Outsourced torture trade
Posted on October 27, 2005Last week, a panel of seven law lords heard arguments about the use of evidence obtained by torture. For anyone who thought that such a thing would be illegal already, I’m sorry to say that you have misjudged British justice badly. Last year, the Court of Appeal decided that so long as UK authorities weren’t directly implicated in the torture itself, the courts could continue to use ‘evidence’ obtained in this barbaric way.
Just to be clear, by torture I don’t mean the kind of human rights infringements which still take place in this country, such as slopping out or other degrading treatment. I mean the systematic use of physical violence, sexual violence, threats, sleep deprivation, electrocution and more. The question is not whether we condone such behaviour, but whether once it’s done we should allow the information obtained to be used in our courts.
It’s generally accepted that police and security services should not be prevented from using whatever information they have to prevent a crime. If torture evidence leads to the prevention of a serious crime such as a terrorist attack, of course the protection of life must take priority. But what about using such information to secure a prosecution, or to determine an asylum application, or to authorise surveillance?
Clearly at a time when the government is already committed to practices such as secret trials and imprisonment without charge, there is an imperative to resist any further steps away from a culture of human rights. But would the legal admissibility of such evidence implicate us as a society with the carrying out of torture itself?
It seems very clear to me that any opportunity we have to put pressure on foreign governments to end the use of torture – really to end it rather than to withdraw official endorsement but look the other way when it happens – will be wasted if we continue to take any kind of benefit from the practice. As with the UK’s condemnation of Iran’s nuclear programme while spending vast sums on our own nuclear power and on new nuclear weapon systems, or preaching free trade to the poorest countries on Earth while subsidising and protecting our own industries, we have no right to claim any kind of moral high ground on the issue of torture while benefiting from its continuation.
But beyond the use of torture evidence in our courts, there is another sense in which we are already complicit as a society in the torture carried out by foreign governments. The US, not content with the inhumane treatment it uses at Guantanamo Bay, has a programme known as ‘extraordinary rendition’ by which it quite simply exports suspects to countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Uzbekistan for interrogation. These are not countries with good records on torture - in 2003 for example the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, made accusations that information was being extracted under extreme torture from dissidents in that country, and that the information was subsequently being used by Britain and other western countries.
Hundreds of the ‘extraordinary rendition’ flights which carry the CIA’s suspects to their fate are stopping for fuel at UK airports on their way to countries which use torture, including about 150 at Scottish airports. Scottish Ministers say that they can do nothing about this trade in outsourced torture since they are not informed of the flights in advance.
For people who like to style themselves as ‘robust’ whenever possible, they really are being flimsy on this one.
Not only must the UK rule out the use of torture evidence in court, but we must also ensure that we stop facilitating the repulsive business itself.
Disaster
Posted on October 20, 2005Once again our TV screens have shown us the grimly intimate details of a disaster in a distant country, following the earthquake which has caused such destruction and suffering in Pakistan and India last week. In a city like Glasgow, with a strong tradition of voluntarism and where so many families are personally affected, it was only to be expected that community-led action would quickly begin to raise funds for the relief effort.
But as the ever more sophisticated global media operation swings into action for this latest disaster (prompting us to wonder why we seem to be so much better at meeting the need for endless coverage and commentary than meeting the need for rescue, shelter, food and medicine) there will be many people for whom this will feel like just another set of horrific images, just another story of grief and torment. We seem to have seen so many.
The tsunami which claimed such a staggering number of lives around the Indian Ocean six months ago marked something of a change in the way we in the rich world respond. The immediacy of public giving shamed governments into a response – a phenomenon which appears to be repeating itself in relation to this week’s earthquake – and such a vast amount of money was pledged that aid agencies feared that their capacity to use it would be outstretched.
In many ways this spoke of a compassionate and heartfelt response. But it also gave us reason to reflect on the lack of such response to the slower, quieter catastrophes such as poverty and disease which kill so many more people day by day.
Perhaps this helped to motivate people to join the crowds on the streets for Make Poverty History, but nevertheless international development remained far from the top rank of election issues. As a result we still see UK aid budgets which despite increases are well below the agreed international target of 0.7% of GDP.
Also in recent weeks we have seen the impact of extreme weather events in a richer country which ought, surely, to be better able to cope. But the hurricanes which hit the Gulf of Mexico in rapid succession exposed the face of poverty in America for all to see, and the abandonment of the poor to their fate resulted in some of the ugliest images to hit our TV screens in years. Natural disaster, it seems, can bring out the very best and the very worst in human nature.
It has also become clear – to any who were in denial about this before now – that disasters of this kind are not simple acts of nature. Their effects, and in some cases their severity, are also a function of how human society is organised. When resources are spent on defence budgets instead of quality housing, when populations are poorly nourished and unhealthy, when social capital is sacrificed in the obsessive drive for economic growth, when the natural environment is degraded and over-exploited systematically for decades, when these conditions are permitted and even promoted by the economic policies of our governments then societies are far less able to cope with the physical consequences of disasters when they strike. It is these factors of poverty, social and environmental damage which turn tragedy into catastrophe.
Over the next century, we will see many more severe weather events as a result of climate change. We will continue to see natural disasters which are not the result of our actions and over which we have no control. But we do have control over our societies, and we can choose to invest in the social and environmental measures which give them resilience. If we don’t, we will lose the right to label such events as mere “acts of nature”.
NEWS RELEASE - ‘Citizens storecard’ is a barmy idea
Posted on October 18, 2005GREEN MSP MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release 18th October 2005
GREENS CONDEMN ‘CITIZENS STORECARD’ AS ID DEBATE GETS UNDER WAY
As debate gets under way on ID cards in the House of Commons today, Greens demanded an explanation as to the Executive’s new plans for a ‘Scottish Citizen Account Card’. (1) Green MSPs said that the Executive’s plans have turned from a voluntary entitlement card to an identity database system closer to that proposed by the UK Government but rejected by the Scottish Parliament.
Having previously denied that their “entitlement card” would be linked to any database, Scottish Ministers now seem set to give the green light for a Scottish identity database run by councils, which could be linked not only to the Scottish card but also to the UK’s national ID scheme. The scheme is now being called the “Scottish Citizen Account Card”, and it is feared that the cards may be linked to a database of all Scots, not just those who choose to sign up for the card. This information was revealed to Green MSP’s by the NO2ID campaign in the form of a statement from a Scottish Executive spokesperson.
Green MSP and Justice Spokesperson Patrick Harvie, who led the parliamentary campaign to reject ID cards earlier this year where the Executive was defeated by 52 votes to 47 when voting on a Green Party motion, said:
“As if the UK Government’s ID scheme isn’t bad enough, the Scottish Executive seems to want to create an even more convoluted and complex system. Scotland isn’t a supermarket, and we don’t need a national storecard. We’re quite capable of delivering public services without this ridiculous notion of database citizenship. This is a crackpot scheme, and Scottish public services should be left free of it.”
“I reject the idea that people’s only objection to the Big Brother society is the individual cost - we’ve all seen far too many government IT projects go wrong already. We’ve also seen too many signs that the government is willing to ignore the basic civil liberties our society values.”
Notes to Editors
1 In a written answer (S2W-16503), Tom McCabe said:
“The Executive has no plans to link the entitlement card to any national identity register or similar database.”
However the Executive has since confirmed to the NO2ID campaign via a journalist that the ‘Citizen’s Account’ cards will be linked to an entry in the database for each individual. A Scottish Executive spokesperson said:
“The Entitlement Card is acting as a driver for local authorities to create a single, consistent, authority wide customer record - a citizen’s account - and underpinning the citizen’s account with an account smartcard. Hence the term ‘Citizen’s Account’ card, which is also used for the Entitlement Card. This approach is seen as critical in developing the joined up back office and joined up customer services.”
2. Patrick Harvie has put down the following written questions to the Minister for Finance and Public Services about the Executive’s new plans:
To ask the Scottish Executive how the concept of the ‘Scottish Citizens Account Card’ differs from that of an ‘Entitlement Card’.
To ask the Scottish Executive whether “Citizen Accounts” will exist only for those individuals who have chosen to apply for an entitlement card, or for all citizens in Scotland.
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it maintains its previous position, as expressed in the answer to S2W-16503, that the entitlement card will not be linked to an identity register or database.
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it maintains its previous position, as expressed in the answer to S2W-16501, that no-one will be denied access to the services that they are entitled to because they did not have an entitlement card, or “Citizen Account Card”.
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Citizen Account Number could be stored on the UK National Identity Register under clause 4(1)(b) of Schedule 1 of the Identity Cards Bill.
To ask the Scottish Executive whether “Citizen Accounts” will exist only for those individuals who have chosen to apply for an entitlement card, or for all citizens in Scotland.
3. Under the terms of clause 4(1)(b) of Schedule 1 of the Identity Cards Bill the ‘Citizen Account’ number could also be stored on the UK database: 4 (1) The following may be recorded in an individual’s entry in the Register— (b) the number of any ID card issued to him;
25 years of the right to buy
Posted on October 13, 2005Last week we saw the 25th anniversary of a key Thatcherite policy - the Right to Buy. It’s a policy which since 1980 has allowed council tenants to buy their homes at discounted rates, and hundreds of thousands of them have taken up this opportunity.
For many individuals this has been a great benefit, but for society as a whole there has been a downside. Increasingly, the case is being made that the damage outweighs the benefits.
The growth of homeownership has been welcomed both by Conservatives - who have defended this policy as one of their ‘proudest achievements’ - and by New Labour who have benefited at the polls from the affluence many new homeowners felt as they saw their homes increase in value dramatically.
But the downsides to RTB cannot be ignored. It has massively depleted the number of homes in the social rented sector, which is why we have such a shortage today. By ensuring that the most desirable council houses are bought, it has also reinforced the perception of the social rented sector as the housing option of last resort.
In today’s reality we should acknowledge that the RTB has had its day. This twenty five year old policy was not designed for today’s housing needs, and will not deliver them. More people than ever are in need of housing – tens of thousands of people across Scotland are currently on housing waiting lists. This tells us that both current and past housing policies, such as the RTB, just aren’t working.
To coincide with the 25th anniversary, the housing and homelessness charity Shelter published results from the first ever survey of public opinion on the right to buy council housing in Scotland. It showed that the public recognise the negative impact that the RTB has had – 70% agreed that the sale of council houses has made it more difficult for councils to provide homes to rent for people most in need. Yet, it also showed that public opinion is divided, since 66% of respondents said that Scotland has benefited from the scheme by increasing the number of home owners.
Margaret Thatcher appealed to our individualist tendencies, and successfully sold the idea of homeownership as the holy grail of housing. The end result is a culture that promotes homeownership as the only thing worth aspiring to.
The Scottish Executive may have increased its target for the number of affordable homes it wants to build, but this falls far short of what is required and will do nothing to stop the annual loss of 17,000 homes for social rent because of the Right to Buy. If the Executive is determined to provide decent and affordable housing for everyone in Scotland then it must radically reform RTB.
Ministers will report on the effect of the scheme by September 2006, and this review must take a serious look at ending it , or at the very least restricting it.
But reform must not stop here. We must ensure that the need for all people to have a good quality, safe, warm and affordable home takes priority over the aspiration for home ownership. It’s not only time to end the Right to Buy. It’s time revive social rented housing not only in quantity and quality, but in its status as well.
The future of Scotland’s housing depends upon all sectors – private renting, social renting and homeownership – playing their role. At the moment we’ve got the balance wrong, and the people who are losing out are the most vulnerable households. Action must be taken to redress that balance, and deliver housing that meets the needs of all us in a 21st century Scotland.
Recent updates
Latest tweets