Norway: Anders Behring Breivik and right-wing extremism on trial

Anders Behring Breivik, the man behind the 22 July 2011 massacre in Norway appeared in court this morning to stand trial for the cold-blooded killing of 77 people -  mostly teenagers - last summer. The man whose name is now synonymous with right-wing extremism, appeared in court this morning, stone-faced, defiant and showing no remorse for masterminding and executing what has been called "Norway's worst peacetime massacre."

The defiant 33-year-old right-wing extremist appeared in court and pleaded not guilty at 10:25am Oslo time. He acknowledged the killings but said he will not plead guilty because he was acting in "self defence."

Before entering a not guilty plea, Breivik said he does not recognize the court because it gets its mandate from political parties that support "multiculturalism" - echoing his fight against multiculturalism.

In today's trial, all the names of the victims were read out with a graphic description of how they were killed or wounded.

As I watched Breivik's first day in court this morning (see photo), I imagined the pain families of victims and survivors of his deadly rampage will have to endure throughout the trial. Listening to the names of the victims and how they lost their lives was very disturbing. Breivik showed no emotion when the prosecutor read out the names of victims of his carnage, but he appeared to shed tears when his propaganda video was aired in court.

However, there is hope that Anders Breivik will bear the full weight of the law for his "monstrously horrendous" acts - especially after results of a second mental assessment released on 10 April 2012 concluded that he was mentally competent at the time of the massacre (contrary to an initial conclusion that Breivik suffers from paranoid schizophrenia). Besides, his plea of self-defense makes no sense. Commonsense tells me that you can't attack and kill a bunch of unsuspecting unarmed kids in a summer camp in peacetime and successfully claim self-defense. Reports show that Breivik's actions were premeditated over a long period of time.

According to Breivik, the killing was in a bid to save Europe from "Islamic colonization" - a phrase widely used by right-wing extremists across Nordic and Western Europe as a justification for anti-immigration and Islamophobic sentiments.

Across Europe, many right-wing political parties share Breivik's tough stance against Islam and multiculturalism.

For example, in Finland, the Perrussuomalaiset (True Finns) espouse "traditional Finnish cultural values" as opposed to multiculturalism; in Denmark, the Danish People's Party (DPP) is anti-islamist and wants to ban immigration from non-western countries; in Sweden, the Sweden Democrats (SD) has close ties with Denmark's anti-Islamist DPP; in the Netherlands, there's the Dutch Freedom Party led by a fervent anti-Islamist. [Source]. The list goes on.

Analysts have said that Anders Breivik will use this high profile trial as a platform to promulgate his toxic anti-Islamist and anti-multiculturalism views. Regardless of what happens during the trial, I'm confident that justice will be served.

Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that:

"In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language."

It follows that the ICCPR obligates States parties to allow many cultures to co-exist in society.

Norway and other countries that have ratified that ICCPR have an obligation under international law to protect religious, ethnic or cultural minorities from right-wing extremists and nationalists who seek to "assimilate" or terrorize linguistic, religious or ethnic minorities. From a legal (international human rights law) standpoint, immigrants from so-called "non-western" countries and other minority groups have the right to maintain and enjoy their own cultures while undergoing integration into society in a receiving country. They must not be forced to give up their culture, language or religion. On the other hand, minority groups must not force their culture, language, religion or way of life on the majority in the receiving country.

If it is found that Breivik was mentally stable during the 22 July massacre, he faces a sentence of 21 years in prison, which could be renewed to keep him imprisoned for life [Source] - locked away from the public he terrorized on that fateful summer afternoon.

Share

Tweet

Unauthorized Amnesty International membership cards and activities in the DRC and Cameroon

Amnesty International is an international human rights organization working for human rights globally. I was embarrassed this morning by a public statement released by the organization on 27 March 2012 that someone is misusing its name for personal gains in Cameroon, my country of origin, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

According to the public statement, an individual operating from Cameroon has made false claims in the DRC to be a representative of Amnesty International and the individual in question is doing two shameful and illegal things:

• selling unauthorized Amnesty International branded membership cards
• offering unauthorized training sessions in the name of Amnesty International in exchange for payment.

According to Amnesty International, these activities are unauthorized and the organization does not have an office in Cameroon or the DRC, neither does it have representatives authorized to speak on its behalf in Cameroon and the DRC. The statement reveals that Amnesty International does not sell or provide membership cards and its members in Cameroon and DRC are not authorized to speak on its behalf.

Personally, as a Cameroonian and supporter of Amnesty International currently working as an intern at the organization's Finnish Section, I am shocked and embarrassed by such a scam masterminded by someone in my home country.

It is no secret that there are many scammers operating fraudulent business schemes in Cameroon and they would stop at nothing to swindle money from unsuspecting individuals in Cameroon and abroad. Many will stop at nothing to defraud, but receiving money in the name of an international human rights organization represents a new low for scammers.

Scams of this nature tarnish the reputation of Cameroon and its people on the international stage. The authorities must fully investigate such actions and bring all those involved to book.

Read Amnesty International's public statement on the subject, published in English and French. Spread the word.

Share

Tweet

Advice for young black boys after Trayvon Martin killing

I read a lot - books, articles, magazines, newspapers and journals - but few writings have evoked my emotions like a piece writing by Touré, published on TIME Ideas on 21 March 2012. The well-written piece titled: "How to Talk to Young Black Boys About Trayvon Martin" was written following the killing of Trayvon Martin and provides advice to young black boys.

You've probably heard about Trayvon Martin (see picture) -  a 17-year-old unarmed black teenager shot dead on his way from a convenience store by a volunteer watchman in a neighborhood in Sanford Florida. According to the watchman, George Zimmerman, 28, Martin looked suspicious and "up to no good". The shooter claimed self-defense after the killing and he has not been arrested or charged. Inaction by the Sanford Police Department sparked protests and allegations of racism and discrimination in law enforcement.

"How to Talk to Young Black Boys About Trayvon Martin" contains 8 points about the "potentially fatal condition of being black". The first point reads as follows:

"It’s unlikely but possible that you could get killed today. Or any day. I’m sorry, but that’s the truth. Black maleness is a potentially fatal condition. I tell you that not to scare you but because knowing that could save your life. There are people who will look at you and see a villain or a criminal or something fearsome. It’s possible they may act on their prejudice and insecurity. Being black could turn an ordinary situation into a life-or-death moment even if you’re doing nothing wrong."

The 8 talking points highlight potential dangers of being a young black man.

It is a shame that we - people of African descent - a people with a long history of discrimination, disenfranchisement, inhuman treatment and other forms of untold human rights violations - continue to feel threatened by racism and suffer prejudice and unequal treatment in modern-day societies - because of skin color. Many of us are law abiding citizens with a lot of potential, but to racist and prejudiced eyes, we are "less human, less valuable, less worthy, less beautiful, less intelligent". We all know this is not true.

A 17-year-old unarmed teenager just lost his life because he looked suspicious. As of the time of this writing, his shooter has not been arrested or charged - even though he is known and within reach. There is no denying the fact that any black kid could be a Trayvon Martin.

The authorities must investigate what happened in that neighborhood in Sanford Florida on 26 February 2012 and bring the shooter to book. Failure to arrest and prosecute George Zimmerman for the killing of an unarmed teenager will make a mockery of justice, the rule of law and civil rights in the the U.S. and beyond.

*Photo source: The Guardian.

Share

Tweet

Demand justice for fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin

March 21 is designated International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The day is an opportunity to remember the "pernicious impact" of racism. In the words of Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the UN, "racism continues to cause suffering, for millions of people around the world...". In many parts of the world, individuals and families bear the brunt of racism and racial discrimination. Recently, for instance, a grieving mother in Florida said her son, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was killed because of the "color of his skin".

Trayvon Martin was shot dead in Sanford, Florida on 26 February 2012, by a volunteer neighborhood watchman. The killer, George Zimmerman, 28 years old, claimed he killed the unarmed teenager in "self-defense" and he has not been arrested or charged since the killing. This has reignited allegations of racism in the U.S justice system.

Trayvon Martin was reportedly shot dead on his way home from a convenience store. Before the shooting, Zimmerman, the neighborhood's volunteer watchman, called the police and reported a suspicious man in the neighborhood.  According to a record of the call released by the police, Zimmerman the watchman told the 911 police dispatcher that the teenager "looks like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something". The watchman then followed the teenager and pulled the trigger after a scuffle. It is plausible to conclude that Trayvon Martin was suspected because of his looks.

Surprisingly or not surprisingly - depending on how you see it - the police accepted Zimmerman's claim that he killed the unarmed teenager in self-defense.

Zimmerman's self defense claim, in my opinion, does not meet the "proportionality" standard. Force used in self-defense must be proportionate to the threat or perceived threat of harm. Pulling the trigger in this case was unreasonable, unnecessary and amounted to disproportionate use of force against an unarmed teenager who had with no criminal record.

Letting George Zimmerman walk free after a cold-blooded killing adds weight to reports of racism in the U.S justice system.

Many people, me included, argue that if it was a person of African descent who shot an unarmed white teenager in "self-defense", the outcome would have been completely different. Unlike George Zimmerman, s/he would have been arrested without delay and charged for murder, and the prosecution would have most probably demanded the maximum penalty.

Some have argued (see opinion piece by Carolyn Edgar, a lawyer and writer in New York City, published on CNN on 19 March 2012) that Trayvon Martin, not George Zimmerman, acted in self-defense. But the Sandford police chief, Bill Lee, reportedly characterized the victim as the aggressor and blamed him for "beating the crap" out of George Zimmerman before being shot in "self-defense". It is unclear whether the police chief would have blamed the victim if he was a white kid - killed by a black volunteer watchman.

In Florida, the use of force in self defense is permissible if the person claiming self-defense uses force as permitted by law.

In my opinion, from the "proportionality" standpoint, the use of lethal force by George Zimmerman is not justifiable, neither is it permitted  under s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 of the Florida Statutes governing justifiable use of force. Hence Zimmerman does not have immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action. He should be arrested, charged and prosecuted. Failure to do so will set a dangerous precedent in Florida.

Following the reluctance of Sanford Police Department to bring George Zimmerman to book, the U.S. Justice Department announced on 20 March 2012 that it will investigate the killing. In the interest of justice, the investigation must be impartial and void of any form of racial prejudice, stigma or bias.

It is a shame and a blow to the credibility of the Sanford Police Department - and the U.S justice system in general - that the 2012 International Day for the Elimination of Racism was marked by accusations of racism and double standards in law enforcement.

Share

Tweet

Immigrants stage demonstration against intolerance in Finland

Immigrants in Oulu, northern Finland, staged a demonstration on 24 February 2012 against the shooting to death of an immigrant in a pizzeria. The demonstration reportedly attracted over 200 participants. A video posted on Ilta-Sanomat briefly captures the "march for peace" and sheds new light on the plight of immigrants. The demonstrators urged decision makers and the police to promote tolerance and to step up efforts to make the city more secure. [Source]. A similar demonstration was reportedly staged in the nation's capital on the same day. YLE News noted that the "racially-flavoured" shooting in Oulu followed two other violent acts against immigrants.

Immigrants in Finland have safety concerns.

Following the deadly Oulu shooting, many immigrants believe any of them could be a victim. I have had a discussion with at least two people who feel this way. Many are scared.

One immigrant who has lived in Finland for 18 years and owns a pizzeria said he is scared and that things have changed over the past three years. He lives in Oulu - where the shooting took place - and has noticed that the city has become more racist. [Source].

It is worth mentioning that my Tuesday article condemning the Oulu pizzeria shooting and urging people of goodwill in Finland to do the same was not well received by some readers. The article was published on Migrant Tales, a blog that debates issues facing the immigrant and minority community in Finland, with the title: Zuzeeko's Blog: Finland - Shooting of Immigrants in Oulu Pizzeria must be condemned. It has received some unsettling comments. In the spirit of the Perussuomalaiset councilman who said the shooter should be given a medal, some readers have attempted to defend the shooter or make excuses on his behalf.

It has been said that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Intolerance, hate crime, racism, discrimination and all social ills are morally reprehensible and must always be condemned by people of good conscience - no matter how loud voices in favor may seem.

*Photo: Ilta-Sanomat.

Share

Tweet

Finland: Shooting of Immigrants in Oulu pizzeria must be condemned

In a country where a Member of Parliament for the Perussuomalaiset (PS) political party can openly use racist and derogatory language (video) against Muslims and people of African decent and is not forced to resign as representative of the people, it is easy to conclude that racism is deep-seated. However, any racially motivated shooting or killing must be unequivocally condemned in the strongest terms by all people of goodwill.

On Saturday 18 February 2012, a gunman opened fire in a pizzeria in Oulu, northern Finland - killing one man and injuring another. The gunman - a 24-year old Finn - turned the gun on himself and later died in a hospital on Sunday evening.

The pizzeria shooting claimed the life of a 21-year-old man of Moroccan origin and left a 42-year-old Moroccan man wounded. The owner of the pizzeria - an Algerian - was not hit. According to a news report published on Monday 20 February 2012 in Metro Helsinki, a daily newspaper in Helsinki, the shooting could have been motivated by racism. Other sources say police believe the shooter was not motivated by racism.

However, given the current toxic political climate and hateful rhetoric by some influential politicians, Members of Parliament and ordinary Finnish citizens targeting immigrants, racism cannot be easily ruled out as a motivation.

Following the Oulu pizzeria shooting, for instance, Tommi Rautio, a board member of PS - a right wing anti-immigration party - reportedly wrote on Facebook that the shooter should be given a medal because there is "a war going on and for every war decorations are handed out." [Source]. This speaks volumes about what the PS is made of and sheds light on the sorry-state of affairs in Finnish-Immigrant relations.

A poll commissioned by Helsinki Sanomat revealed that Muslims in general are among the groups most affected by racism and intolerance in Finland. In 2011, President Tarja Halonen expressed concern about the rise of racism and xenophobia in Finland.

The Oulu pizzeria shooting is the third incident in less than one month that resulted in the tragic death of immigrants - two Somalians and one Moroccan.

Finland is going down the wrong road. All persons of good conscience in the Nordic country must condemn racism and racially motivated crimes in the strongest terms and distance themselves from people who use immigrants and other minority groups as targets or punching bags. Politicians who use their influence to preach hate or sway public opinion against minority groups must be held to account, especially when their words are translated into action. More importantly, law enforcement must take hate crimes more seriously and ensure that perpetrators bear the full weight of the law. No one should be killed or discriminated against because he or she looks different or professes a different faith in a society that prides itself as free and democratic.

*Photo of Finnish police car: Wikipedia.

Share

Tweet

Ugly face of racism at bus stop in Finland

A lot has been said and written about racism in Finland, a social ill boosted by anti-immigration sentiments and what far-right populists have termed the "Islamization" of Europe. Speaking on the 50th anniversary of Amnesty International, a renown human rights organization, the president of Finland acknowledged the rise of racism and xenophobia in the Nordic country. This presidential statement came after a member of parliament used racist and derogatory language on his first day in parliament against Muslims and immigrants of African descent. Racism in Finland shows its face in many ways, including racist graffiti in public places and through what could be termed "drive-by racism" - a form of racial harassment in which racial slurs are shouted from a moving vehicle. More recently, the ugly face of racism was seen at a bus stop around Hertoniemi, Helsinki, Finland.

Someone of questionable moral standing used what appears to be a sharp object to write a hateful and racist message on the glass at a bus stop. The disturbing message is there for everyone using the bus stop to see. It reads:

"All N*****s Must Die."

It is worth mentioning that "N*****" stands for what is commonly known as the N-word. The word is spelled out in full on the bus stop. It is not legible in photographs but if you stand at the bus stop (pictured) you cannot miss it.

The disturbing message is accompanied by a hastily drawn swastika - symbol of the Nazi Party of Germany.

The ugly face of racism at this bus stop speaks volumes about the current state of affairs in Finland. Such a message in a public place undermines the reputation of Finland as a free, civilized, tolerant and democratic country.

The hateful message is very disturbing; even more disturbing is the fact that no one seems to be alarmed by such a message at a bus stop that is used daily by many people, including immigrants studying in a nearby adult learning centre (Edupoli).

The message was first seen at the bus stop more than a month ago. At the time of this writing, it has not been removed.

Racism in Finland and its devastating impact on people of African descent and immigrants from other parts of the world is further compounded by reports that some law enforcement officers in the country said racist harassment should not be reported to the police. A police officer from Pieksämäki reportedly told Migrant Tales that victims of racist harassment should "just walk away."

This goes to show that racists and those who harass individuals because of skin color, nationality, religion or ethnicity have been given a blank check by law enforcement.

Law enforcement in Finland should take racially motivated crimes, including harassment in public places, more seriously. Ordinary people of goodwill on their part should speak out against racism and stand with victims wherever this social ill shows its ugly face. Simply looking the other way emboldens aggressors.

The authorities have a responsibility to remove racist and hateful messages from public places, including bus stops, and perhaps run educational programs and campaigns to educate the public about the ills of racism and hate.

Share

Tweet

Troy Davis scheduled to be killed

On 7 September, Amnesty International, a human right organization, sent an email alert to supporters about the scheduled killing of Troy Davis by the state of Georgia. According to the email, Troy Davis is scheduled to be killed on 21 September 2011, just 11 days from today.

Troy Anthony Davis was convicted for the murder of a police officer in Savannah, Georgia, USA. He was sentenced to death and has been on death row since 1991.

Seven out of the nine main eyewitnesses who testified during the trial of Davis and linked him to the killing have recanted their testimonies, and the convict has maintained that he is innocent. Some of the witnesses said they were coerced by the police to testify against Davis. The murder weapon has never been found and there is no physical evidence linking Troy Davis to the murder. Even some jurors who convicted Davis have expressed concern about the looming execution. [Source].

Despite the many questions surrounding his guilt, the state of Georgia has scheduled the execution of Troy Davis. His guilt has not been proven "beyond reasonable doubt."

An innocent man could be executed on 21 September 2011.

Amnesty International is running a campaign to stop the execution of Troy Davis. The organization is asking rights supporters to sign a petition opposing the death penalty for Troy Davis because doubts about his guilt have not been cleared.

Many prominent individuals, including former US President Jimmy Carter and civil rights activist Al Sharpton oppose the killing of Troy Davis because "the doubts about the Davis case have not been resolved..." and "Georgia might execute an innocent man..."

Photo source.

You are encouraged to sign the petition. Do not let Georgia kill Troy Davis.

Troy's story evokes memories of the fictional case of Donte Drumm, a prisoner sentenced to death in John Grisham's book - The Confession.

Facts About Capital Punishment published by Amnesty International reveal that capital punishment is deeply flawed and more than 130 people have been released from death rows in the US due to wrongful convictions.

"I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate." 

[George Ryan, 39th Governor of Illinois].

Share

Tweet

Misguided call to reinstate death penalty in the UK

There are calls for the death penalty to be reinstated in the United Kingdom (UK) amid concerns of a spike in crimes considered "so heinous that only the ultimate penalty is sufficient." There are genuine worries about increasing rising crime wave in the country and proponents of the death penalty have argued that the criminal justice system has so far failed to deter perpetrators of violent crimes and to protect the public from such crimes. Hence a campaign has been launched to reinstate the death penalty so as to get rid of offenders who kill police officers and babies. No doubt, crime is unacceptable and perpetrators must bear the full weight of the law. However, a call to reinstate the death penalty in a bid to fight crime is misguided and undermines the same human dignity that the justice system is designed to uphold and protect.

The right to life is an inalienable right protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rightss (UDHR) and all key human rights standards ratified by the UK, including the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Forms of Punishment (CAT).

It is worth highlighting that the right to life is "non-derogable" as per Article 4(2) of the ICCPR, ratified by the UK in May 1976. This means the inherent right to life must be respected by the state under all circumstances - even in a "time of emergency which threatens the life of the nation..."

The right to life ranks right up there with other non-derogable rights, including the following.

• Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• Freedom from slavery and servitude.
• Freedom from imprisonment due to inability to fulfill a contractual obligation.
• The right to be recognized as a person before the law.
• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The UK abolished capital punishment in 1969 (source: France 24) and has a legal obligation under duly ratified international covenants not to deprive any individual of the right to life.

Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR expressly prohibits the death penalty in "all circumstances" and asserts that "the abolition of the death penalty is essential for... the full recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings." Article 1 of the Protocol states: "The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed."

It is true that the death penalty undermines human dignity. Calls to bring back the death penalty in the UK are misguided and do no provide real solutions to violent crimes. Countries that still have the death penalty in legislation have no shortage of heinous crimes that proponents of the death penalty in the UK mistakenly think capital punishment would deter.

State-sponsored killing is no solution to crime. A reinstatement of the death penalty in the UK, more than 40 years after it was abolished, would be a move backwards.

Photo: guardian.co.uk.

Share

Tweet

Massacre in Norway and growing Extreme Right-Wing Populism in Nordic Countries

First Published in: Dunia Magazine

As the good people of Norway try to make sense of the gruesome 7/22 massacre that left at least 76 people dead and 96 injured, there is rising concern about the recent surge in right wing populism in Norway and other Nordic countries – Finland, Denmark and Sweden – where anti-immigration sentiments and islamphobia could also turn deadly.

Last Friday, a Norwegian man, 32 years old, changed his country forever when he detonated a bomb in a state building in Oslo, the main city of Norway, killing at least 7 people. A few hours later, according to the Norwegian police, the same man went on a shooting spree in Utoeya, an island just outside Oslo, killing mostly teenagers.

You would think that after such a massacre, the killer would turn the gun on himself and take his life, but the killer in this case was arrested alive and as of the time of this writing, is in police custody. The killer, identified as Anders Behring Breivik, told police that he orchestrated the massacre but is not criminally responsible.

He appeared in court on Monday, 25 July 2011, calm and ”unaffected,” and did not plead guilty to killing 76 people. The defiant Anders attempted to justify his monstrous action by arguing that the goal of the twin attacks was to ”save” Norway from ”Maxist and Muslim colonization.”

This extreme stance expressed in a deadly fashion by Anders Behring Breivik is shared by a growing number of people in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. The past couple of months have seen a surge in support for extreme right-wing views in these countries.

In Sweden, an extreme right political party, Sweden Democrats (known in Swedish as ”Sverigedemokraterna”) that promulgates xenophobia and islamophobia won seats in parliament for the first time since the party was founded in 1988. The party secured 20 out of 349 seats during the historic September 2010 parliamentary election that changed Sweden’s political landscape. This right-wing political gain came a few months after a group of neo-Nazis staged an anti-mosque demonstration in Gothenburg – Sweden’s second city, on Sunday  11 April 2010.

The September 2010 victory for extreme right populism in Sweden set the stage for extreme right gains in neighboring Finland.

In April 2011, an extreme right party in Finland, True Finns ( known as ”Perussuomalaiset” in Finnish), made significant gains in parliament – winning 39 out of 200 seats, despite the fact that the party supporters and representatives make no secret of their hard-line stance.

On the first day in parliament following the April 2011 election, for instance, a parliamentarian representing  the True Finns made outright derogatory and racist comments on camera against Muslims and Africans. He used a well known and unacceptable racist word to refer to African asylum seekers and mimicked a Muslim call for prayers.

In Denmark, the story is not different. The Danish People’s Party (known as ”Danks Folkeparti” in Danish) kicks against immigration, multi-culturalism and the ”Islamification” of Denmark.

It is worth highlighting that Norway’s confessed mass killer, Anders Behring Breivik, reportedly shares the same views as Finland’s True Finns, Sweden’s Sweden Democrats and Denmark’s Danish People’s Party and all three parties are becoming increasingly and disturbingly popular in their respective countries.

As a matter of fact, a poll published by Helsinki Sanomat, a national daily news outlet in Finland, on 25 July 2011 showed that support for the True Finns has continued to grow, reaching 22.7 per cent after the April 2011 election, while the National Coalition Party has dropped to second place with 21.1 per cent.

Incidentally, the poll was published on the day Anders Behring Breivik, the confessed killer who shares the views of the True Finns, went on a shooting spree in neighboring Norway – in a bid to ”save” Europe from Muslim immigrants.

Make no mistake - the surge in anti-immigration sentiments, islamophobia and extreme right-wing populism in the Nordic countries is real. Urgent steps must be taken to ensure that extreme views promulgated by  increasingly influential right-wing political parties and individuals do not turn deadly.

The right to hold and express opinions is a fundamental human right. However, this right should not be exercised in a manner that infringes the rights and freedoms of others.

Share

Tweet

Hana Begum: Beaten to death in the name of justice in Bangladesh

Hana Begum. Photo: BBC.

It's hard to ignore the story of a young Bangladeshi girl who was publicly whipped - in the name of justice under the Sharia law - and "bled to death" in January 2010

Hana Begum, 14-year-old, was reportedly accused of having an affair with a married man. On the basis of this accusation, the teenager was sentenced to 80 lashes by a village Islamic court in Shariatpur, Bangladesh. Her family told the BBC that the teenager died six days after she was flogged.

It's worth mentioning that initial post-mortem results conflict with a second post-mortem ordered by the High Court.

After her body was exhumed on the orders of the High Court, doctors found "injuries" and reported that Hana died "because of bleeding." This finding conflicts with initial post-mortem results, and corroborates a statement made by her father - "my daughter has been beaten to death in the name of justice."

Bangladesh is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which it acceded to on September 2000.

Article 6 of the ICCPR states that "everyone has the inherent right to life. The right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

Article 7 stipulates that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

The People's Republic of Bangladesh is also party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which accords all children (including Hana Begum) the right to protection of the law. Article 19 of the CRC obliges States Parties to protect children from all forms of violence or abuse, maltreatment or exploitation.

Drawing from the above covenants - the government of Bangladesh has failed in its obligations under international law.

The state should thoroughly and impartially investigate the death of Hana Begun, bring those responsible to justice and protect all children within its borders from such cruelty.

Some noticeable steps have been taken in this direction. A police investigation for murder is on-going; doctors who carried out the initial autopsy have been summoned by the High Court for questioning and five other people have been arrested in relation to the case.

This cruel punishment that was levied on Hana Begum under Sharia law was outlawed in Bangladesh by the High Court in 2010, but a lot more needs to be done to eradicate the practice.

Culprits of such unspeakable violence against a minor should bear the full weight of the law.

Share

Tweet

Ivory Coast: Power struggle endangers lives

Laurent Gbagbo.

On 16 December 2010, following a warning issued by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to perpetrators of possible crimes in Ivory Coast, supporters of Alassane Ouattara - the internationally recognized winner of the disputed presidential elections - clashed with riot police loyal to incumbent Laurent Gbagbo, leaving at least 20 people dead.

Prior to this dispute that has raised concerns of another civil war in Ivory Coast, the electoral commission declared Alassane Ouattara the legitimate winner of the 28 November presidental run-off election, but the Constitutional Council (reportedly loyal to Laurent Gbagbo) later overturned the results and declared incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo the "legitimate" winner. This marked a major setback to attempts to secure a fragile peace in Ivory Coast.

The ensuing power struggle endangers lives in the west African country, and although power struggle and post-elections violence is typical in Africa, commonsense suggests that no life should be lost because of attempts to cling to power.

Times have changed and this time, the world is closely watching the events in Ivory Coast. The African Union, in a rare move, has asked Laurent Gbagbo to step aside, the European Union (EU), United Nations (UN), Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS), United States, South Africa, France and Nigeria have done the same.

Ivorians have the right to elect their leader and according to the independent national electoral commission and the international community, the masses democratically elected Alasssane Ouattara. Laurent Gbagbo should do the right thing and relinguish his firm grip on power. The people have spoken and they deserve to have their voices heard.

Perpetrators of post-elections violence and crimes in Ivory Coast and beyond would eventually have their day in a national or international court of law.

Share

Tweet

Egypt: Don't forget Khaled Mohammed Said

Photo: We're all Khaled Said Facebook page.

A 28-year-old Egyptian - Khaled Mohammed Said, allegedly brutalised to death by Egyptian police in June is yet to be forgotten.

The death of Khaled Mohammed Said, on 6 June 2010, sparked widespread protests in Egypt, with thousands of Egyptians demanding justice for Khaled Said, and an end to police brutality. Surprisingly (because there's reportedly a culture of impunity for police brutality in Egypt), two police officers were arrested and charged in relation to Khaled Said's death. This, no doubt, is good news. The arrests were celebrated as a milestone in Egypt and abroad.

The bad news is that a postponed trial of the policemen in question, originally scheduled for 25 September 2010, was further postponed to 23 October 2010.

Despite the postponement and delays, rights activists and police brutality protesters are undeterred. Many have urged rights advocates worldwide not to forget Khaled Mohammed Said (even if the trial is postponed for a few years) because justice for Said would mean a great blow to what has been described as "systematic torture" in Egypt.

Amnesty International recently released a video demanding justice for Khaled Mohammed Said, as well as an end to torture in Egypt. WATCH...



According to Human Rights Now, the 25 September trial was marred by protests and police intimidation.

Khaled Mohammed Said is clearly not forgotten. People of conscience in Egypt and abroad have fought a good fight so far, and continue to fight to secure justice for Khaled, and end police brutality in Egypt.

It remains to be seen whether justice would be served.

Share

Tweet

House rules and regulations

When a blog picks up steam after being indexed by mega search engines like Google, Bing and Yahoo!, it inevitably becomes accessible to readers from many parts of the world; readers with varying motives and opinions. Understandably, those with something to offer post comments on the blog. At this stage, without clear house rules and regulations, the blog stands a great chance of becoming a place of bickering and in some cases - a "marketplace."

Fortunately, I anticipated this scenario a long time ago. This explains why in a bid to protect readers and maintain order, I laid down a couple of house rules and regulations in advance.

But recently, a growing number of readers have posted comments that expressly violate these house rules and regulations, and I've had to go through the pain of rejecting comments.

Please endeavor to familiarise yourself with the rules before posting your comments.

Share

Tweet