Police Strike Expected to Bring Severe Economic Damage to Brazil in Wake of Carnival

February 11, 2012

By Paula Buzzi
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil — Over the last week, the murder rate in Salvador has doubled as police officers walked off the job in an organized strike over a week ago. Police all across the country are demanding better pay and benefits as well as a national minimum wage for all uniformed forces. According to the Brazilian Association of Tourism Agencies, at least 10 percent of tourists have already canceled their trips to Rio for Carnival out of fear for their safety.

Police officers go on strike, demanding higher pay. (Photo Courtesy of LA Times).

More than 1000 police officers and firefighters gathered in downtown Rio on Thursday to protest their low wages. The Brazilian government arrested 16 leaders of the strike on Friday and over 100 officers could face summary expulsion for not showing up for patrols.

According to David Fleischer, a political scientists at the University of Brasilia, the government of Rio is coming down with an “iron fist” in order to halt the chaos in Rio before Carnival. “Police in Rio had been doing an excellent job of improving safety in the city, so this is unexpected and extremely embarrassing,” he said.

Although Brazil now has the sixth-largest economy, the recent strike has called into question the country’s ability to put on two of the largest sporting events in the world — the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympic Games in 2016. Safety in most major cities in Brazil has been improving of the last couple years, but crime is still a problem and may be contributed to the low wages and corruption of police officers.

Since the strike began in the metropolitan area of Salvador last week, roughly 150 people have died in Salvador and shopkeepers and tourists officials claim the economic damage is immense. Salvador holds the second largest Carnival festival in Brazil, attracting approximately 500,000 tourists each year. The state tourism secretariat says that tourists contribute about $300 million dollars into local economy each year during Carnival.

According to Jorge Cardeiro, a salesman at the high-end boutique, Projeto Axe Design, Carnival is a crucial time for Brazil’s economy and the police strike may have caused irreversible economic damage. “This place has been so empty it feels like sales are down 100 percent, but really they’ve fallen more than 70 percent. I don’t know how we’re going to make it up,” he said. The U.S. State Department has already issued an advisory warning to Americans against traveling to Salvador.

Although violence in Salvador seems to be cooling down, Intelligence officials are concerned after intercepting a cellphone conversation that revealed a plan by police officials to cause acts violence and vandalism in a strike that would extend to Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. A violent strike in Rio could be more economically damaging than the strike in Salvador, especially during Carnival, where tourists already come concerned about their safety even with the police force working properly.

Military patrols are stepping in to help keep businesses open in Rio as preparations for Carnival street parades continue despite the tension.

For further information, please see:

CBS News – Crime Cutting into Brazil’s Carnivals Amid Strike – 11 February 2011

LA Times – Brazil Arrests Strike Leaders to Halt Police Work Stoppage in Rio – 11 February 2012

Reuters – Brazil Police Strike Spreads to Rio Before Carnival – 10 February 2012

Washington Post – Rio Calm in 2nd Day of Police Strike With Low Adherence Rate – 10 February 2012

The New York Times – Police Strike by Brazilians Makes Holiday Seem a Threat – 09 February 2012

Saudi Blogger Arrested in Malaysia for Tweets about the Prophet Mohammed

February 10, 2012

By Tyler Yates
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The Malaysian police have arrested a Saudi blogger who was fleeing Saudi Arabia following calls for his execution, stemming from comments made on Twitter thought to be insulting to the Prophet Mohammed.

A series of tweets has led to calls for the execution of a Saudi blogger (Photo courtesy of RatedSawj).

Hamza Kashgari was hoping to gain political asylum in New Zealand when he was intercepted upon his arrival at Kuala Lumpur International Airport.

A spokesperson for the Malaysian police confirmed that they had detained the 23-year old blogger.

“This arrest was part of an Interpol operation which the Malaysian police were a part of,” the spokesperson said.

No details were announced on whether Kashgari would be extradited to Saudi Arabia. Even though the two countries do not have an explicit extradition treaty, Kashgari could still be extradited under other bilateral security agreements between the States.

Clerics and locals in Saudi Arabia have called for Kashgari’s execution based upon three comments he made on Twitter on the Prophet Mohammed’s birthday.

The tweets depicted a fictitious conversation between Kashgari and the Prophet.

“On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more,” one tweet read.

Kashgari later deleted the tweets after he received over 30,000 responses within a day of posting. The online reaction to the tweets included a series of tweets with the hashtag #HazmaKashgari, YouTube videos (one of which including his home address), and a Facebook group with over 12,000 members entitled “The Saudi People Demand the Execution of Hazma Kashgari.”

Some in Saudi Arabia feel that Kashgari has been made a scapegoat for a larger conflict between the ultraconservatives and liberals in the majority Muslim nation.

The incident once again highlights the impact of Twitter and related social networking sites in the Middle East. The free forums allow for debate and discussion, but it can also lead to scandal.

Saudi Arabia does not have a written set of criminal laws, however blasphemy has been recognized as a crime punishable by execution under Saudi Arabia’s strict interpretation of Islamic sharia law. It is not a capital crime in Malaysia.

Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations are calling on Malaysia not to send Kashgari back to Saudi Arabia.

“If Kashgari is not presumed innocent, he can hardly expect a fair trial if returned to Saudi Arabia,” said Christopher Wilcke, a senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Malaysia should save him from any travesties of justice and allow him to seek safety in a country of his choice.”

Due to its role in Kashgari’s arrest, Interpol has been accused of abusing its powers.

“If an Interpol red notice is the reason for his arrest and detention it would be a serious abuse of this powerful international body that is supposed to respect basic human rights (including to peaceful free speech) and to be barred from any involvement in religious or political cases,” said Jago Russell, the chief executive of the British charity Fair Trials International.

He went on to call on Interpol to uphold its obligations to fundamental human rights and to stay out of this case “which is clearly of a religious nature.”

Interpol, which has 190 member countries, has a series of colored notice systems that police forces around the world use to pass on requests for help.

Last year Interpol was accused by Fair Trials International of allowing the system to be abused for political purposes when it issued a red notice for the arrest of the Oxford-based leader of an Asian separatist movement, Benny Wenda, who has been granted asylum and has lived in the UK since 2003.

Interpol has not commented on the arrest of Kashgari.

For more information, please see:

Al Jazeera — Malaysia arrests Saudi blogger over tweets — 10 Feb. 2012

Guardian — Interpol accused after journalist arrested over Muhammed tweet — 10 Feb. 2012

HRW — Malaysia Don’t Send Saudi Back — 10 Feb. 2012

New York Times — Malaysia Detains Saudi Over Twitter Posts on Prophet — 10 Feb. 2012

Washington Post — Saudi blogger’s tweets about prophet Muhammad stir Islamists to call for his execution — 09 Feb. 2012

British PM And Jordanian King Seek Terror Suspect Extradition Solution

February 10, 2012

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

LONDON, United Kingdom — British Prime Minister and Jordanian King Abdullah are searching for a solution to the Abu Qatada question after the European Court of Human Rights denied Qatada’s extradition from the UK to Jordan. Qatada is a radical Muslim cleric who British judges have called “truly dangerous.” The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg denied his deportation because it is likely that he will be tried in Jordan with evidence that was extracted with torture. Jordan plans to contest the ruling from the Strasbourg Court.

Abu Qatada (Photo courtesy of The Guardian)

Qatada was never tried in Britain but has been detained in a sort of house arrest where his movements are tracked by law enforcement. He has been convicted in Jordan while absent from the country for his involvement in two major terror plots. Qatada asserts that those convictions were based on evidence obtained through torture.

The UK and Jordan signed a diplomatic memorandum used to protect the human rights of those who are extradited from the UK. The Court of Human Rights noted this memorandum but nevertheless concluded that Qatada would likely be retried in Jordan.

“Torture and the use of torture evidence were banned under international law,” said the Court. “Allowing a criminal court to rely on torture evidence would legitimise the torture of witnesses and suspects pre-trial. Moreover, torture evidence was unreliable, because a person being tortured would say anything to make it stop.” The Court went on to note instances in which Jordanian courts have used evidence gained with torture in trials.

The Strasbourg Court’s ruling puts the United Kingdom in a difficult situation. Qatada is due to be released on bail after a British judge ruled that his six-year sentence could not be sustained. Now the UK faces a situation in which they would have a man dubbed as a national security threat walking free unless Qatada can be deported to Jordan.

“It is simply isn’t [sic] acceptable, that after guarantees from the Jordanians about his treatment, after British courts have found that he is dangerous, after his removal has been approved by the highest courts in our land, we still cannot deport dangerous foreign nationals,” UK Home Secretary Theresa May said. “The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell. The right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell far away from Britain.”

Following the ruling UK Prime Minister David Cameron has been working with King Abdullah of Jordan to find a solution to the Qatada issue. “They agreed on the importance of finding an effective solution to this case, in the interests of both Britain and Jordan,” a spokesman for 10 Downing Street said. “The PM complimented the king on the close and effective collaboration between Britain and Jordan on this case over a number of years.”

The European Human Rights Court’s ruling also raises questions about the prospects of deporting other terror detainees, like extremist preacher Abu Hamza. Hamza was denied extradition to the United States by the Human Rights Court in 2010 due to concerns that Hamza would be treated inhumanely.

Hamza is set to find out in a new ruling in the coming weeks whether or not he will be extradited to the United States. The Qatada ruling casts doubts on the prospect of Hamza being sent to the United States if British courts determine that he will not be treated fairly in the US. Because he too has completed his sentence in Britain he will be allowed to walk free if he is not deported.

The Qatada case has set off British commentators who feel the UK should separate itself from the human rights policies of the European Union if favor of taking more control over the security interests of the UK.

British conservative commentator Bruce Anderson wrote:

It is true that the initial European Convention was drafted by a British lawyer, with Churchill’s encouragement, in order “to export the British system”. The key word there is “export”. War and dictatorship had shattered legal systems across the continent. As John Hayes puts it, those countries had to rediscover decency. That was not true of us. They had everything to learn from Britain and nothing to teach. Our endeavours to assist in the creation of the ECHR were noble and magnanimous. But this was for export only. The British founding fathers would not have dreamed – or nightmared – that a time would come when their exported creation would set itself up as a European Supreme Court and seek to prevent a British government from protecting British interests

Other Britons, however, have committed themselves to following the lead of the European Human Rights Court. Walter Bagehot wrote in The Economist: “If Mr. Qatada is a dangerous terrorist, the British government is at liberty to press criminal charges against him. If (as must be assumed) there is insufficient evidence to charge him in a British court, but the government is sure he is dangerous, then they are free to pass British laws neutralizing [sic] the dangers that he poses.”

In his article, Bagehot advocates for the idea that Britain is correct to buy into an international justice system that condemns the use of torture.

The Qatada case presents a theme that will likely continue to present itself: the conflict between national security interests and the interest in protecting individual rights.

For more information please see:

ABC News — Jordan To Contest EU Extradition Ban On Preacher — 10 February 2012

The Economist — The Oddity Of Britain’s Human Rights Debate — 10 February 2012

BBC — David Cameron And King Abdullah Discuss Abu Qatada Case — 9 February 2012

The Telegraph — Abu Hamza Could Also Be Bailed After Abu Qatada Ruling — 8 February 2012

BBC — ‘Unacceptable’ UK Can’t Deport Abu Qatada – Theresa May — 7 February 2012

BBC — Abu Qatada Wins Jordan Deportation Appeal — 17 January 2012

The Guardian — Abu Hamza Extradition To US Blocked By European Court — 8 July 2010

Brazilian Mining Company Vale Wins Dubious Award Highlighting Human Rights and Environmental Abuses

February 10, 2012

by Emilee Gaebler
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

BRASÍLIA, Brazil – Just recently the annual award for the “worst big company” was given to Brazilian company, Vale. Close to 89,000 votes were placed online and Vale received just over 25,000 of them.

Vale is officially this year’s winner for having the most “contempt for the environment and human rights.” The undesired award is co-organized by the Swiss nonprofit, the Berne Declaration and Greenpeace Switzerland. The award is an antagonistic response to the Davos summit hosted each year at this time by the World Economic Forum.

The Davos coordinators and participants portray themselves as protectors of human rights but those critical of them note that they only represent the “privileged 1%.” Its members are the 1,000 most profitable and powerful companies globally.

Vale is a mining company and a shareholder in the disputed Belo Monte dam project in Brazil. As reported by the Public Eye, Vale is the second-largest corporation in Brazil and the second-largest mining corporation internationally as well. They currently have operations in over 40 countries world-wide.

The company has a long history of abuses. Reports over the years have cited; terrible working conditions, forced displacement of indigenous people on many of their projects, use of paramilitary leaders to repress indigenous leaders and incalculable environmental damages. As well, health complications have arisen in the vicinities surrounding Vale’s coal-burning facilities.

The company’s operations in Brazil make up 4% of the carbon emissions in all of the country. They use 1.2 billion cubic meters of water annually, which is enough to meet the needs of 22,000 people for a one year period. They also dumped 114 million cubic meters of waste last year.

The current Belo Monte project they are involved in has garnered media attention over the past year as the construction of the dam threatens to displace thousands of indigenous people by flooding the land on which they currently reside. The company’s response to the award, aimed at shaming them into better behavior, was denial.

“Those who have chosen to misrepresent Vale’s record cite our participation on the Belo Monte Project, where we hold a 9% share…[c]learly, we are a minority shareholder” was the response posted.

Those responsible for the award are anxious to see more transparency in big businesses and that the leaders of these companies get held to a higher standard of credibility. The goal is not as simple as embarrassing the companies; but rather to demonstrate that lack of regulations allows them to get away with blatant disregard for human and environmental rights around the world.

For more information, please see;

Latin America Press – Vale Wins “Worst Company” Award – 2 February 2012

Common Dreams – Unique Awards Highlight Corporate Irresponsibility – 29 January 2012

The Guardian – Public Eye Award Singles Out Mining Company Vale, Barclay – 27 January 2012

Reuters – Davos Elite’s Largesse Fails to Appease Critics – 27 January 2012

Anti-Gay Bill Reintroduced in Ugandan Parliament

February 9, 2012

By Zach Waksman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

KAMPALA, Uganda – A bill that would impose the death penalty for “repeat offenders” of homosexual acts was introduced to Parliament in Uganda on Tuesday. The proposed statute, previously introduced in 2009 and shelved last May, drew widespread criticism from international human rights groups and would criminalize other acts of behavior involving homosexuality.

Gay rights activists call for the repeal of Uganda's ban on homosexual behavior, which would be punished by lifetime imprisonment if the proposed bill passes Parliament. (Photo courtesy of Getty Images)

MP David Bahati, leader of the ruling party, reintroduced the bill, but said that the language referring to the death penalty would be removed, in favor of lifetime imprisonment. That sentence would apply to anyone caught engaging in homosexual acts for the second time as well as for gay sex where one partner is a minor or has HIV. If passed, it would also have the effect of making the mere discussion of homosexuality or knowingly renting property to a homosexuality a crime. The first reading in Parliament reportedly drew applause within the chamber.

Uganda is a conservative country that has already banned homosexual behavior, making it one of more than 80 nations to do so. According to a press release from the Uganda Media Centre (UMC), “the main provisions of this bill were designed to stem the issue of defilement and rape which in the minds of [Ugandans] is a more pressing and urgent matter that needs to be addressed.” Despite the UMC’s claim, the bill’s reintroduction quickly drew scorn from world leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama, who called it “odious.”

Amnesty International, a leading human rights organization, was quick to condemn the bill and encouraged the Parliament to reject it in its entirety so as not to “legislate hate. “

“It’s alarming and disappointing that Uganda’s Parliament will once again consider the Anti-Homosexuality Bill,” said Michelle Kagari, Deputy Africa Programme Director at Amnesty International. “If passed, it would represent a grave assault on the human rights of all Ugandans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Though hailed within Parliament, others in Uganda were less than enthusiastic about the bill’s reintroduction. On Friday, James Tumusiime wrote an editorial urging citizens to fight it in The Observer, making reference to recent incidents in Malawi and India, where groups of people attempted to impose their own culture by interfering with other people’s rights to live as they saw fit.

“Bahati’s bill makes it imperative to speak out now because once it is enacted, an article like this might be interpreted as ‘promoting homosexuality,’ an offence under the proposed law,” he explained.

Similarly, Pepe Julian Onziema, a gay rights activist with Sexual Minorities Uganda, considered the bill dangerous for promoting homophobia. She told the BBC World News that the country is already facing increased reports of harassment based on sexual orientation.

“Being in jail in Uganda is as good as the death penalty,” she said. “What I’m worried about most is not even the police coming to arrest me, it’s my neighbour attacking me – it’s the motorbike cyclist [taxi] refusing to take me to a destination. I’ll be killed before I reached my destination.”

In response to these concerns, the UMC said that the government does not back the bill.

“What many of these critics fail to convey is the bill itself was introduced by a back bencher. It does not form part of the government’s legislative programme and it does not enjoy the support of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet,” the press release said. “However as Uganda is a constitutional democracy, it is appropriate that if a private members bill is presented to parliament it be debated.”

The bill’s likelihood of passage is unknown. While anti-homosexuality might be strong, the parliamentary contingent that favors it is small, but vocal. The ramifications, however are much greater. It might be a small, but significant step toward a less tolerant country. Tumusime feared the worst.

“[Bahati] may not realise it, but his bill is driving Uganda down the path of bigotry and intolerance. If the MPs legislate against homosexuality today, what will stop them legislating about mini-skirts, leggings, nose pins or G-strings tomorrow?” he asked.

For more information, please see:

The Observer — Today It’s Homo-sexuality, tomorrow it is G-Strings — 10 February 2012

BBC — Uganda Anti-Gay Bill “Not Backed by Government” — 09 February 2012

Al Jazeera — Uganda Anti-Gay Bill Back in Parliament — 08 February 2012

Uganda Media Center — Response to International Criticism of Debate on Anti-Homosexual Bill — 08 February 2012

Amnesty International — Uganda: Anti-Homosexuality Bill “a Grave Assault on Human Rights” — 07 February 2012