British riots: a crisis of ideology and political leadership
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
By Richard Seymour, London

You’ve probably heard it said a dozen times today: “It’s like 28 Days Later out there.”

Every thirty seconds, there’s a new riot zone.

I’ve rarely known the capital to be this wound up. It’s kicked off in East Ham, then Whitechapel, then Ealing Broadway (really?), then Waltham Forest… It’s kicked off in Croydon, then Birmingham, then (just a rumour so far) Bradford…

The banlieues (outer-suburbs) of Britain are erupting in mass civil unrest.

Until now, the claim has been that this is merely a criminal enterprise. At a stretch, it was orchestrated criminality, using Twitter and Blackberry messenger.

If you’re following what’s happening in Britain, that’s an impossible position to sustain. A few looters here and there might be evidence of little more than opportunism.

But clashes with police in several major cities, including the two largest cities, doesn’t look like mere entrepreneurialism to me.

And as it spreads to hitherto unexpected places, it certainly doesn’t look orchestrated.

Part of the reason for the spread is probably that the aura of invincibility on the part of British riot police has been seriously damaged by these riots.

Protesters in Britain are used to being contained and out-manouevered by police. That makes it seem as if the police are omnipotent.

This situation has underlined very clearly that law and order is generally maintained by consent, not coercion. The police are not all powerful, despite their technological and organisational advantages, which is why they rely on good “community relations”.

In those areas where there are long-standing grievances and sources of resentment, it seems, that consent has been withdrawn. As a result of the unpredictable way in which this unrest has unfolded, the police have ended up being out-played, and sometimes out-numbered.

Yet, as important, there is also an underlying crisis of ideology and political leadership for the police.

Amid the Hackgate scandal, which has shattered their credibility, and following the killing of a suspect under circumstances that were only ineffectually and temporarily concealed, they are (potentially) facing a complete collapse in relations with black British communities.

British Prime Minister David Cameron and the police leadership will be evacuating themselves over this prospect. The painstaking attempts to overcome the complete mutual hatred and distrust that characterised such relations in the 1980s made some headway.

Of course, police harrassment, brutality, killing in custody, and so on, did not come to an end. Institutional racism proved durable.

But there was definitely an amelioration between Broadwater Farm and the Lawrence Inquiry. And that is one advance which, I believe, they don’t want to put through the historical shredder.

So, despite politicians such as the Liberal Simon Hughes ranting and demanding that the police use the water cannon, and despite the ritual denunciations and tough talk about the law from (another Liberal) Lynne Featherstone, I suspect the police are quite unsure as to how they’re supposed to be handling this. …more

Release on bail and ongoing judicial harassment faced by Mr. Mohamed Issa Al Tajer
9 August 2011

The Observatory has been informed by reliable sources about the release on bail and ongoing judicial harassment faced by Mr. Mohamed Issa Al Tajer, a prominent human rights lawyer.
The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), has received new information and requests your urgent intervention in the following situation in Bahrain.

New Information:

According to the information received, on August 6, 2011, Mr. Mohamed Issa Al Tajer was released on bail. Before his release, he was forced to sign documents stating that he would appear before courts and be available for interrogation at any time if summoned. He was also required to declare that he would not carry out “activities against the country”.

The Observatory firmly denounces the continued judicial harassment faced by Mr. Mohamed Issa Al Tajer, which seems to merely aim at sanctioning his peaceful and legitimate human rights activities as a defence lawyer, and moreover condemns the lack of due process in the trial held against him over the past months before the Lower National Safety Court (see background information).

The Observatory also condemns the ill-treatments suffered by Mr. Al Tajer while in detention: he was reportedly beaten on his head, forced to stand up with his hands against the wall. He also suffered from deprivation of sleep and was forbidden to go to the toilet. He also reportedly heard other prisoners being tortured.

The Observatory recalls the judicial proceedings launched against Mr. Al Tajer took place within the context of an intensified crackdown against activists, including human rights defenders, who have supported or are alleged to have supported the protest movement which started in Bahrain in February 2011. Hundreds of individuals are still arbitrarily detained, and access to the majority of these detainees, including by their lawyers, is not guaranteed. Concern about the physical integrity and life of those arrested are consequently high.

Background Information:

At around 11 pm on April 15, 2011, a group of more than 20 masked and armed plain-clothes men, belonging to security forces, entered without any warrant the house where Mr. Al Tajer was present with his wife and young children. At 00.30 am, after thoroughly searching the house and confiscating computers and mobile phones, the men arrested Mr. Al Tajer and took him to an unknown destination. After his arrest, Mr. Al Tajer was detained incommunicado for five weeks and was then allegedly transferred to the Gurain military prison.

In addition, Mr. Al Tajer appeared before the Lower National Safety Court on June 12, 16 and 23, 2011 and could only meet with his family and lawyer on these occasions.

On June 23, 2011, Mr. Mohamed Issa Al Tajer appeared before the Lower National Safety Court in Manama on four charges: “inciting others to develop hatred or hostility towards the system of Government” pursuant to Article 165 of the Bahraini Criminal Code; “deliberately releasing malicious news or rumours about (…) the State” pursuant to Article 168; “inciting others (…) to hate or show contempt for a certain faction (…) undermining the public peace” pursuant to Article 172; and “taking part in a demonstration (…) with the aim of committing crimes (…) aimed at undermining public security” pursuant to Article 178 punishable by a prison sentence of up to three years. Mr. Al Tajer was blamed for committing all those crimes because he reportedly made a speech in which he addressed the public in the Pearl Roundabout’s last March to denounce Bahrain’s human rights record. In the charge sheet against him, it was stated by the prosecution that by making such speech he jeopardised the country stability and security and caused the public to reject the National Dialogue, which was then called for by the Government.

The verdict in this trial was to be issued on July 5, 2011, but shortly before that date, on June 26, the authorities announced that all remaining court cases will be transferred from the special military courts to civilian courts. Thus, Mr. Al Tajer’s trial was suspended and transferred to civil courts. …more

Lobbyists Jump Ship In Wake Of Mideast Unrest
Bahrain Qorvis – First Posted: 03/25/11

NEW YORK — One of Washington’s best-known lobbying and public relations firms has been upended in the wake of the turmoil in the Middle East due in part to its representation of some of the region’s autocratic governments.

In the last two months, more than a third of the partners at Qorvis have left the firm to start their own lobby shops, partly because of the firm’s work on behalf of such clients as Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the Central African nation of Equatorial Guinea, say former employees.

“I just have trouble working with despotic dictators killing their own people,” a former Qorvis insider tells The Huffington Post. “People don’t want to be seen representing all these countries — you take a look at the State Department’s list of human rights violators and some of our clients were on there.”

The governments of Bahrain and Yemen, which have been condemned by the United Nations for their brutal crackdowns that resulted in dozens of protesters killed and hundreds injured, are both represented by Qorvis through a subcontract to British public relations giant Bell Pottinger. Saudi Arabia, which last week sent troops to assist in riot control in Bahrain and has long been cited for its poor human rights record, is a longtime client of the firm. And Equatorial Guinea, an oil-rich dictatorship considered one of the most corrupt and undemocratic regimes in the world, likewise pays Qorvis to burnish its reputation.

Several former Qorvis staffers blamed the firm’s current management for cultivating such “black hat” clients, noting that much of that business came about through the firm’s partnership with Bell Pottinger, the United Kingdom’s largest public relations firm, which took heat for representing Sri Lanka during that South Asian country’s brutal crackdown on rebel groups during the last two years. “They have zero conscience in what they do,” says the first former insider, referring to Bell Pottinger. A spokesperson for Bell Pottinger did not return calls for comment.

Such “black hat” countries pay well — Equatorial Guinea pays Qorvis $55,000 per month and Saudi Arabian initially paid Qorvis $14 million per year back in 2002 to polish its reputation in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, though in recent years the latter contract has been much less lucrative. “These scumbags will pay whatever you want,” says the former insider. “You can charge retainers that are huge.” …more

BCHR Open Letter to Head of the Bahraini Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) re statement to Reuters
09 Aug 2011
Open Letter:

Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni
Commission Chair, Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry

Dear Sir,

Subject: Your interview with Reuters on 5 August 2011

Your appointment to the independent commission tasked with investigating recent human right abuses in Bahrain was encouraging news for all those involved in the field of human rights. It is, therefore, with deep disappointment and regret that we at the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) read your recent comments. The comments suggest that, without completing anywhere near a full investigation, you are willing to espouse the view of the political establishment whilst paying lip-service to the concept of a fair and independent enquiry.

This is all the more surprising as your hasty comments contradict a vast range of published reports by well respected human rights groups who have spent time and resources investigating the situation in Bahrain. Indeed, your comments that “there was never a policy of excessive use of force” in Bahrain contrasts grimly with the news, published just days before, of an armed raid on the offices of Médecins Sans Frontières by the Bahraini authorities. Claims of torture by detainees are so widespread that it is hard to believe that they were carried out by a few bad eggs within the security forces.

Countless reports catalogue a range of human rights abuses which targeted specific segments of society, most notably medical workers. The well respected human rights group, Physicians for Human Rights, published a thorough report which detailed the systematic persecution of medical workers. Such organised, wide scale discrimination strongly indicates the collusion of high ranking government officials and renders your initial judgment that such abuses were “a case of people at the lower level acting, and there not being an effective chain of communication, control” premature and, potentially, extremely damaging to the credibility of the commission.

Even if we were to accept the extremely unlikely situation that the Minister of Interior (as currently suggested by you) was unaware of the actions of lower level government officials, Bahrain is still subject to the obligations outlined in the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which requires it, in Article 16, to prevent acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Bahrain has clearly failed to maintain its obligations under this Convention.

Your current views seem to be based on a range of false assumptions. Most notably, that “it’s totally untrue that people are afraid of coming forward”. These comments are surprising, as those interviewed by the commission thus far are not representative of the vast range of people affected by the governmental crackdown on protestors. We are aware of a number of individuals who, initially subjected to torture, have since been subjected to further torture as punishment (and as a warning to others) for speaking out about the treatment they received. Whilst we, and a number of other organisations, are strongly encouraging individuals to come forward and speak to the commission about their treatment, the off-hand comments of the commission are insulting to those who have suffered, and continue to suffer, under the policies of the current regime and discourage participation in the commission’s investigation.

These concerns lead us to seriously question the legitimacy of this commission and its ultimate findings. You appear to have accepted without question the assertions of the government as to the number of political prisoners, the treatment they received and the governments “willingness” to rectify the mistakes of “rogue” individuals within the government framework. Because the Ministry of the Interior is ‘extraordinarily willing’ to listen to the commission, it does not follow that there was not a systematic policy of violence. This argument is a non-sequitur and questionable at best.

This defies the very objective of the commission; to reach an independent and impartial conclusion as to the human rights abuses committed in Bahrain and the cause of such abuses. Recent news regarding the release of prisoners, whilst encouraging, should in no way subtract from the commission’s stated goal.

Nabeel Rajab
President
Bahrain center for Human Rights
09 Aug 2011
Syndicate content

Reconciliation in Bahrain still faces obstacles
National Editorial – Aug 9, 2011

Six months after demonstrations in the Pearl Roundabout degenerated into violence, Bahrain is still troubled by regular street protests. The crackdown on the opposition and subsequent reconciliation efforts have so far failed to restore complete calm, much less heal the deep political divisions.

There have been efforts. In the past week, an international commission investigating the violence has made some progress. Two former MPs from the opposition Al Wefaq party were set free on Sunday, among 41 prisoners who reportedly have been released.

In the worst of the violence, there was wrongdoing on both sides. But there will be no reconciliation possible unless security forces are held to account. The commission, appointed by King Hamad Al Khalifa, has indicated its readiness to investigate regime loyalists, visiting Al Gareen prison to interview prisoners from the opposition and arresting police officers on charges of torturing detainees. This investigation needs to show its evenhandedness if it is to resolve the bloodshed.

But even that is just a starting point. There needs to be a distinction between investigating the crimes of the recent protests and the fundamental process of reform that was at issue in the first place. It remains clear that only a political solution can provide for Bahrain’s future.

For decades, Bahrainis have been negotiating issues including fairness in housing and land allotments, political prisoners, representation in parliament and the constitution. The February protests began as a peaceful, cross-sectarian movement to address these issues. The subsequent violence, encouraged radical elements on both sides and aggravation of the Shiite-Sunni split has only made a resolution more difficult. …source

Panic on the Streets of London
Published on Tuesday, August 9, 2011 by Penny Red
by Laurie Penny

I’m huddled in the front room with some shell-shocked friends, watching my city burn. The BBC is interchanging footage of blazing cars and running street battles in Hackney, of police horses lining up in Lewisham, of roiling infernos that were once shops and houses in Croydon and in Peckham. Last night, Enfield, Walthamstow, Brixton and Wood Green were looted; there have been hundreds of arrests and dozens of serious injuries, and it will be a miracle if nobody dies tonight. This is the third consecutive night of rioting in London, and the disorder has now spread to Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol and Birmingham. Politicians and police officers who only hours ago were making stony-faced statements about criminality are now simply begging the young people of Britain’s inner cities to go home. Britain is a tinderbox, and on Friday, somebody lit a match. How the hell did this happen? And what are we going to do now?

Hole in the Wall

In the scramble to comprehend the riots, every single commentator has opened with a ritual condemnation of the violence, as if it were in any doubt that arson, muggings and lootings are ugly occurrences. That much should be obvious to anyone who is watching Croydon burn down on the BBC right now. David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, called the disorder ‘mindless, mindless’. Nick Clegg denounced it as ‘needless, opportunistic theft and violence’. Speaking from his Tuscan holiday villa, Prime Minister David Cameron – who has finally decided to return home to take charge – declared simply that the social unrest searing through the poorest boroughs in the country was “utterly unacceptable.” The violence on the streets is being dismissed as ‘pure criminality,’ as the work of a ‘violent minority’, as ‘opportunism.’ This is madly insufficient. It is no way to talk about viral civil unrest. Angry young people with nothing to do and little to lose are turning on their own communities, and they cannot be stopped, and they know it. Tonight, in one of the greatest cities in the world, society is ripping itself apart.

Violence is rarely mindless. The politics of a burning building, a smashed-in shop or a young man shot by police may be obscured even to those who lit the rags or fired the gun, but the politics are there. Unquestionably there is far, far more to these riots than the death of Mark Duggan, whose shooting sparked off the unrest on Saturday, when two police cars were set alight after a five-hour vigil at Tottenham police station. A peaceful protest over the death of a man at police hands, in a community where locals have been given every reason to mistrust the forces of law and order, is one sort of political statement. Raiding shops for technology and trainers that cost ten times as much as the benefits you’re no longer entitled to is another. A co-ordinated, viral wave of civil unrest across the poorest boroughs of Britain, with young people coming from across the capital and the country to battle the police, is another. …more