By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

STOCKHOLM, Sweden – Swedish furniture giant, IKEA, acknowledged in a press release on Friday that political prisoners were used as forced labor in the manufacturing of IKEA parts some 25 to 30 years ago in communist Eastern Germany.  Jeanette Skjelmose, Head of Sustainability says, “We regret deeply that this could happen. Using political prisoners in production has never been accepted within IKEA.”

The announcement was prompted by the findings of an internal audit conducted by accountants Ernst & Young, which poured over 20,000 pages of IKEA’s internal records documents and 80,000 archived German items.  Also, about 90 people were interviewed.

The Ernst & Young study found that IKEA had given contracts to the East German (GDR) government.  It further found that political and criminal prisoners were involved in manufacturing for IKEA suppliers there, and it was likely that at the time some IKEA representatives were aware of this likelihood.  The use of forced labor in East German state-owned companies continued until the fall of Communism in 1989.

However, the study has already been denounced as “unscientific” by Roland Schulz, VP of an association representing East German Communist regime victims.  Calling for historians and political scientists to carry out a more thorough investigation, he explains that, “IKEA as the guilty party is itself conducting the investigation rather than leaving it to unbiased sources. Therefore we strongly doubt the validity of the results.”

IKEA commissioned the study after a 2011 German documentary from and 2012 Swedish Television reports claimed that, based on documents from the Stasi archives and statements from former political prisoners of the Stasi, IKEA’s suppliers used political prisoners as inexpensive labor.  The Stasi were the much feared secret police of the former GDR.

According to Stasi records, in one case political prisoners were used as unpaid labor to build sofas at a factory in Waldheim.  The factory and prison stood side by side.  Hans Klare, a former inmate at Waldheim who worked on sofa production there, described conditions as “slave labor.”  He remembers sleeping above the factory floor and working long hours with little rest and in dangerous conditions.

Initially, IKEA denied the accusations in April, claiming that it had conducted an internal investigation and found no evidence at political prisoners were used in production.

However, this week IKEA announced plans to make a donation to support the research of UOKG, a German charity for victims of the former Communist regime.  UOKG has campaigned for compensation for many former prisoners, on the grounds that they remain psychological and physical burdened by their time doing forced labor.

UOKG chairman Rainer Wagner praised IKEA for “tak[ing] the lead on this, for which we are very grateful,” and acknowledged that IKEA was one of many companies that benefited from forced prison labor during the Communist era.

However, former prisoners may still yet demand compensation from IKEA.

In the press release, IKEA states that while it tried to take steps to ensure that prisoners were not used in production, “it is now clear that these measures were not effective enough.”

Skjelmose also added that IKEA has reduced the risk of something similar being able to happen again.  IKEA presently has rigorous codes of conduct for suppliers, and works closely with suppliers and external inspections.  Furthermore, they carry out more than 1,000 audits each year to ensure compliance with this code.

However, some argue that IKEA should not have worked with the former GDR initially.  “They didn’t ask who were producing their furniture and under what kind of conditions,” Dr Hubertus Knabe, director of the Stasi Prison Memorial said, prior to the publishing of the Ernst & Young report.

“In each case you are responsible [for] with whom you are dealing and if you are dealing with dictatorship, if you don’t have a look under what kind of conditions your furniture is produced, then you are responsible for that.”

For further information, please see:

Sveriges Radio – Tysk kritik mot Ikea:s utredning om DDR-fångar – 17 November 2012

BBC News — Ikea ‘Deeply Regrets’ Use of Forced Labour – 16 November 2012

The Independent –  Ikea Used Forced Prison Labour to Make Furniture – 16 November 2012

The Local – Ikea Admits Using East German Prison Labour – 16 November 2012

Sveriges Radio – Ikea erkänner: Vi använde politiska fångar i DDR – 16 November 2012

Sveriges Radio – Political Prisoners Built Ikea Furniture – 16 November 2012

The Telegraph – Ikea ‘Regrets’ Forced Labour Use in East Germany – 16 November 2012

The Local – Ikea rejects East German prison labour claims – 28 April 2012

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe 

LONDON, United Kingdom – Adrian Smith, a Christian man, was demoted from his job for a Facebook comment that denounced gay marriages as “equally too far.” After facing a 40% salary cut, Smith won a breach of contract action against his employer.

Smith faced disciplinary action after he wrote an opposition to gay marriage comment on Facebook in February of 2011. In addition to his religious comments, Smith also listed his place of work on his Facebook page. His employer, Trafford Housing Trust, feared Smith’s comments could be viewed as representative of his employer.

Trafford Housing Trust alleged Smith breached the code of conduct for its employees, and acted “contrary to the Trust’s equal opportunities policy.”

In his breach of contract action, Smith claimed that Trafford Housing Trust acted unlawfully in demoting him. Furthermore, he also claimed that the trust breached his human rights.

Judge Michael Briggs determined that although Adrian Smith opposes gay marriage for religious reasons, his comment on Facebook ultimately did not demonstrate misconduct in relation to his contract with Trafford Housing Trust. Judge Briggs continued to explain that Smith was demoted because of his “long record of loyal service” and “was taken to task for doing nothing wrong.”

In response to Judge Briggs decision, Smith stated, “Britain is a free country where people have freedom of speech, and I am pleased that the judge’s ruling underlines that important principle. Something has poisoned the atmosphere in Britain, where an honest man like me can be punished for making perfectly polite remarks.”

Matthew Gardiner, chief executive at Trafford Housing Trust, responded, “We fully accept the court’s decision and I have made a full and sincere apology to Adrian. At the time we believed we were taking the appropriate action following discussions with our employment solicitors and taking into account his previous disciplinary record.”

Gardiner continued, “We have always vigorously denied allegations that the Trust had breached an employee’s rights to freedom of religious expression under Human Rights and Equalities legislation.”

Sarah Henchoz, an employment lawyer at Allen & Overy LLP in London, advised that British lawmakers should create brighter guidelines on the relationship between employers and employees when it comes to personal comments on social media websites, such as Facebook and Twitter.

Henchoz believes social media has “grown and the law around it hasn’t grown as quickly. Employers are regulating that themselves internally, but there’s not going to be consistency.”

For further information, please see:

BBC News — Facebook gay wedding comment man wins demotion case – 16 November 2012

Bloomberg Businessweek — U.K. Man Wins Case Over Anti-Gay Marriage Facebook Comment – 16 November 2012

The Huffington Post — Christian Adrian Smith, Demoted For Opposing Gay Marriage On Facebook, Wins Legal Fight – 16 November 2012

The Independent – Christian demoted for posting his opposition to gay marriage on Facebook wins breach of contract action – 16 November 2012

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia – On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin, sitting before his newly expanded Human Rights Council, promised to review a new bill expanding the definition of treason, which potentially threatens anyone working for a foreign or international organization, in order to avoid overly broad interpretations of treason.  However, the following day he signed the bill into law and the legislation went into effect on Wednesday.

Under the new law, which amends Article 151 of the Criminal Code, it is possible to be convicted of treason for passing state secrets to any foreign or international organization.  Furthermore, even if no secrets are passed, merely providing “other assistance” believed to be “directed against Russia’s security” may trigger a treason charge.  Even receiving secret information with no intention to use it carries the potential of being a treasonous act.

Unintentional acts of treason carry a fine of between £3,700 – £9,900, or imprisonment of up to four years.  Willing treason carries a prison sentence of up to eight years.

The bill has been gaining steam in the Russian parliament for some time (see Legislation Expanding Treason Definition in Russia Could Criminalize Foreign Funded Organizations for further background information).  On October 23, the Duma passed it with only 2 out of 375 adverse votes.  On October 31, in the Federation Council, 138 out of 166, with 2 abstaining voted for the bill.

Human rights groups have rallied against expanding the definition of treason, a move they see as motivated by a desire to distance Russians from Western non-governmental organizations, more specifically NGOs, to the detriment groups such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.  They further fear that between a lack of clarity and its criminalization of the unsuspecting, courts will use the legislation to convict, for example, those opposed to the government or irritate authorities.

Initially on Monday, Putin expressed a “read[iness] to return” to the amendments to look at them more “carefully.”  He seemed specifically concerned with making sure that “[t]here shouldn’t be any broader definition of state treason, [and] it shouldn’t address issues that have nothing to do with the instance of state treason.”

However, on Wednesday, his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, explained to reporters that Putin actually meant that amendments to the bill could be adjusted if “problem areas” were to arise.

Lyudmila Alexeyeva, 85, former Soviet dissident and veteran human rights activist, expressed her concern that the legislation is a step back for Russia: “It’s an attempt to return not just to Soviet times but to the Stalin era, when any conversation with a foreigner was seen as a potential threat to the state.”

Yabloko opposition leader party, Sergei Mitrokhin, explained: “Anyone can be charged under the new bill – the average activist as well as a Federal civil servant disliked by the government.”  He further charged that “[t]he Russian secret service is interested in having a legal basis for arresting dissidents or people who are simply inconvenient. Charges can be brought against any organisation or person deemed to be dangerous. The fact that the bill has been passed is yet another indication of the appearance of totalitarian tendencies in Russian politics.”

For further information, please see:

The Independent – Postcard from… Moscow – 15 November 2012

The Independent – Russia’s Broadened Treason Law Denounced as Stalinist – 15 November 2012

BBC News – Russia Treason: Putin Approves Sweeping New Law – 14 November 2012

The Moscow Times – Treason Law Expanded Despite Putin’s Pledge – 14 November 2012

RFE/RL – Controversial Russian Treason Law Comes into Force – 14 November 2012

The Telegraph – Vladimir Putin Signals Willingness to Review Russian Treason Bill – 13 November 2012

 

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

GALWAY, Republic of Ireland – When Praveen Halappanavar accompanied his 17-week-pregnant wife Savita Halappanavar to the University Hospital Galway in Ireland for her back pain, he never imagined that the hospital would deny her a life-saving abortion, or that he would lose her within the week.

On Sunday morning October 21, 17-week-pregnant Savita, 31, went to the hospital with Halappanavar, 34, complaining of back pain.  Doctors told her she was having a miscarriage which would be over in a few hours, and that the fetus could not be saved.

Instead, Savita spent three days in “agony” during which she and Halappanavar made repeated requests for a termination of the pregnancy, but were repeatedly denied because the heartbeat of the fetus remained present and Ireland “is a Catholic country.”

Once the fetal heartbeat stopped, Savita received the abortion.  Shakey and shivering, she was moved to the hospital’s intensive care unit, but her condition continued to worsen.  She died from septicaemia and e-coli on October 28 in the early morning.

Ireland has some of the strictest and least clear anti-abortion laws in the world.  By law, abortions are illegal under all circumstances.  A judicial exception was created by the European Court of Human Rights (ECRH) for when the life (as distinct from merely the health) of the mother is at risk, but even this is often left to the discretion of doctors.

By comparison, in Northern Ireland abortions are permitted up to 9 weeks into a pregnancy, and in the rest of the U.K., 24 weeks (see First Private Abortion Clinic Opens in Northern Ireland amid Protests).  Consequently, Irish women seeking abortions will travel to the U.K. or the continent to receive them.

Two investigations have been launched: one by the hospital and the other by Ireland’s health executive.  Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has further called for an independent inquiry with personnel from outside the country to establish the full circumstances.

Savita’s death has also sparked protests, including a 1,000 strong group outside Leinster House (Ireland’s Parliament) and exposed a need for reform.  Currently, Ireland’s coalition government is working to prepare a report on such reform, taking into consideration the ECHR ruling that an absolute ban on abortion is a breach of women’s human rights.

Patrick Nulty, An Irish Labour deputy in the Dáil, stated that there is a “pressing and urgent need” for Parliament to “show responsibility and legislate” in light of Savita’s death.

Halappanavar has given a series of radio interviews since his wife’s death.  He recounts her pain, and how despite being upset she accepted she was losing the baby, and how she asked to induce the pregnancy’s end, only to be told by a consultant  “’As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything.”

Halappanavar’s frustration and grief is evident.  “It was all in their hands and they just let her go. How can you let a young woman go to save a baby who will die anyway? Savita could have had more babies.

“What is the use in being angry? I’ve lost her. I am talking about this because it shouldn’t happen to anyone else. It has been very hard to understand how this can happen in the 21st century.”

For further information, please see:

The Guardian – Ireland ‘Should Change Abortion Law’ After Woman’s Death – 14 November 2012

The Independent — Abortion Laws – Global Differences – 14 November 2012

The Independent – ‘This is a Catholic Country’: Woman Dies of Septicaemia After Being Refused an Abortion in Irish Hospital – 14 November 2012

Irish Times – Woman ‘Denied a Termination’ Dies in Hospital – 14 November 2012

RTÉ (Raidió Teilifís Éireann) – Health Minister James Reilly Seeks Report Following Woman’s Death After Miscarriage at University Hospital Galway – 14 November

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia – On Friday, Maxim Luzyanin was sentenced to four-and-a-half years for “mass disorder” and violence against the police. Luzyanin was one of the first individuals arrested in May during a protest of Vladimir Putin’s inauguration.

Although Judge Andrei Fedin said “Luzyanin’s correction was not possible without isolating him from society,” Luzyanin’s lawyers maintain that the sentence was “harsh” and plan to appeal.

Furthermore, several opposition members were “unhappy with the length of the prison term, and expected a shorter sentence due to the defendant’s cooperation with investigators.”

Luzyanin, one of the “Bolotnaya 17”, was the only protester to plead guilty. Luzyanin cooperated with the investigators who looked into the causes of the violence in May. His sentence of four-and-a-half years created fear in the other detained individuals.

Prominent Russian opposition activist, Alexei Navalny, stated, “This is either a sign that they will give long sentences to those who will not agree to a deal with investigators, or a sign of the widespread Russian and worldwide practice when the first to confess and cooperate gets immediately a long sentence, to scare the rest to death.”

Dmitry Agranovsky, the defense lawyer for the other’s in the “Bolotnaya 17”, said he was “disappointed” with Luzyanin’s sentence, and he would put forth the appropriate effort to obtain a shorter jail term for his own defendants.

He continued, “There is a chance that others on trial will make the conclusion that it does not matter whether you cooperate with the investigation or not, you will still get a harsh sentence. I believe if the defendant cooperated, the court has to go lightly on him.”

However, Vladimir Putin, who has held a position of power in Russia since 2000, pushed various laws through parliament, such as increasing fines for protesters.

Russia’s investigative committee released a statement that said, “Those who think they can with impunity organize riots, plan and prepare terrorist attacks and other acts that threaten the lives and health of Russians, you underestimate the Russian special services’ professionalism.”

Since the violent protest in May, opposition groups deceased protests and now explore future strategies.

For further information, please see:

RFE/RL – Russian Court Hands Down Prison Sentence to ‘Bolotnaya’ Protester – 12 November 2012

Reuters — Jailing of protester underlines harsh Russia crackdown: Navalny – 10 November 2012

RT — Russian Court Issues first ‘Bolotnaya’ verdict: Protester Jailed for 4.5 years – 10 November 2012

The Independent – Anti-Putin protester jailed for four and a half years – 9 November 2012