson plans give equal weight to both sides of the issue? Certainly in the lesson at Woolwich, more time (25 minutes) was spent watching an emotive film on the unfairness of denying Guantanamo Bay detainees their right to a fair trial and the hardship of the detainees' families than was given to the other side of the argument (15 minutes).

And the other side of the argument was presented in a less engaging form: a short, written press release from the White House, setting out the US government's justifications for holding suspected terrorists in Guantanamo without trial."

Oh dear. And I wonder what a really balanced look at Guantanamo might be like. An interview with the inmates, telling us that the propaganda about the conditions in the secret camp is just that - propaganda? Maybe we would learn that they actually have televisions in their rooms, 5 items of fresh fruit a day, and the opportunity to study a foreign language.

But no: the authorities at Guantanamo strangely won't allow interviews with inmates. I wonder what they are afraid we might learn, if all is really hunky-dory there.

I wonder too, what a balanced look at the unbalanced idea of the right to fair trial might look like: some interviews with retired Colonels from the Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail, telling us how they cannot sleep at night because they are afraid of terrorist attacks on their country homes in Gloucestershire? A film about how good life was for good citizens before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came along (or the Bill of Rights)? A look at some of the evidence which the US authorities have accumulated against those terrorists sitting in Guantanamo Bay? Perhaps that might stop our 15-year olds feeling sympathy with their families or their plight.

But no: the US authorities won't allow us (or the detainees) to look at the evidence. As of today, not one of the Guantánamo detainees - and there have been 775 since January 2002 - has been convicted of a criminal offence by the USA. 10 of them (only), it is true, have been charged for trial by military commissions, but these trials were then ruled unlawful by the US Supreme Court. The Red Cross, which is about as cautious, as secretive (and as 'balanced'?) an organisation as I would have thought it possible to find, made it publicly known that "The main concern for us is the U.S. authorities ... have effectively placed them beyond the law... After more than 18 months of captivity, the internees have no idea about their fate, no means of recourse through any legal mechanism. They have been placed in a legal vacuum, a legal black hole. This, for the ICRC, is unacceptable."

So how about a balanced view of the inhumane and degrading treatment - the torture - which has been identified as standard practice in Guantanamo by all independent observers? How about presenting the positive side of that treatment in a 'more engaging form' for our 15-year olds?

The balanced Red Cross investigators, according to a leaked report, found a system devised to break the will of prisoners through "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions." They went on to say that "The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture,"

I suppose that Jessica Shepherd would regard it as very unbalanced of me to quote these extracts, without giving the Bush-Cheney administration the chance to put the 'other' side. But quite apart from the fact that the Bush-Cheney administration are determined to keep everything about Guantanamo Bay a secret, so it is extremely difficult to get their gloss on torture, the end of the presumption of innocence, and the end of the right to fair trial; quite apart from the fact that organisations like the Red Cross and even Amnesty International are extremely careful (some might say too careful) to check both sides of the story, to hear from Bush and Cheney and anyone else who might balance the information they receive on the ground - quite apart from all of that, I cannot for the life of me imagine what that 'other side' might be. I cannot imagine anything that might make what is happening there now anything other than wholly unacceptable - either legally or morally, either from the point of view of international law, or from the point of view of basic human values. More importantly: I am very far from sure that even if we could provide an 'acceptable' viewpoint on Guantanamo Bay, that is what we should be giving our 15-year olds.

Does Jessica Shepherd perhaps think that the time has come to rewrite the international declarations of human rights which the world put together after the horrors of the Nazi holocaust? Because if she doesn't, she needs to explain what a 'balanced lesson' on the issue of people being held without charge, for years on end, and under inhumane conditions might look like. And why on earth we need it.

I suspect that if it was the Burmese monks who were being held in secret camps, the balance might be thought to be unnecessary - just as it was with the Soviet Union. I suspect that on the issue of Burma, our 15-year olds will not be required to consider the military rulers' side of the story in a 'more engaging form'.

Have a look at these nuggets to get a really unbalanced view

POSTSCRIPT
I wrote to Jessica Shepherd twice, to see if she could explain the question of balance. But she did not respond, nor did anyone else at the Guardian.

'Even admitting that human rights are both highly desirable and far more respected in 'our' countries than elsewhere, three fundamental conceptual problems remain. The first is the problem of transition. How can a society pass from a feudal or colonial situation, in which the very idea of human rights is not formulated, to a situation comparable to what we know in our societies today? And do we have something to teach the rest of the world in this matter? The second problem stems from the inclusion in the U.N.'s 1948 Declaration of two types of rights: individual and political rights on the one hand, and economic and social rights on the other. To what extent are these rights compatible with each other, and if they are not, are there priorities between them?

(Press release from their site)

Our Organization - one of the most active human rights organizations in the Russian speaking space "International Youth Human Rights Movement" has been declared "inactive" and was deprived of legal personality by court decision in Nizhy Novgorod, Russia on demand of the Federal Registration Service.

The judgment has been passed on Jun.13 but organization learned about it just a few days ago – the hearings took place behind closed doors with YHRM not notified.

International organization, which unites more than a thousand activists from 22 countries, was de jure declared non-existent.

This case is one of the consequences of the much criticized new Russian legislation on NGO that severely hinder activities of NGOs and give controlling bodies extended powers of sanctions. Ironically, YHRM is quite active in supporting freedom of association and has been one of the most vocal critics of the new legislation.

The International YHRM is going to appeal the decision and is calling for support for all civil society actors, facing increased pressure and extensive control from the authorities in Russia.

Letters of support are much welcome, send to the address of organization
39400, Russia, Voronezh-center, box 152,
by fax: +7 4732 54 55 30 (preferably)
or by e-mail int@yhrm.org

More details on the case, as well as the call of solidarity are available on the website of YHRM (soon updated into English)
History of YHRM: http://www.yhrm.org/eng/about/history
More about the work of YHRM: http://www.yhrm.org/eng/direction

Additional information (in Russian and English):
Honorary President of YHRM Andrey Yurov +7-916-113-51-81;
Coordinator of legal programs Dmitri Makarov +7-916-537-13-67;

"...criticising the lack of sincerity of those in power or of the secular priesthood should be done with precision: the problem is not that they are lying or that they are consciously hiding their real aims, but that they spontaneously adopt a distorted view of the world and history that enables them to profit from their privileged position with a perfectly clear conscience. This is a phenomenon that can be observed in daily life: generous words and speeches about values often go hand in hand with an analysis of reality that conveniently makes it possible to identify personal interest with moral imperatives. Genuine sincerity is not simply a matter of believing what one says, but of honestly asking whether the actions one undertakes really serve the noble aims one claims to pursue"

From Humanitarian Imperialism, by Jean Bricmont

More reflections on not judging and HRE

I think we don't stop communicating to send a message (or not only, and not necessarily), but more often because we reach a point where the communication has broken down - for whatever reason. It may be because communication has become difficult, disagreeable or pointless, more trouble than it's worth. It may be that wounds need mending, and communicating doesn't help that (for the moment); it may be that the gulf of understanding appears to be too large to cross; or that shared goals or values appear less obviously shared than once they did. Or it may be all of those - or other combinations.

One point I meant to raise by the post was that I believe people who 'refuse' to pass a judgement on dishonest or disreputable acts are nearly always doing so for pragmatic reasons. And yet - as you know - in the HRE community, the reasons given are more 'noble' sounding: 'we ought not to judge others', 'people deserve to be given a second chance', 'it is not for me to judge'. I think that is (often) disingenuous, and sometimes cowardly. So I wanted to say that there is an inconsistency between, on the one hand, our being willing (or being unable not) to judge our own acts according to certain moral standards; and on the other hand, being 'unwilling' to judge other peoples' acts by the same standards.

As far as that disagreement goes - a disagreement that I have with the HRE community - I can be 'tolerant': it is the sort of disagreement that I shall continue to argue about within the community (in so far as it lets me in), and shall continue to try to break down, because I think that the attitude is neither honest nor useful (always) in the field of HRE. But I am myself troubled by where the balance should be, and do not think it is always clear-cut whether we should take position 5 (turning a blind eye) or whether we should measure something against our own personal moral standards.

Then there's another disagreement that I have with (a particular!) HRE community (as you also know!), and where I do think that the line is pretty clear-cut. That disagreement is to do with whether a particular form of behaviour, an act of deliberate deceit for personal gain, continuously and strenuously denied, with damaging consequences for others, by someone in a position of trust and authority - by someone who even professes to be teaching others about values - whether that form of behaviour is indeed the sort that one should pass over, tut-tut a bit, but nothing more, forgive and forget, turn a blind eye. This disagreement is much more difficult to 'tolerate' - partly because I feel strongly that it isn't all of those things; partly because I feel disappointed that it was all of those things for those with whom I was supposed to be sharing values; and partly because as a result of that fundamental disagreement, I have ended up outside the community.

There are various possible (psychological) reactions to being 'rejected' by a community (or rejecting a community yourself?). But one of the most natural reactions must be to put up a defence: the community doesn't play by my rules, doesn't even agree with my rules, so I want no part of it. I want to be in a community which does share my values and priorities, so I shall look elsewhere.

So please, don't see it as a punishing act: see it as an act of complete incomprehension, disappointment and disillusionment; and for those reasons a breakdown in communication. Breakdowns in communication are difficult to bear for both sides of the divide.