Trouble In Paradise: Police Brutality in the Maldives

By Irving Feng
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

MALE, Rep. of Maldives – Amnesty International, the London based human rights watchdog, released a report on Wednesday, September 5, exposing potential human rights violations in the Maldives.

Activists and police clash on the streets. (Photo Courtesy of BBC)

The report included interviews from survivors of the alleged human rights violations and their families.  Those interviewed include lawyers, activists, medical professionals, security officials and senior politicians.  The interviewees stated that military troops and police arbitrarily detained innocent citizens with unnecessary force and tortured them.

One incidence of a human rights violation involves a premarital sex affair between a 16 year old girl and a 29 year old man.  The Maldives has a history of handing down corporal punishment to women for having extramarital or premarital affairs.  The 16 year old was found engaging in sexual activity with the 29 year old man when the girl’s family went out searching for her when she was missing.  Soon after the 16 year old girl’s family filed a complaint with the local police department regarding her indiscretions.

Under Islamic religious law, girls between the ages of 13 to 18 are forbidden from having premarital sex.  The 16 year old girl was sentenced to a public flogging with a cane when she turned 18.  The public floggings were reportedly handed down by local village chiefs who act as judges.  Courts in the Maldives may not be independent of the Islamic government so the influence of the religious government could be unavoidable.  The 29 year old man was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his crime.

The rising violence by military troops and police may be in response to peaceful public protests regarding past human rights violations.  Protestors were reportedly beaten, pepper sprayed, and some women were perhaps sexually harassed during the military and police crackdown on the peaceful demonstrations.  The public protests lead to the country’s first democratically elected president, Mohamed Nasheed, to step down from office.  Nasheed has alleged that a police mutiny and a military coup backed by Islamic extremists forced him to step down.

Nasheed’s replacement, Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik, is in support of the military and police actions.  Specifically, it was alleged by Asian Centre for Human Rights that Manik’s support of the military and police actions was part of a broader plan to unite Islamic fundamentalists in the upcoming 2013 election.  Despite widespread criticism by international human rights advocates, the case of the 16 year old girl’s sentence to a public flogging with a cane may not be suspended due to the new direction of the Maldives government under Manik.

 

For further information, please see:

New Age Bangladesh – Abuses rise in Maldives under new regime: Amnesty – 6 September 2012

BBC – Amnesty accuses Maldives government of beatings and torture – 5 September 2012

International Business Times – Maldives: 16-Year-Old Sentenced to 100 lashes for Pre-Marital Sex – 4 September 2012

Japan Today – 16-year-old Maldives girl faces public flogging for pre-marital sex – 4 September 2012

Dozens Killed in Sudanese Army and Rebel Attacks

By Heba Girgis
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

KHARTOUM, Sudan—The Sudanese army and rebel militants clashed late last week on Thursday, September 6, 2012, leaving dozens of people dead and injured. The army noted that it killed thirty-two rebel insurgents who moved in and attacked a small village in the western Darfur area.

The Media Has Still Been Unable to Get a Casualty Count as the Borders Continue to Create Obstacles to Transportation. (Photo Courtesy of CapitalFM News)

Near the South Sudan border, in the village of South Kordofan, forty-five rebels were also killed. These casualty claims, however, have not yet been verified, as there is still restricted access to both the Darfur and South Kordofan regions.

A spokesman of one of the biggest rebel groups called the Justice and Equality Movement noted that his rebel group attacked and killed the army soldiers in order to repulse an attack on the village.

About a year ago, several rebel groups in the two separate states of Sudan and South Sudan, formed an alliance with the goal of toppling President Omar al-Bashir’s regime. It was also a year ago that South Sudan won its independence from Sudan. This split cooled down decades of fighting between the mainly Muslim north, and the Christian south. The division of the country was finally carried out after a 2005 peace deal that finally ended a 22-year civil war. The capital city of Khartoum blames and accuses residents of the South Sudan region of backing these rebel insurgents.

Throughout March and April of this year, Sudan and South Sudan fought along their unmarked borders, which then began to spark the fear of a wider war between the divided countries. This fear led to a United Nations Security Counsel resolution ordering a ceasefire as well as negotiations amongst the African Union.

The latest clashes between the army and the rebel groups comes just as the United States warned the United Nations of a suspected “outright conflict” between the two Sudanese states over a border dispute that has been going on for over a year now. Susan Rice, United States ambassador to the United Nations, was the one to bring this suspicion to the United Nations after a meeting of the Security Council.

One thing that complicates this border struggle even further is that South Sudan has accepted the border roadmap that was proposed by the African Union, while Sudan refuses to do so. An agreement deadline was set for early August on August 2, 2012; however, this deadline failed to produce an agreement between the two sides. The United Nations criticized Khartoum for refusing to undertake the suggestions of a demilitarized zone and border monitoring mechanism that was first proposed by the African Union.

Currently, Sudan and South Sudan are holding talks in Ethiopia in order to discuss a solution regarding border security. Both sides in this dispute will be kept under pressure for the remainder of September in order to set up a deal by their new deadline on September 22, 2012.

 

For further information, please see:

The Associated Press – Sudan Army Push Repulsed Near Kadugli: Rebels – 9 September 2012

Daily News Egypt – Renewed Clashes Between Army and Rebels in Sudan Leaves Dozens Dead – 9 September 2012

News Day – Dozens Killed in Clashes Between Sudan Army and Rebels – 9 September 2012

BBC News – ‘Dozens Killed’ as Sudan’s Army and Rebels Clash – 8 September 2012

CapitalFM News – Sudan Army, Rebels Clash on Two Fronts – 8 September 2012

Unauthorized Protesters Met by Riot Police in Bahrain

By Justin Dorman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

MANAMA, Bahrain – On Friday, members of Bahrain’s Shi’ite Muslim majority congregated in the capital for an anti-government demonstration but were suppressed by riot police. The protesters, organized by the opposition group al-Wefaq, planned to stage a march on Manama, but armored vehicles blocked the roads. Police also fired tear gas and stun grenades at the demonstrators.

Riot police using tear gas to break up attempted march in Manama. (Photo Courtesy of Al Jazeera)

The Bahraini government has dealt with these uprisings through the use of martial law, troops from Saudi Arabia, and police from the United Arab Emirates.  Approximately fifty people have been killed, and hundreds have been arrested since the Shi’ite protest movement began in February 2011.  These demonstrators gathered in Manama despite a ban on unauthorized demonstrations.  Thousands of like-minded protesters participated in a government-approved march just a week prior, which passed without incident.

On Tuesday, the High Criminal Court of Appeal in Bahrain upheld the convictions and sentences of thirteen men who received jail sentences of between five and twenty-five years for their roles in setting up last year’s pro-democracy demonstrations.  Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, said that the “court decision [was] another blow to justice and it shows once more that the Bahraini authorities are not on the path of reform, but seem rather driven by vindictiveness.”

While the general purpose of the protests is to seek political and economic reform for the marginalized Shi’ites from their authoritarian Sunni monarch, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, it is clear that Tuesday’s court decision has been a major motivating factor in recent demonstrations.

At Friday’s protest, groups held banners that read sayings like “Freedom for the prisoners of conscience” and “We want an independent judiciary.”

Demonstrators hold banners in protest of Tuesday’s court decision. (Photo Courtesy of Amnesty International)

Such demonstrators have encountered police intervention on a daily basis. If Friday’s march was any indication of the future, the Shi’ites are going to continue their protests and the government’s police are going to continue to put down those uprisings with force.  As long as Bahrain’s Sunni government refuses to make any concessions to its Shi’ite opposition, it is likely that the number of protesters killed and arrested will continue to rise.

For further information, please see:

Al Jazeera — Police Fire Tear Gas at Bahrain Protesters — 8 September 2012

BBC — Bahrain Protesters Clash With Police in Manama — 7 September 2012

Reuters — Bahrain Police Fire Tear Gas at Banned Anti-Government Protest — 7 September 2012

Amnest International — Bahrain Must Free Prisoners of Conscience After Outrageous Verdict — 4 September 2012

Impunity Watch — Thousands Gather in Bahrain’s First Authorized Protest Since June — 3 September 2012

 

 

Canada Cuts Diplomatic Ties with Iran to Protect Human Rights

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada — Citing Iran’s record of alleged human rights abuses, the Canadian government severed diplomatic ties with the Middle Eastern country on Friday.

Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird has called Iran world’s worst violators of human rights. (Photo Courtesy of The Toronto Sun)

Canada closed its embassy in Tehran and ordered all Iranian diplomats to leave Ottawa.  Other reasons for the decision included Iran’s support of the Syrian regime and its disputed nuclear program.

“[Iran] is among the world’s worst violators of human rights, and it shelters and materially supports terrorist groups, said a spokesperson for John Baird, the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister.  Baird has called Iran the “most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.”

The move formally puts Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism under Canada’s Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.  A press release from Baird’s office indicated that Canadian diplomats in Tehran were no longer safe, also prompting Canada’s decision to close its embassy.

Not long after Canada announced its decision, Iran closed its embassy in Ottawa.  Embassy Newspaper, a Canadian foreign policy newsweekly, reported that closure signs were posted on the front doors within 30 minutes.  A small crowd also gathered outside the closed Iranian embassy after they reported had come for consular services.

“Several told Embassy they were concerned about their next steps, and several said they had family in Iran on their mind,” the newsweekly reported on its website.  “One man expressed anger at the two governments that they couldn’t come to terms.”

Human rights activists were quick to praise Canada’s move.

“This needed to happen,” activist Shabnam Assadoliahi told the Toronto Sun.  He had been lobbying the Canadian government to cut ties with Iran.

Israel also applauded Canada’s decision, calling it a model for other countries to follow.

“Iran is a threat to global peace and security,” said Israeli Ambassador Miriam Ziv.  “Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper’s leadership serves as an example to the international community of the bold and moral measures needed to set clear red lines for Iran.”

Canada’s decision also came amid claims that Iranian officials in Ottawa were trying to infiltrate the Iranian community in Canada in efforts to stifle opposition to the Middle Eastern regime.

The relationship between Ottawa and Tehran had worsened since a Canadian photojournalist died in an Iranian prison in 2003.  Since then, Canada has imposed sanctions on Iran, but many political observers have called the closure of embassies as the worst point in the relationship in years.  That has caused some to worry about the fate of Canadians on death row in Iran.

For further information, please see:

Embassy Newspaper — ‘Upset and Scared’: Iranian Community in Shock as Canada Expels Diplomats, Shuts Down Embassy in Tehran — 8 September 2012

The Guardian — Canada Cuts Diplomatic Ties with Iran — 7 September 2012

The Toronto Star — Canada Closes Iran Embassy, Expels Remaining Iranian Diplomats — 7 September 2012

The Toronto Sun — Iranian Human Rights Activist Lauds Fed’s Decision to Close Embassy — 7 September 2012

European Court of Human Rights Hears Religious Discrimination Cases

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) heard four religious workplace discrimination cases on Tuesday, September 4, 2012.  The four applicants, all British Christians who lost separate employment tribunals in the United Kingdom, alleged that they were discriminated against in their workplace due to their religious beliefs.  The ECtHR, reserving judgment for a date to be determined, is expected to render a landmark decision.

Nadia Eweida with the silver cross necklace that she was told breached uniform code. (Photo Courtesy of BBC News)

The British Christians claimed that their employers violated articles nine and fourteen of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibit religious discrimination while protecting “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”  However, the British government argued that these rights are only protected in the private sphere, not the workplace.

Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida’s cases arose out of their desire to each wear a Christian cross at work.  However, Chaplin, a former nurse, was told that, despite having worn her cross for 30 years around the hospital wards, the necklace was a safety risk.  She was offered a desk job.  Eweida, an airways check-in worker, was asked to conceal her cross necklace according to airways uniform policy.  Instead she went home without pay and did not return until the policy was changed.

Lillian Ladele was a marriage registrar.  After civil partnerships became legal in the U.K. in 2004, Ladele would not conduct them.  Initially, she was permitted to trade civil partnerships with other registrars.  However, her employment rules changed, curtailing this flexibility; Ladele also felt pushed to choose between her faith and employment.  An employment tribunal ruled for her on the grounds of harassment; but this decision was reversed.

Gary McFarlane was a marriage counselor and church elder who was dismissed for gross misconduct after expressing concern to his employer that if he was asked to give advice to a homosexual couple, he might not be able to do so.

The applicants brought their cases before the ECtHR after various hearings before employment tribunals, the British Employment Appeal Tribunal and, in one case, the Court of Appeal.   Each desires roughly the same thing: the accommodation of their faith in the workplace.

McFarlane explained: “There should be allowances taken into account whereby individuals like me can actually avoid having to contradict their very strongly-held Christian principles.”

The National Secular Society, which intervened to argue alongside the British government, disagrees with this desire for further religious accommodations.  NSS Executive Director, Keith Porteous Wood said: “Any further accommodation of religious conscience in UK equality law would create a damaging hierarchy of rights, with religion trumping all. Any change to the law to increase religious accommodation stands the risk of seriously undermining UK equality law. . . .

“[O]ccasionally there may be limited circumstances where the State and private employers will be justified in restricting the display of religious symbols, or indeed, expressions of non-belief, in the interests of protecting the rights of fellow employees, users of public services, and private customers.”

Yet, Andrew Marsh, campaign director at religious group Christian Concern, expressed that the four could have been accommodated without harm.  He asserted “The crucial question in these cases is this: could these four individuals have been reasonably accommodated and their Christian faith respected, without detriment or damage to the rights of others – and the answer to that question is clearly yes.

“Each of them could have been reasonably accommodated without there ever being any danger of risk, significant risk to others or indeed of anyone who is entitled to a service being denied that service.”

For further information, please see:

International Herald Tribune – Christians Claim Workplace Discrimination in Landmark Case – 5 September 2012

Press Association – Faith Case Battle in Strasbourg – 5 September 2012

BBC News – Christians Take ‘Beliefs’ Fight to European Court of Human Rights – 4 September 201

BBC News – Why are Four Christians Accusing Their Employers of Discrimination? – 4 September 2012

National Secular Society – NSS Intervene in Landmark Cases at European Court of Human Rights – 2 September 2012