By Sarah Lafen

Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe

LONDON, England —  Britain has announced plans to exempt British soldiers from legal claims brought on behalf of the European Convention on Human Rights so as to prevent unnecessary lawsuits against the soldiers while in combat and when they return home.  The rules of the Convention allow for countries to exempt themselves in specific situations, including those on the battlefield.

The exemption announcement follows the closure of the law firm Public Interest Lawyers, which was the firm responsible for filing many claims against British troops.  Since 2004, about £100 million has been spent on lawsuits against soldiers who served in Iraq, a portion of which is taxpayers’ money.

At the Conservative Party conference, the United Kingdom’s Defense Secretary Michael Fallon announced the change, which he believes will prevent the misuse of the Convention.  Fallon argues that the Convention has strayed from its original purpose to help maintain peace within Europe.  According to Fallon, the UK has found “several thousand” claims against British troops who allegedly detained potential terrorists who had fired at the British soldiers.  Also at the conference, UK Prime Minister Theresa May emphasized the importance of not leaving soldiers in the position to fight legal cases against them when they return home from combat.

Marth Spurrier, the director of Liberty, argued against this movement, claiming that the majority of suits against the military are not “vexatious” and are rather issues which the Ministry of Defence (MoD) “should be trying to eradicate, not permit.”  Similarly against the exemption, the Law Society accuses the government of undermining the rule of law by intimidating people who try to pursue legitimate cases against soldiers.  Law Society President Robert Bourns maintains that “[l]awyers must not be hindered or intimidated in carrying out their professional duties and acting in the best interests of their clients within the law.”

The UK’s derogation follows those of other nations, including Ukraine’s derogation in June 2015 in relation to combat on the Russian border and France’s derogation in November 2015 following a terrorist attack on a Parisian nightclub.

Certain rights under the Convention, including the prohibition of torture, remain in place for the British troops.  Soldiers will still be subject to International Humanitarian Law, which includes the Geneva conventions and UK criminal law.

 

For more information, please see:

CNBC — British Soldiers now Exempt from Europe’s Human Rights Convention — 4 October 2016

The Guardian — Plan for UK Military to Opt Out of European Convention on Human Rights — 4 October 2016

Newsweek — Britain to Opt Out of Human Rights Law in Wartime — 4 October 2016

The Independent –British Troops to be made Exempt from European Human Rights Laws During Combat — 3 October 2016

By Sarah Lafen

Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe

 

SOFIA, Bulgaria — The Bulgarian parliament has passed a bill which bans women from wearing face veils, or burqas, in public places such as government offices, schools, cultural institutions, and public recreation areas.  Special exceptions will be made for those who wear the garment for health or professional reasons, as well as those who wear it at cultural events.

 

The ban applies to both Bulgarian citizens, as well as women entering the country temporarily.  Punishment for those who ignore the ban and continue to wear the burqa in the prohibited public places will face a fine of up to 1,500 levs ($860) as well as the suspension of social security benefits.

Supporters believe the ban will boost security amidst recent terrorist attacks in Europe.  The ruling Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) party believes the bill will allow for better video surveillance and improved security within the country.  Krasimir Velchev, senior GERB lawmaker, maintains that “[t]he law is not directed against religious communities and is not repressive.”  Krasimir Karakachanov, co-leader of the nationalist Patriotic Front coalition which backed the bill, considers the burqa to be “more of a uniform than a religious symbol.”

Opponents of the ban believe the ban violates Bulgarian womens’ freedom of expression and religion.  Human rights group Amnesty International calls the ban “part of a disturbing trend of intolerance, xenophobia, and racism…”  The group’s European director, John Dalhuisen, believes that the security issues that supporters of the ban are concerned with can be addressed with restrictions on the covering of the face in high risk locations only, and not through a blanket ban across the country.  Dalhuisen states that “this ban violates their rights to freedom of expression and religion.”  The ethnic Turkish Movement for Rights and Freedoms refused to participate in the vote for the bill, saying the ban would “incite ethic and religious intolerance.”

The ban mirrors recent clothing bans in other European nations, such as the ban of the burkini in France, and the ban of the niqab in Netherlands and Belgium.  In Bulgaria, the Muslim community makes up for approximately 8% of the country’s population.

 

For more information, please see:

The Huffington Post — Bulgaria Bans Muslim Women from Wearing Full-Face Veils in Public — 3 October 2016

Independent — Bulgaria Imposes Burqa Ban – And Will Cut Benefits of Women who Deny it — 1 October 2016

The Sydney Morning Herald — Bulgaria the Latest European Country to Ban the Burqa and Niqab in Public Places — 1 October 2016

Daily Mail — Bulgaria Bans the Burqa: Women no Longer Allowed to Wear Veils After Nationalist Party Pushed for law Change Amid Fears of Islamic Terrorism — 30 September 2016

By Sarah Lafen

Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe

 

WARSAW, Poland — Approximately 24,000 Polish men and women gathered in Castle Square in Warsaw, Poland this past Monday to protest the proposed anti-abortion bill. The protest, which was called Black Monday, was not exclusive to the capital Warsaw.  90 other Polish cities saw protests as well, drawing approximately 160,000 protestors nationwide.  Other European cities which hosted protests included Berlin, Brussels, Dusseldorf, Belfast, London and Paris.

Some small shops closed in downtown Warsaw, with signs in their windows indicating their observance of the protest.  Other businesses which were usually staffed by women were staffed by men for the day.  Well-known actor and theater owner Michal Zebrowski sold tickets in his box office in Warsaw on the day of the strike in order to allow his female employee to take part in the protest.

Protestors waved black flags to draw international attention to the proposed ban.  They wore black clothing to represent their mourning for their reproductive rights and for the deaths they fear some women would face as a result of being denied the procedure.  Some who were inspired by a 1975 women’s strike in Iceland skipped school and work, and are refusing to do domestic household chores.

One of the protestors, Anna Pietruszka-Drozdz, explained that “Women don’t have abortions because they are promiscuous and it’s convenient. They do it because they need to, and it’s often the most traumatic decision ever.”  Another protestor, Agnieszka Krysztopolska, states that “… it’s not like I am some kind of hard-line feminist but I do not agree with somebody depriving me of the right to my own health or that of my children. I think this bill is just dangerous.”

The proposed bill poses a dilemma for the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) government in Poland.  Poland remains one of Europe’s most Catholic nations, and PiS came into power based on a promise to the Polish people to increase conservative values.  If PiS fails to back the proposed ban, the Catholic Church in Poland might react in the negative.  Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski dismissed the protesters, saying “Let them have their fun.”  Waszczykowski told a private radio station that “There is no such problem as a threat to women’s rights.  If someone thinks that there are no greater concerns in Poland at the moment, let them be.”

 

For more information, please see:

BBC — Black Monday: Polish Women Strike Against Abortion Ban — 3 October 2016

CNN — Women March Against Poland’s Proposed Abortion Ban — 3 October 2016

The Huffington Post — Women go on Strike in Poland to Protest Anti-Abortion Law — 3 October 2016

LA Times — ‘Black Monday’ in Poland: Women Strike Over Proposed Total Abortion Ban — 3 October 2016

NY Times — Protesters in Poland Rally Against Proposal for Total Abortion Ban — 3 October 2016

By Sarah Lafen

Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe

 

KIEV, Ukraine — Ukraine is considering a proposed bill which would ban any book that contains “anti-Ukrainian” content.  The bill would see that all books imported into Ukraine from Russia are checked for such content.  In addition, any books that do not recognize the Ukrainian state or people, as well as those that “call for the overthrow of power” in Ukraine would be banned as well.

According to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, the law proposes that the books will be assessed by a special council for “popularisation or propaganda of bodies of an aggressor state and their particular actions which create a positive image of the employees of the aggressor state, employees of Soviet state security bodies, justify or declare as legitimate occupation of Ukrainian territory.”  Halya Coynash, a member of the human rights group, brings attention to the fact that the bill does not cover anti-Ukrainian books published in other countries.

In opposition to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, Vyacheslav Kyrylenko, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, characterizes the bill’s intent as “humanitarian security.”  This past April, Kyrylenko initiated a movement to allow Ukrainian law enforcement to remove any books of Russian origin from Ukrainian bookstores.

Russian publishers do not expect the proposed ban to have an effect on their businesses should the bill be passed.  According to Oleg Novikov, general director of Russian publisher Eksmo, imports of Russian books into Ukraine are already at “historical lows.”

On the other hand, the proposed ban is being criticized by Ukrainian writers.  Some say that such a ban has the potential to transform Ukraine into a police state in which state authorities have control over the content seen by the population.  Oleg Ladyzhensky, a Ukranian science-fiction writer, alleges that the Ukrainian book industry is already in crisis, and would only suffer a larger detriment by the introduction of book bans.

The ban of Russian books in Ukraine is not a foreign concept.  In 2015, Ukraine banned 38 Russian-published books on the basis that they allegedly spoke to “hate ideology” and “separatism.”

A draft of the law was adopted earlier this month by Ukraine’s cabinet of ministers.

 

For more information, please see:

The Guardian — Ukraine Prepares to Ban ‘Anti-Ukrainian Russian Books — 28 September 2016

Publishing Perspectives — Latest Ukrainian Ban of Russian Book Imports Under Consideration — 26 September 2016

Channel NewsAsia — Ukraine Moves to Ban ‘Illegal’ Russian Books — 8 September 2016

BBC — Ukraine Bans 38 Russian ‘Hate’ Books Amid Culture War — 11 August 2015

By Sarah Lafen

Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe

 

PARIS, France — French President Francois Hollande has made clear his “determination” to maintain the UK’s assistance in the refugee crisis, as the Calais refugee camp is set to be shut down in the coming months.  Hollande emphasizes that despite Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, they are not relieved of responsibility in the migrant refugee crisis in Europe.  Rather, Holland considers Britain’s obligations to this issue increased in accordance with their decision to leave the EU.

Hollande explains that the objectives of France are clear in that they plan to close the camp in order to “guarantee the security of people in Calais, to maintain public order, and to assure proper conditions for the migrants.”  In addition to the interests of the people of Calais, the closing of the camp is expected to solidify the “firmness’ of the French-British border.  It is Hollande’s plan to disperse the migrants currently residing at the Calais jungle to other camps across France.

On his first trip to the Calais jungle since his election in 2012, Hollande insisted that border control in the area is “watertight,” despite evidence that suggest up to 200 migrants per week are being smuggled through Calais each week.

Britain has contributed an estimated £85 million towards reinforcement of security surrounding the Calais jungle camp.   In addition, Britain is in the process of funding the construction of a concrete wall to be built along the port in Calais in an effort to prevent migrants from crossing the English Channel.

Charlie Elphicke, Tory MP for Dover, believes that the French government needs to ensure the camp is actually dismantled as Hollande claims it will be.  Elphicke states that “Britain has already paid millions for walls and fences in Calais. Yet the French keep asking for more of our money.”  He believes the taxpayers’ money should be spent on increased security at the British port of Dover, and calls on Hollande to permanently return the migrants to their home countries.

The British Home Office responded to some of Hollande’s remarks, vowing to resettle “vulnerable” children.

 

For more information, please see:

Belfast Telegraph — MPs Hit Back at French President Over Criticism of UK Stance on Calais Migrants — 26 September 2016

Chicago Tribune — Hollande Says Britain Must Still Help with Migrants Post-Brexit — 26 September 2016

Evening Standard –Britain Must Play Part in Looking After Calais Jungle Migrants, Francois Hollande Says — 26 September 2016

The Telegraph — Hollande Sparks Row with UK by Saying it is Not Doing Enough to Help Calais Migrants — 26 September 2016