Falkland Island Tensions Increase with Denial of Cruise Ship Entry and Enactment of Bill Banning British Ships

by Emilee Gaebler
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Tensions between the Argentinian and British governments regarding the Falkland Islands, called the Malvinas Islands by Argentina, are peaking.  This past weekend a couple of cruise ships were denied entry to the Port of Ushuaia in southern Argentina.

The sign in the Port of Ushuaia banning British flagged ships. (Photo Courtesy of MercoPress)

On Friday, February 24, the Adonia ship of P&O Cruises was denied entry and then on Saturday the Star Princess of Princess Cruise Lines was also turned away.  Both ships had stopped in the Falklands the day before.

The port of Ushuaia is right near the Tierra del Fuego national park.  The 3,000 passengers on the two ships were unable to go on shore excursions and tours as planned.  Instead they were forced to remain on the ship at sea.

This comes shortly after Argentina enacted provincial act No. 852, called the “Gaucho Rivero” act.  This bans the entry to any Argentinian port of a ship flying any form of a British flag.  The ban also covers any commercial vessels that are partly owned by British companies.

As reported by MercoPress, the act is named in honor of an Argentinian soldier, a “gaucho” who flew the flag of Argentina on the islands until the British landed and took control of the islands in 1833.  This individual has become a legend and a Malvinas history hero by the administration of President Cristina Fernandez.

Earlier this year the Star Princess  cruise ship was denied entry to the Falklands due to a majority of the passengers contracting a stomach virus.  At the time Argentina claimed the real reason was politically motivated because Argentinian citizens were on board.

Many have expressed concerns over the choice to ban these ships as the bill specifically targets commercial boats involved in the exploitation of natural resources in the area.  Marcelo Lietti, the President of the Ushuaia Tourism Chamber, expressed his the city’s position.

He noted that the tourism industry is not related to the Malvinas dispute and most business in the Ushuaia region centers on the cruise industry so this decision has a negative impact that is deeply felt by the community.

The levels of hostility between the Argentinian and the British governments are at an all time high as the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War approaches.  Britain has refused any negotiations with Argentina regarding giving the islands sovereignty to choose their national identity.

Reports of a British parliamentary committee that oversees defense matters visiting the Falklands within the next month have also contributed to the tensions.  Last week Argentina lodged a complaint with the United Nations regarding the militarization taking place in the Falklands with the dispatch of the HMS Dauntless destroyer ship.

The deployment of Prince William, as a helicopter pilot, to the area is also viewed as a threatening move by the Fernandez administration.  Britain has defended both the deployment of the ship and the placement of Prince William as planned rotations.

 

For more information, please see;

BBC News – Falklands Tension: Argentina “Turns Away” Cruise Ships – 28 February 2012

MercoPress – Port of Ushuaia Refuses Entry of Cruise Vessels that Visited the Falkland Islands – 27 February 2012

Penguin News – Argentine Port Bans Entry to Cruise Ships en route from Falklands – 27 February 2012

The Guardian – Falklands Tension Set to Rise with Visit of Defence Committee MP’s – 14 February 2012

Judge Dismisses Harassment Case; Lectures Atheist for Portrayal of ‘Zombie Mohammed’

By Brittney Hodnik
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States – Some of the most fundamental rights protected by the United States are laid out in the First Amendment of the Constitution: freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.  Interestingly, religious groups seem to enjoy more protection than non-religious groups nowadays; specifically, atheists across the country are facing discrimination.  Most recently, a Pennsylvania judge ruled in favor of a disgruntled Muslim who allegedly attacked an atheist at a Halloween parade.

Perce dressed as a zombie Mohammad and his friend, dressed as a zombie pope. (Image Courtesy of Youtube)

On October 11, 2011 in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, Ernie Perce, a self-proclaimed atheist participated in a Halloween parade.  According to CNN, Perce was dressed as a “Zombie Mohammed,” wearing a long fake beard, a white turban, and green face paint.  A fellow member of “The Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania” was dressed as a zombie-themed pope, an apparent jab at the Catholic religion.

During the parade, a Muslim man named Talaag Elbayomy allegedly attacked Perce, grabbing him, choking him, and attempting to take an unsavory sign off Perce’s neck.  He was charged with harassment based on Perce’s claims and went to court, according to CNN.

On December 6, to many a surprise, District Judge Mark Martin dismissed the case saying that it was one person’s word against another’s, and that a video clip of the incident was inadmissible, according to The Huffington Post.

Judge Martin said there was not enough evidence to proceed, but did not stop his commentary there.

Judge Martin told Perce that “you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries of first amendment rights,” reported The Huffington Post.  He went on, “[T]his is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say . . . .”

He also told Perce his actions against the tenets of Islam made him “look like a doofus,” according to The Washington Post.  Perce believes that his “lack of belief” played a role in the judge’s decision.

Scholars and rights groups alike found the judge’s comments shocking.  According to The Huffington Post, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University wrote, “[Judge Martin’s] legal views seem grotesquely out of place.”  A blog post by the group American Atheists said, “That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted . . . is a horrible abrogation.”

Judge Martin defended his actions saying that he is not biased towards Islam and that he has always fought to preserve the right to freedom of speech.  According to CNN, Judge Martin spent 27 years in the military and has spent over two total years in Iraq and Afghanistan where he learned much about the Muslim culture.

He reiterated that he dismissed the case because there was not enough evidence to show that Elbayomy was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that is it.  However, he expanded on his courtroom speech by saying, “With rights come responsibilities.  The more people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them.”

The Washington Post reports that Judge Martin stands by his decision and would not do anything differently, even considering the hundreds of calls he has received in the last week.

According to CNN, former terrorism prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy accused the judge of allowing the Muslim suspect to “invoke a Sharia defense – what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed.”

Turley (the professor from George Washington Law) went on to say that the decision is “greatly disturbing to people that believe in free speech.”  According to CNN, he continued, “You can say things that are hurtful to others.  We hope that you don’t, but you most certainly can be protected.”

As for Elbayomy, he admitted in court to approaching Perce and laying his hands on him.  He said that he took his kids to watch the parade and when he saw Perce pass by he was “shocked” because he could not believe what he was seeing, according to LF Press.  He said, “I teach my kids how to respect everybody.  Any religion, it doesn’t matter what your religion . . . I teach them to be respectful for everybody.”

At the time, Elbayomy believed that it was illegal for Perce to mock Mohammed, according to LF Press.  He actually went to a police officer himself to report Perce’s costume and actions.

Perce and other atheists throughout the country remain upset about the comments Judge Martin made in the decision.  Many believe – beyond the dismissal of the case – that the six minute lecture telling Perce how bad he was offending Islam was out of line.

For more information, please visit:

CNN — Judge’s Dismissal of Atheist’s Harassment Claim Against Muslim Makes Waves — 28 Feb. 2012

The Washington Post — PA Judge’s Dismissal of  Harassment Case Criticized After ‘Zombie Muhammad’ Posts Trial Audio — 28 Feb. 2012

The Huffington Post — Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Case Against Muslim Accused  of Attacking Atheist Dressed as ‘Zombie Muhammad’ — 27 Feb. 2012

LF Press (London) — ‘Zombie Muhammed’ Alleges Muslim Attack — 27 Feb. 2012

Fox News — Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Case of Attack on ‘Zombie Mohammad’ — 24 Feb. 2012

HRW Calls For Bahrain To Release Activists

By Carolyn Abdenour
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

MANAMA, Bahrain – On Tuesday, 28 February, Human Rights Watch (“HRW”) called upon Bahrain to release hundreds of pro-democracy activists arrested last year and to drop all charges against them.  HRW also urged the country to void people’ convictions from civil and military courts that do not meet international fair trial standards.

Police prevent journalists from mingling with doctors and nurses during a break at a civilian criminal trial. (Photo Courtesy of Human Rights Watch)

HRW’s 94-page report, “No Justice in Bahrain: Unfair Trials in Military and Civilian Courts,” highlighted the county’s due process violations during politically motivated trials in criminal courts since 2010 and high-profile trials by special military courts in 2011. 

In March 2011, King Hamad organized special military courts during the country’s three-month “State of National Safety”, a quasi state of emergency.  Since 4 April 2011, Bahrain’s military officials tried and convicted hundreds of people charged under “national safety” grounds.  Civilian courts began accepting the trials and appeals of these people charged in the uprising on 7 October 2011.

In its report, HRW emphasized the violations through two case studies.  First, the court convicted twenty doctors of inciting to overthrow the government and trying to occupy a hospital.  Second, security forces jailed fourteen political activists for leading protests.  Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, a jailed activist with Danish nationality, has conducted a hunger strike for the past two weeks. 

HRW asserted the violations of fair trial rights include denying defendants the right to present a defense and to counsel along with failing to investigate torture allegations during interrogations. These violations reflect systemic failures in the country’s criminal justice system rather than deficient practices of judges and prosecutors. 

Furthermore, HRW has documented continued exercise of ill-treatment and torture by Bahraini security officers.   In November, the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (“BICI”) published that at least five people detained for engaging in peaceful protests died from torture.  The government pledged to implement recommendations by this Commission, including police and judicial procedural reforms.  However, earlier this month Amnesty International reported the government remained “far from delivering the human rights changes.”

Moreover, HRW requested France, the United Kingdom, and the United State halt military and security-related sales and assistance to the country until Bahrain address these human rights violations.

HRW’s Deputy Middle East Director Joe Stork said, “King Hamad should examine the special military courts he set up by decree before claiming there are no political prisoners in Bahrain…In case after case, people were convicted for their political beliefs, for the slogans they chanted, and for joining large peaceful rallies that the Crown Prince had publicly proclaimed were protected by Bahrain’s constitution.”

For further information, please see:

Dalje – Bahrain Trials Lack Due Processs – 28 Feb 2012

Human Rights Watch – Bahrain: Hundreds Railroaded in Unjust Trials – 28 Feb 2012

The Daily News: Egypt – HRW Calls On Bahrain To Release Democracy Activists – 28 Feb 2012

The Daily Star: Lebanon – Bahrain Should Shelve Trials Linked To Protests: Group – 28 Feb 2012

Rights Group Concerned About Burma Military Abuse

By: Jessica Ties
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

NAYPYIDAW, Myanmar – Human Rights Watch has expressed concern that despite Burmese attention to reform and cease-fires with ethnic insurgents, abuse by the military continue.

The Burmese military has been accused of continuing abuses against civilians (Photo Courtesy of Radio Free Asia).

David Mathieson, Human Rights Watch senior researcher on Burma, recently visited Burma and learned that fighting in Kachin State has displaced approximately 70,000 people since last June.

In addition, there have also been reports of sexual violence, the use of weapons against unarmed civilians, destruction of property and forced labor.

Mathieson has also encountered rights abuses by ethnic armed groups who use child soldiers and execute Burmese prisoners of war.

Recently, the use of child soldiers has prompted the U.S. ambassador for human trafficking to demand that Burmese military officers be accountable for involvement in human trafficking.

A 2011 Human Rights Watch report alleged that the Burmese military was colluding with corrections Department officials to gain access to approximately 700 prisoners who the army used as porters who are often forced to risk their life by checking for landmines.

Mathieson further stated that “…with all the changes happening in central Burma, it’s quite alarming that the army is showing absolutely no compunction to change its behavior.”

The Burmese government has continuously denied journalists access to Kachin and other conflict zones which has made it impossible for independent reports to be made regarding the allegations of abuse said to be occurring at the hands of the military.

Under the dominance of the previously ruling military junta, individual freedom was severely restricted. Owning a computer or fax machine without being given prior permission was prohibited and internet access was severely controlled.

Since the civilian government assumed power from the military junta last year, restriction on freedom have been largely lifted and several prominent political prisoners have been released although some remain imprisoned.

Despite these initial reforms, some experts fear that they could be easily reversed considering that many of the laws that were formerly used to repress Burmese citizens have not been repealed.

Failure to repeal the repressive laws means that despite improvements made in individual freedoms, many of the ways in which these freedoms are exercised are still technically illegal and the government could decide to revert to the human rights policies that existed under the military junta.

Another positive sign of reform, however, is that President Thein sein and his administration are expected to allow the National League of Democracy leader Aung San Suu kyi to give a political broadcast. Prior to the broadcast, however, the National League of Democracy is required to produce the text of the broadcase to the censors at the Ministry of Information for their review.

For more information, please see:

The Guardian – Burma Awakes to Glasnost: A (Partly) Free Press and (Some) Freedom of Expression – 25 February 2012

Irrawaddy – HRW: Army Abuse Unabated Despite Burma Reforms – 24 February 2012

Radio Free Asia – Burma’s Military ‘As Abusive as Ever’ – 23 February 2012

Voice of America – U.S. Calls for Burma Military to Account for Human Trafficking – 12 January 2012

CHINA DEPORTS NINE TO NORTH KOREAN

by Hibberd Kline
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

BEIJING, China – According to the South Korean media, nine North Korean refugees were handed over to the North Korean authorities by China last week.

South Korean activists including actor Cha In-pyo staged rallies calling for the release of North Korean refugees outside the Chinese Embassy in Seoul. (Photo courtesy of Voice of America).

The nine are part of a group of more than thirty North Korean refugees who have been rounded up by the Chinese authorities this month in separate locations in the city of Shenyang. The refugees are reportedly being held in the northern Chinese city of Changchun, where they await processing and deportation to North Korea.

According to human rights group Amnesty International, some of the refugees are believed to have successfully contacted a South Korean organization devoted to helping North Korean refugees escape to South Korea.

Amnesty called upon the Chinese government not to forcibly repatriate the refugees earlier this month. The group’s Asia-Pacific Director, Sam Zarifi declared that China must allow “…North Koreans to seek asylum in China and other countries and provide them with access to the United Nations refugee agency or other relevant refugee channels.”

Additional activist groups and members of the South Korean government have since echoed the group’s pleas.

Seoul’s traditional stance regarding North Korean refugees in China has been less confrontational. However, following the failure of low-level talks on the fate of the refugees to achieve favorable results, the South Korean Foreign Ministry announced that it would seek international help on the issue at a meeting of the the United Nations Council on Human Rights in Geneva later this week.

According to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, China believes that the issue of North Korean refugees is not suitable for discussion at the United Nations and should be handled pursuant to domestic Chinese laws.

South Korean politicians have also weighed-in on the issue. According to South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, “When it comes to the North Korean defectors, it is right for the Chinese Government to handle them in line with international rules as long as they are not criminals.”

The South Korean Parliament also recently adopted a resolution demanding that China discontinue the repatriation of refugees. One lawmaker, Park-Sun young, even went so far as to begin a hunger strike in front of the Chinese embassy on Tuesday in order to draw attention to the refugees’ cause.

Human rights activists, relatives of the detained refugees and South Korean celebrities also staged protests outside the Chinese embassy to demand that China forgoe repatriating the refugees.

For its part, China has often expressed an apparent desire to play a positive role in the Korean Peninsula. China has sent aid to North Korea and has repeatedly encouraged all parties to return to the stalled six-party talks over the future of North Korea’s nuclear program. However, China appears to remain unflinching on the issue of refugees.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded last Tuesday to pressure from South Korea by repeating its long-standing policy of treating the refugees as “illegal economic immigrants.” China has close ties with the North Korean regime and systematically captures and forcibly repatriates refugees who cross over into Chinese territory.

The typical journey for refugees fleeing North Korea is long and perilous. Refugees generally cross the border into China on foot, then hide themselves inside China before securing transportation to a third country. The lucky refugees eventually make their way to South Korea. However, human rights activists and North Korean refugees say that repatriated North Koreans are often tortured, sent to remote prison camps, or publicly executed.

Following the death of North Korea’s “dear leader” Kim Jong-il and the rapid assent of his son Kim Jong-un to power, activists in the South have relayed reports of harsher punishments for those who get caught trying to flee the country. Some refugees have suggested that punishment may extend to three generations of an escapee’s family.

Tens of thousands of North Koreans are thought to be currently hiding in China. Estimates put the total number of North Korean refugees who have escaped to South Korea since 1950 at more than 20,000.

China is a party to the United Nations Refugee Convention (UNHCR), but has been accused by human rights groups of failing to live up to its obligations under the convention.

For more information, please see:

BBC News– China ‘Sent Back Nine North Korean Refugees’ — 24 February 2012

Bangkok Post — China Returns Nine Refugees to North Korea — 24 February 2012

Korea Herald — Nine North Korean Defectors Repatriated to Their Homeland — 23 February 2012

BBC News — Seoul Urges China on North Korea Refugees — 22 February 2012

New York Times — China Should Not Repatriate North Korean Refugees, Seoul Says — 22 February 2012

Voice of America — China Rejects Pleas Not to Repatriate North Koreans — 21 February 2012

Amnesty International — Amnesty International Urges China to Avoid Forced Repatriation of North Korean Defectors — 14 February 2012