Europe

Greece Budget Cuts Spark Violent Protest

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

ATHENS, Greece – On Wednesday, tens of thousands of protestors flooded the streets of Athens for a nationwide strike to challenge new government measures that are expected to cut wages, pensions and healthcare. The potential cuts in Greece aroused anger and fear of increased insolvency as the nation begins its third round of austerity measures in the past three years.

A protestor in Athens flees police as strike becomes violent. (Photo Courtesy of The New York Times)

Similarly, Spain also experienced two days of violent protests due to cuts to public benefits and jobs. Workers across Greece and Spain have recently watched various jobs disappear and wages cut. Both countries continue to make budget cuts to pay debts created by overspending.

A gathering that started out as a peaceful protest to demand their governments to slow down budget cuts to avoid bankruptcy, quickly turned into a massive violent riot. Over 50,000 employees, such as hospital doctors, pensioners, teachers and shopkeepers, were among the demonstrators that participated in over 60 walkout rallies throughout Greece.

In an attempt to gain control, Athens police fired stun grenades at protestors who simultaneously hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks. Police fired back in an effort to scatter the angry crowds around the parliament building.

A worker, Maria Vasiliandi, who took part in the march said, “People were just protesting against the new austerity measures, and it suddenly started raining flash-bang grenades and Molotov cocktails, so we had to leave the square.”

Roman Gerodimos, senior lecturer at Bournemouth University in the U.K, states, “There’s a lot of frustration and a sense of public disappointment. People feel like there is no progress, that they’re sacrificing their welfare for nothing.” A physics researcher, Dimitris Palles, said, “I feel my country is on auction and we’re just an economic experiment.”

As a result of various budget cuts, chemists and pharmaceutical companies have stopped producing drugs  to medical insurers because they claim they have not compensated by the state. Furthermore, Greece’s power company cut the electricity at a kidney hospital on the island of Aegina for a period of time while the patients were experiencing blood dialysis.

Anna Afanti, a teacher, removed a surgical mask she wore to protect herself from the tear gas to say, “They just want to impoverish us, to bring our salaries down to the level in India and swoop in and buy everything on the cheap. I should have left this country a long time ago. Now I’m stuck here.”

For further information, please see:

The Independent — Day of rage in Greece as more stringent cuts loom – 27 September 2012

USA Today — Protests against budget cuts in Spain, Greece rock world markets – 27 September 2012

NBC News — Rage against austerity: Protesters in gas masks, helmets clash with Greek police – 26 September 2012

The New York Times — Markets Falter in Europe Amid Protests on Austerity – 26 September 2012

Russian Businessman Says Hooliganism Charge is Politically Motivated

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia – Alexander Lebedev, Russian media and banking businessman and critic of the Kremlin, has been charged with hooliganism, which could entail up to a five year sentence.  Last year, Lebedev struck Sergei Polonsky, a property developer, during a televised event.   Lawyers and analysts have suggested that a similar assault would normally carry a fine or very brief incarceration. Yet, after a yearlong investigation, Lebedev questions whether the charges against him are politically motivated.

Lebedev, part owner of opposition paper Novaya Gazeta and a champion of anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny, calls the charges against him politically motivated. (Photo Courtesy of the Independent)

Lebedev has been charged with hooliganism motivated by political hatred, under the same article used to sentence three members of the punk band Pussy Riot last month to two years imprisonment for their anti-government protest in a church.

He was also asked to sign a court document pledging not to travel during the trial, or leave the country.  Lebedev refused to do so.

The Novaya Gazeta, a critical investigative newspaper, is partly owned by Lebedev.  Lebedev has also supported opposition leader and anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny. Lebedev suggests that he is facing trumped-up charges because of his criticism of the Kremlin.

“It’s part of a campaign, and it’s not to do with my businesses . . .” Lebedev claimed.  “This is either to do with Novaya investigations, or it’s because they really think I am some kind of genuine clandestine opposition figure.”

Lebedev, who is worth 1.1 billion according to Forbes, has also suggested that authorities want him out of the country.  His National Reserve Bank is under investigation after being raided by armed masked men, surveillance of his business and home have been raised, and a sex tape was leaked onto the internet recently.

“They are hoping I will leave the country,” Lebedev said. “It’s a standard procedure: first they go against your business, then second is a smear campaign and third is the most threatening weapon – first the threat of prison and then, if you don’t emigrate, you go to trial on some fabricated case.”

Since Putin returned to the office of president in May, he has initiated a widespread crackdown on growing opposition against him, as seen in part by the sentencing of the members of Pussy Riot.

The imprisonment of businessmen for supporting opposition politics is not unprecedented.  In 2003, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of the now bankrupted oil company Yukos, was arrested and jailed on charges of fraud and tax evasion in a case critics say was launched funding the opposition without Kremlin approval.

Lebedev knows he faces the threat of a notoriously politicized justice system. When asked if he was ready to go to prison, he said: “I don’t think anyone can be ready for that, especially someone with a family”.

However, Lebedev is determined to fight. “There has been pressure on me to leave Russia, but I am going to stay here and fight it.  Other things against me are also being worked on, and I know about them. But having taken a kind of civic stand, it wouldn’t be right just to leave.”

 For further information, please see:

The Independent –Charges Against me are Politically Motivated, says Alexander Lebedev – 27 September 2012

The Moscow Times –Billionaire Lebedev Charged With Hooliganism – 27 September 2012

Radio Free Europe – Billionaire Kremlin Critic Charged With Hooliganism – 27 September 2012

BBC News – Russian Tycoon Alexander Lebedev Charged over Punch-up – 26 September 2012

The Guardian –Alexander Lebedev Charged with Hooliganism and Battery in Russia– 26 September 2012

The Telegraph – Russian Media Mogul in Talk Show Brawl– 18 September 2011

Russia Demands Ban on YouTube Over Anti-Islamic Film

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia – On the heels of multiple nations banning the Anti-Islamic film, The Innocence of Muslims, the Russian government recently threatened to ban the video-sharing online resource, YouTube, unless the company takes down the extremely controversial film that flared multiple violent protests.

Russia threatens to ban YouTube over controversial Anti-Islamic film. (Photo Courtesy of FoxNews)

On Monday, Russian communications chief, Nikolai Nikiforov, used Twitter to announce that Russia may take the necessary steps to completely block YouTube if they do not agree to the removal of the Anti-Islamic film.

The Russian prosecutor general has already categorized the film to be extremist and desires a court decision to ban it in Russia. However, if a court rules that YouTube is not required to take down the heated film, access to the website will simply be limited.

Russia plans to utilize a controversial new law that allows authorities to block entire websites over offensive content on a single page. Nikolai Nikiforov also wrote on twitter, “It sounds like a joke, but because of this video… all of YouTube could be blocked throughout Russia.”

In fact, various Internet providers through the Russia’s Chechen Republic were already instructed to block YouTube to prevent access to the Anti-Islamic movie mocking the Prophet Muhammad.

One Internet provider in Chechnya, Orange Company, already blocked YouTube. Furthermore, the republic’s prosecutor general officially ordered the three remaining providers, MTS, Megafon and Vympelkom, to block access to YouTube.

Ultimately, Google refused to take down the Anti-Islamic movie all together. However, the Internet company agreed to remove content that violates local laws to “maintain a balance between free speech and censorship.”

A YouTube spokes person states, “We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions. This can be a challenge because what’s OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere.”

Rachel Whetstone, Google’s director of global communications and public affairs for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, wrote that Google is not “the arbiter of what does and does not appear on the web”.

Whetstone also states, “We try to take into account local cultures and needs – which vary dramatically around the world – when developing and implementing our global product policies. Dealing with controversial content is one of the biggest challenges we face as a company.”

For further information, please see:

RFE/RL — Internet Providers In Chechnya Instructed To Block YouTube Over Anti-Islam Film – 24 September 2012

BBC – YouTube under new pressure over anti-Muslim film – 19 September 2012

FoxNews — Russia may block YouTube over anti-Islam film – 18 September 2012

Los Angeles Times — More countries push to block YouTube over anti-Islam video – 18 September 2012

UK Indeterminate Sentences Breach Prisoner Human Rights

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

Strasbourg, France – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that the operation of indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public (IPPs) breaches human rights.  Under an IPP in the United Kingdom (UK), a court could sentence a prisoner to serve not only time for a committed crime, but to also to remain in prison until he had completed rehabilitation courses, which are difficult to gain access to.  Of the more than 6500 prisoners currently serving IPP terms, 3500 have completed their minimum sentences, but need to demonstrate rehabilitation. The ECtHR found that the IPP system has a “lack of resources,” without which prisoners whose minimum sentences have expired cannot realistically qualify for release.

IPPs were created to ensure that dangerous prisoners were rehabilitated before reentering the population, but the supporting system quickly became overwhelmed. (Photo Courtesy of BBC News)

Brett James, Nicholas Wells, and Jeffrey Lee, who were each imprisoned over two years longer than their minimum sentences, brought their cases before the ECtHR. They, like other IPP prisoners who had completed their minimum sentence found themselves in a catch 22; they could not qualify for release without rehabilitation courses, and such courses could not easily be obtained.  The three argued that there were “delays” in accessing the prison courses necessary to be eligible for release, caused by “a lack of resources.”  The ECtHR agreed.

Specifically, the ECtHR found that the IPP operation violated Article 5:1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which bans arbitrary detention.  The ECtHR characterized the IIP operation as “draconian measures for indeterminate detention without the necessary planning and without realistic consideration of the impact of the measures”.

The court further explained that “once the applicants’ tariffs had expired, their detention was justified solely on the grounds of the risk they posed to the public.”  At that point, the need for rehabilitative services becomes all the more urgent.   The applicants’ imprisonment was “arbitrary and therefore unlawful” when without an effort to progress them through the prison system “with a view to providing them with access to appropriate rehabilitative courses”

James, Wells, and Lee were awarded £14,000 in damages and close to £30,000 in costs.   It is estimated that if the British government were required to compensate all 3500 IPP prisoners held beyond their minimum sentence, it would cost about £16 million.

The new Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, expressed that he was “very disappointed by the ECHR decision,” further elaborating that he intends to appeal the decision: “it is not an area where I welcome the court seeking to make rulings, it is something we intend to appeal.”  The government has three months to do so.

The IPP was introduced in 2005 by Labour as a way to ensure that dangerous prisoners were rehabilitated before reentering the population by providing them with courses.  However, the system quickly became overburdened.  Since then, Ken Clarke, the last Justice Secretary, announced the cancelation of the IPP last year.

For now, the ECtHR decision will not affect prisoners in the UK currently serving IPP sentences.  A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice stated: “”Public protection will not be put at risk – the judgment does not find that indeterminate sentences are unlawful, and will not mean prisoners currently serving IPP sentences will have to be released.”

However, the decision will likely cause the UK to change the way that it sentences prisoners.  The government had already announced plans for a new regime of tough, determinate sentences.  The Ministry of Justice says “[t]his will see more dangerous criminals given life sentences, and others spending longer periods in prison, with tough license conditions on release.”

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Indeterminate Sentences ‘Breach Human Rights’ – 18 September 2012

Guardian – Strasbourg Judges Rule Indeterminate Sentences Unlawful – 18 September 2012

Independent – Indefinite Sentences Ruled Unlawful – 18 September 2012

Telegraph – Prisoners Locked Up Indefinitely Could Claim Millions in Compensation – 18 September 2012

Germany Debates Banning Anti-Islam Film

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe 

BERLIN, Germany – German politicians and Muslim groups are currently debating whether to prohibit a populist group, Pro Deutschland, from publicly showing an anti-Islam film, The Innocence of Muslims, in November.

A Muslim protester outside the US Embassy opposing “The Innocence of Muslims.” (Photo Courtesy of Spiegel)

This particular film attributed to violent protests in Pakistan to Sudan and has been deemed insulting to the Islamic religion, which has a large presence in Berlin. European officials have grown increasingly concerned in the past decade over the rise of extremism.

However, the German’s government’s potential ban of The Innocence of Muslims has sparked a wide criticism invoking the right of freedom of speech.

Pro Deutschland leader, Manfred Rouhs, states, “The public has a right to see this film and to make up its mind or express an opinion after having seen the film in full.” Additionally, German Social Democrat lawmakers maintain that a ban should be a last resort, and “a purely foreign-policy-related consideration is not enough to warrant limiting basic civil rights.”

Renate Künast, head of Germany’s the Green Party parliamentary group, state, “Freedom of expression is a prized value in German society, we won’t simply throw that away.” She believes instead of a government ban, the people of Germany should simply protest a public viewing.

Conversely, various German government officials refer to the film as an “abuse of free-speak laws.” German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who favors freedom of expression and the press, said that she fears the anti-Islam movie will generate violence, and her fear is a “good reasons” for issuing a ban. She further states, “It’s not about banning the film itself, but about whether the public screening would endanger public safety.”

German’s Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, expresses his concern as to the image of Germany as a country. He says, “Germany wants to send the signal that ‘we remain a tolerant country.’”

German officials have looked to anti-blasphemy laws, which state that anyone who publicly “insults the content of the religious or ideological views in a manner likely to disturb the public order, will be penalized with up to three years’ imprisonment or fined.”

German Interior Minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich, says, “I want more respect for people’s religious beliefs.” He also believes such a screening would be a “political action” that would only serve to “pour oil on the fire”.

For further information, please see:

USA Today — Anti-Islam film controversy hits Europe, Asia – 20 September 2012

Channel News Asia — Germany wrestles with ban on anti-Islam film screening – 19 September 2012

Spiegel — Germany Mulls Ban on Showing Hate Film – 18 September 2012

The Times of India — Germany mulls ban on screening of anti-Islam film – 17 September 2012