News

Jamaica Promises Harsher Penalties for Child Sex Abusers

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

KINGSTON, Jamaica — Jamaican leaders want tougher punishments for people who sexually abuse children.

Jamaican Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller says tougher sanctions are coming for child abusers. (Photo Courtesy of Go Jamaica)

Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller told the People’s National Party Women’s Movement conference this week that Justice Minister Mark Golding is looking at ways to strengthen child abuse laws.

“What you need to do is stop it,” Miller said.  “A woman represents motherhood.  A woman is now prime minister of Jamaica.  Stop it.”

The comments came after government figures showed more than 1,000 reports of sexual abuse against children through April of this year, according to the Jamaica Observer.  Between 2007 and 2011, more than 7,200 cases were reported.

Recent United Nations studies indicated only a handful of child sex abuse cases in the Caribbean and Latin America lead to convictions.  Marcelo Suarzo, the UN Populations Fund regional director, said it is unclear if the problem is with the laws or enforcement of the laws.

“What I am sure of is that impunity is the worst solution to sexual violence,” Suarzo said in an interview with the Jamaica Observer, adding that only two percent of reported cases in the region result in justice.

A school-based study conducted by the U.S. Agency for International Development in 2007 showed that one in three Jamaican girls between the ages of 10 and 15 experiences her first sexual encounter by force.  Roughly 12 percent of young girls reported having sexual intercourse before they turned 15 years old.

“The issue needs an integrated response,” Suarzo told the Observer.  “We need to strengthen our policies, make the appropriate investments and work closely to identify cases to ensure an integrated response from all the systems that are in charge of the application of justice.”

It appears the dialogue may already be having some effect.  Not only has there been a spike in the number of reported cases of child sex abuse, but there also has been a number of high-profile prosecutions.

On Friday, a former commandant of Jamaica’s Special Constabulary Force will be sentenced after he was convicted earlier this month on two counts of indecent assault on a minor.  The jury acquitted Harold Crooks, however, of carnal abuse since he and the teenage girl had sexual intercourse after she turned 16, Jamaica’s age of consent.

Earlier this month, a Kingston doctor was charged with four counts of committing sexual offenses against two teenage girls.  A report by a Jamaican police watchdog group called the Constabulary Communication Network alleged that Dr. Rakesh Thomas lured the girls, ages 14 and 15, to his office several times to engage in sexual grooming, touching, and intercourse.

And in June, a Jamaican national was sentenced in U.S. federal court to 18 months in prison for sexually abusing a minor on the cruise ship where he worked.  According to his plea agreement, Fabian Palmer befriended the 14-year-old girl and had sexual intercourse with her during a cruise last December.

At a recent meeting with Jamaica Observer editors and reporters, Jamaica’s UNICEF representative said more incidents are being reported to police “because [people] are realizing that silence is violence.”

Still, Robert Fuderich said the effort to stop the violence cannot stop there.

“There needs to be zero-tolerance,” he said.

For further information, please see:

Go Jamaica — Portia says Tougher Penalties Coming for Child Abusers — 16 July 2012

Jamaica Observer — Too Much Impunity for Sex Offenders, Says UN Official — 6 July 2012

Jamaica Observer — Former Police Commandant Found Guilty on Sex Charge — 5 July 2012

Stabroek News — Jamaican Doctor Charged with Sex Offences Against Girls — 2 July 2012

San Francisco Chronicle — Cruise Ship Worker Sentenced for Abusing Minor — 29 June 2012

Report Accuses Mexico of Not Protecting Women from Increased Violence and Discrimination

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

MEXICO CITY, Mexico — A new report released Wednesday said Mexico is not doing enough to protect women despite increasing levels of violence and discrimination.

A protester holds a sign calling for an end to violence against women during an Amnesty International rally on Nov. 24, 2005, in Mexico City. (Photo Courtesy of GlobalPost)

Human rights group Amnesty International issued the report to a United Nations committee, highlighting the rising number of crimes against women and the low success rate of Mexican authorities to convict offenders.

“The state of women’s rights in Mexico is alarming,” said Rupert Knox, a researcher at AI.  “In the past years, Mexico has approved a number of laws and institutions designed to protect women from discrimination and violence.  Much of the problem, however, lies in the lack of effective implementation of these laws and the weaknesses of the institutions.”

The report said Mexican police solve about one of every 21 rapes.  It also accused the police of having flawed procedures for documenting murders of women, including the failure of carrying out proper autopsies in many cases.

According to the report, U.N. figures show there were more than 34,000 women murdered in Mexico between 1985 and 2009.  In 2010 alone, 2,418 women were murdered, the report said.  That averaged to nearly seven murders per day.

One area that has seen a sharp increase in murders of women is the state of Chihuahua, the report said.  In 2010, one of every 11 victims was a woman, compared to one of every 14 in 2008.  Through June, there were more than 130 killings of women in Chihuahua alone.

Mexican prosecutors received nearly 15,000 complaints of rape in 2009, although AI estimates the number actually reached 74,000 since a small percentage of rapes are reported.  Of the cases prosecuted, AI said only 2,795 ended with a conviction.

“The poor quality investigations by Mexico state prosecutors also undermined the outcome of judicial proceedings, ensuring acquittals and decisions not to prosecute,” the report alleged.

To prove that point, AI referenced a 2006 case when Mexican police allegedly sexually abused 26 women arrested during protests in the town of San Salvador.  Several police officers were charged in the incident, but all were acquitted for a lack of evidence.  Nine of the women have now taken their cases to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

AI is calling on both outgoing President Felipe Calderón and President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto to do more to stem the violence against women.

“The Mexican authorities, led by both the actual and new government to take office in December, must move to implement commitments to protect women’s rights to end abuses and impunity,” Knox said.

For further information, please see:

GlobalPost — Amnesty International: Mexico Failing to Protect Women from Violence, Discrimination — 12 July 2012

Latin American Herald Tribune — AI Criticizes Impunity for Violence Against Women in Mexico — 12 July 2012

Amnesty International — Mexico Fails to Tackle Increased Levels of Violence Against Women — 11 July 2012

Chicago Tribune — Report Chides Female Violence in State of Mexico’s President-Elect — 11 July 2012

As More Refugees Reach Australia, Political Debate Heats Up

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

CANBERRA, Australia — For the twenty-fifth time in the last month, another boatload of asylum seekers arrived on Australian soil Saturday hoping to find refuge.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young urges Australia to share the refugee burden with Indonesia or more asylum seekers could be forced to risk their lives. (Photo Courtesy of The Sydney Morning Herald)

A total of 32 Sri Lankans, including one girl, were intercepted on their small fishing vessel and taken to Christmas Island.  According to The Australian newspaper, the island has roughly 1,400 asylum seekers in detention facilities.  But the recent surge has the government scrambling to transfer many of them to detention centers on the mainland.

It is also calling into question Australia’s policies on refugees.

“The turn-back-the-boats option is what wee need if we are going to discourage reckless behaviour by people-smugglers and their clients,” said Opposition Leader Tony Abbott in The Australian, affirming his commitment to force asylum-seekers back to Indonesia despite warnings that the policy is dangerous and potentially illegal.

Many in the opposition party blamed Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who they said refused to restore border protection policies.

“Two years ago [Friday], Julia Gillard promised she would break the people smugglers’ business model by building an offshore processing centre on East Timor,” said Scott Morrison, an opposition immigration spokesperson, in a statement.

“Since that time, she has overseen the largest number of illegal boat arrivals under any prime minister, with 206 boats and over 13,600 people arriving on her watch.”

Saturday’s arrival capped a week that saw more than 200 refugees make it to Australia.  On Thursday, the Navy picked up 162 Middle Easterners after they sent a distress signal 50 nautical miles offshore.  On Friday, 38 Iraqis and four Indonesians were transferred to Christmas Island after their asylum boat was intercepted a week earlier.

“[The perception is that] everyday we’re being flooded by boat people who are cheating the system,” said Kon Karapanagiotidis, head of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in Australia.

“Everyday the news is reporting another boat has arrived and another boat has arrived,” he added.  “It’s feeding this idea that we’re being flooded.”

Karapanagiotidis said that makes it easy to turn asylum seekers into “scapegoats” and a “political football” without any compassion or understanding for why they are refugees in the first place.

A recent report by the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees identified “a time of rising anti-refugee sentiment in many industrialized” countries.  According to the report, European countries on the Mediterranean Sea saw an 87 percent increase in asylum requests in 2011 compared to the previous year, due in large part to the Arab uprisings at that time.  Australia and New Zealand actually saw a nine percent decrease in 2011.

But as more asylum seekers flock to Australia now, some say the only way to stop the rush of refugees is to be more willing to help.

On Friday, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young warned that more people might be forced to risk their lives on boat trips to Christmas Island unless Australia agrees to share more of the regional asylum burden with Indonesia.

“There is a very real concern from those working on the ground,” she told The Saturday Age, “that unless there is a lot of work put into the relationship, Indonesia is going to get tougher on the asylum seekers and refuges who are here and make life even more unbearable for them, which is going to force people onto boats.”

“Unless we deal with that, there’s no way of stopping people from taking that dangerous journey,” she added.

Her comments came after two days of meetings with asylum seekers, non-government bodies, and Indonesian officials, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.  Unlike the government and opposition, the Greens’ prefer a regional approach that would see Australia take more refugees from countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia.

“The ALP and the Coalition accuse the Greens of not understanding this issue and being naive,” she said, “but the real naivety is thinking that pushing people anywhere else but Australia will stop them from coming [here].”

For further information, please see:

The Australian — In One Month, 25 Boats Arrive in Australia — 7 July 2012

The Australian — I Will Still Turn Boats Around, Tony Abbott Says — 7 July 2012

The Sydney Morning Herald — Share Refugee Burden, Green Senator Urges — 7 July 2012

CNN — Which Countries Take in Most Refugees?  Not the West — 5 July 2012

Timbuktu Desecrated by Radical Islamists

By Ryan Aliman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

BAMAKO, Mali – Considered one of the centers from which Islam spread through Africa in the 15th and 16th centuries, Timbuktu may be counting its last days of existence as armed men raze the fabled city.

 

Radical Islamists tearing down a shrine in Timbuktu. (Photo Courtesy of AFP)

The attack came from radical Islamists from the Al- Qaeda linked Ansar Dine (Defenders of Faith). The campaign began after UNESCO declared the site an endangered World Heritage Site. Carrying chisels and hoes, the attackers smashed four more tombs of Muslim saints in the face of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) warning that the destruction of sites such as Timbuktu constituted a war crime.

On Saturday the group destroyed the tombs of Sidi Mahmoud, Sidi Moctar and Alpha Moya, and on Sunday attacked four more including Cheikh el-Kebir’s mausoleum.

Yaya Tandina, a local journalist said that about 30 men, armed with Kalashnikovs and pickaxes destroyed three mausoleums of saints.

Witnesses say that the group targeted the 15th-century Sidi Yahya mosque on Monday, tearing off the entrance door.  The door is considered sacred and was to remain closed until the end of the world.

Ansar Dine says the shrines are idolatrous and have threatened to destroy any mosques housing the remains of the ancient saints.

When asked about the outpouring of anger and emotion over the destruction of the mausolea, Ansar Dine spokesman Sanda Ould Boumama said, “It is Islam which is good,”.”God is unique. All of this is haram (forbidden in Islam). We are all Muslims. UNESCO is what?” Boumama said.

He said the group was acting in the name of God and would “destroy every mausoleum in the city. All of them, without exception”.

The Islamist fighters from Ansar Dine are among the Al-Qaeda linked armed groups which occupied the north of Mali in the chaos that emerged after the March coup in Bamako.

On Sunday, International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda warned the perpetrators that destruction of such sites constituted a war crime.

“My message to those involved in these criminal acts is clear: stop the destruction of the religious buildings now,” the ICC Prosecutor told AFP.

Bensouda said that Mali was signatory to the Rome Statute which established the ICC. Article 8 of the statute states that deliberate attacks against undefended civilian buildings which are not military objectives constitute a war crime.

“This includes attacks against historical monuments as well as destruction of buildings dedicated to religion,” said Bensouda.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon deplored the destruction of tombs, with his spokesman Martin Nesirky quoting him as saying: “Such attacks against cultural heritage sites are totally unjustified.”

Nesirky added: “The Secretary-General calls on all parties to exercise their responsibility to preserve the cultural heritage of Mali.”

Ban also reiterated his support for ongoing efforts of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the African Union and countries in the region to “help the government and people of Mali resolve the current crisis through dialogue.”

 

For further information, please see:

The Australian – Destruction of Mali Tombs a War Crime – 3 July 2012

Al Jazeera – ICC Threatens Mali Islamists with War Crimes – 2 July 2012

All Africa – Liberia: Is Setting Up a War Crimes Court in Liberia Timely?  – 2 July 2012

Voice of America – Mali Says Rebel Tomb Desecration a War Crime – 2 July 2012

The Telegraph – Timbuktu Shrine Destruction ‘a war crime’ – 2 July 2012

Capital FM News – Timbuktu Shrine Destruction a ‘war crime’: ICC – 2 July 2012

Channel News Asia – Timbuktu Shrine Destruction a ‘war crime’: ICC Prosecutor – 2 July 2012

 

Supreme Court Split on Arizona’s Controversial Immigration Law

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — The Supreme Court issued a split decision Monday on the controversial Arizona law aimed at deterring illegal immigration.

Reporters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. (Photo Courtesy of Reuters)

The court differed on three key provisions of the law.  In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said those other portions of the Arizona law could not be enforced due to the federal government’s broad powers in setting immigration policy.

“The national government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Justice Kennedy wrote.  “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process (of the federal government figuring out how to best carry out its immigration power) continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

Specifically, the three provisions required immigrants to always carry immigration papers, banned illegal immigrants from trying to get work in public places, and allowed police to arrest immigrants without warrants, so long as the officers believed the immigrants were committing crimes that would deport them.  The votes on these provisions were either 5-3 or 6-2 in favor of declaring them unconstitutional, with the more conservative justices dissenting.

The justices unanimously upheld, however, the so-called “show me your papers” provision at the core of the law.  It requires local law enforcement authorities to determine the immigration status of anyone who’s stopped or arrested, so long as there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is illegally in the United States.

“There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced,” Kennedy wrote, emphasizing that state officials must obey all federal laws in checking a person’s immigration status or face additional constitutional challenges.

Opponents fear this portion of the law would lead to racial profiling.

“I know they will not be using that kind of tactic on people with the last name Roberts, Romney, or Brewer, but if your name is something like Gutierrez or Chung or Obama, watch out,” Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois told CNN.  He is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.  “The express goal of the authors of Arizona’s [immigration law] is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they will leave, and a key tool in that effort was upheld by the court.”

Arizona’s immigration law, passed in 2010, was the first of half a dozen states to adopt laws aimed at removing illegal immigrants.  Reuters reports that three percent of the country’s illegal immigrants, or about 360,000, live in Arizona.  Nevertheless, most of the state’s two million Hispanics are legal residents.

According to CNN, neither the Arizona Department of Public Safety nor the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police was clear on whether authorities would begin checking drivers’ immigration status while enforcing other laws.  Questions were referred to the state’s attorney general’s office.

Despite the split ruling, both parties declared the Court’s ruling a win.  President Obama was “pleased” the justices struck down the three key provisions of the law, while Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, called the decision “a victory for the rule of law.”  She also assured that police engaged in racial profiling would be punished.

Among those upset with the Court’s decision was Justice Antonin Scalia, who read an angry dissent from the bench.  He said he would have upheld the entire Arizona law.

“[T]o say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia said in reference to Obama’s recent executive order stopping deportation for certain young people in the United States illegally.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she had worked on it as Obama’s solicitor general.

For further information, please see:

The Supreme Court — Opinion, Arizona v. United States — 25 June 2012

The Associated Press — Court Hampers Romney’s Plea to Hispanics — 25 June 2012

CNN — Supreme Court Mostly Rejects Arizona Immigration Law; Gov says ‘Heart’ Remains — 25 June 2012

The New York Times — Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow its Centerpiece — 25 June 2012

Reuters — Supreme Court Has Split Verdict on Arizona Immigration Law — 25 June 2012