A UK coroner has ruled on the death of British journalist and documentary maker James Miller, 34 from Devon, who was shot in the head by a soldier of the IDF whilst shooting a documentary on the conflicts in Gaza in 2003. James had been wearing a clearly identifiable flak jacket and helmet marked "Journalist" when he approached an IDF armored personnel carrier waving a white flag and shouting "I'm a British journalist" in May 2003. He was attempting to gain their permission for safe passage from the area at the time, having spent the day shooting footage for his documentary into the lives of children in the Gaza Strip. He was shot once with a high-powered assault rifle clean between the eyes. Despite a soldier from the IDF admitting to firing the shot, an Israeli investigation in April 2005 cleared the soldier of misusing firearms. Mr Millers family, like those of Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie, received no help from the Israeli authorities whatsoever, and have claimed that the Israeli authorities willfully and deliberately hampered the official investigation into the death.
This week saw the UK coroners investigation into James' death. Having heard evidence from senior Metropolitan Police Det Insp Robert Anderson that Israel had been "uncooperative" during their own investigations into the shooting and had refused access to interview soldiers and witnesses, Coroner Andrew Reid had told the jury at St Pancras Coroner's Court, London, on Thursday to return a verdict of unlawful killing. He said they had to decide in the context of the case whether he had been murdered or was a victim of manslaughter. After around an hour of deliberation, the jury decided that Mr Miller had been deliberately shot on the night of 2 May 2003. A jury spokeswoman said: "We, the jury, unanimously agree this was an unlawful shooting with the intention of killing Mr James Miller. "Therefore we can come to no other conclusion than that Mr Miller was indeed murdered."
Whilst this ruling can't ease the grief of Mr Miller's family, nor bring justice to the IDF and the soldier responsible for his death, it is important in so far as it is further proof of the cold calculated nature of the IDF and its operations on illegally occupied Palestinian land. Which makes you wonder why the hell licences for British arms sales to Israel last year amounted to nearly £25m, almost double the previous year (the licences covered the export of armoured vehicles and missile components). Israel was one of 11 countries described by the UK Foreign Office in its 2005 annual human rights report as "major countries of concern" and yet still gained government licensed military equipment. The sales cleared for Israel are the highest since 1999. This was before Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, sought assurances from Israel that equipment supplied by the UK was not being used against civilians and in the occupied territories. In 2002 the government said it was tightening controls on arms exports to the country after it found that assurances had been breached. So, it seems, nothing changes, and despite the evidence of abuse, despite the deaths of British and American journalists and activists, despite the unnumbered and unrecorded deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians, we continue to sell them arms, to let them act with impunity, and to maintain their charade of being humane, moral, and civiliased upholders of democracy, justice and human rights.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Fined for having a picnic.....
Yesterday a man was fined £500 for having a picnic in Parliament Square. The reasons behind this seemingly farcical fine lie in S.132(1)(b) of the Serious Crimes & Police Act 2005. This makes it an offence to take part in a demonstration in a public place in a designated area without prior authorisation under S.134(2). The ‘offence’ in question took place in Parliament Square on 28th August 2005. Parliament Square is now a designated protest free zone under the "Serious Crimes and Police Act" as "unrestricted exercise of freedom of expression close to the centre of Government and Parliament poses a threat to democratic freedom" (a quote from the judge in the case).
So, apparently, exercising your legal, moral and human right to freedom of congregation, freedom of expression and freedom to protest opposite the Houses of Parliament now constitutes a threat to democratic freedom. And in order to protect this democratic freedom it has been necessary to curtail the democratic freedom of groups and individuals to exercise their freedom democratically. The clearly Orwellian nature of this doublespeak aside, I would proffer only one question: which seems more free and democratic at this point in time? The Houses of Parliament (a bunch of predominantly white middle class men elected under an unfair and undemocratic voting system to represent the queen, our head of state, aided and abetted by a bunch of uber-rich white upper middle class men in gowns and wigs who aren’t even elected – which is to say The Lords) or ordinary members of society gathering peacefully outside their seat of ‘representative’ government to gently suggest that ‘our’ government listen to our views and, say, stop the illegal war to impose ‘democracy’ in Iraq? Perhaps the constant presence of dissenting voices outside their cosy parliamentary offices is finally beginning to upset the residents at Westminster.
After all, it is widely recognised that the original legislation banning protest outside our seat of government was bought in to try to remove Brian Haw. Brian Haw is an anti-war protestor who has been camping out in Parliament Square since 2001 (yup, that’s right, he’s been sleeping on some cardboard laid out on the pavement for over 5 years to protest against the illegal invasion of Iraq), displaying such threatening placards as ‘Don’t Attack Iraq’ and ‘Troops Home Now’. This has clearly upset the conscience of our members of parliament so much that they have designated such radical and dangerous protests as "Serious Crimes" and legislated to ban every UK citizen from protesting with a mile of the Houses of Parliament.
But back to Mark Barrat, the unfortunate man facing a £500 whole in his bank balance for having a picnic in the designated no protest zone. Mark's court case took up just one afternoon of court time, and he represented himself and did not contest any of the 'facts' of the case. His defence was twofold: first - did a picnic by a campaigning group and a banner-making workshop (with no planned demonstration that day) really constitute a demonstration in terms of the law? and second - did the use of this law really accord with human rights legislation in terms of the rights of freedom of expression and free assembly?
The SOCPA (2005) act does not define a demonstration, and so the judge’s written verdict relied on a dictionary definition and seemed to imply that since Mark was known as a campaigner against this draconian legislation, and as the campaign held picnics each week on Parliament Square, then being at that picnic was of itself a demonstration. This interpretation has huge human rights significance. It would suggest that the designated zone is pretty much a no-go area for anyone who holds political views - any attempt at meeting others or having political or campaigning discussions could be met by arrest, not insignificant fines, and a criminal record for life!
Indeed a further protestor, peace campaigner Milan Rai, is in Bow Street Magistrates Court next week facing the even more serious charge of being the organiser of a protest within the no-protest zone around Westminster. He faces a fine of up to £5000 and a maximum of five years in jail. And his alleged crime? Milan and a co-campaigner stood in the middle of Parliament Square and quietly and solemnly read out the names of all those killed in Iraq – US and UK soldiers and Iraqi civilians. And, in the name of protecting the democratic freedom of Parliament (as laid out in the SOCPA legislation) Milan Rai now faces the very real threat of an extended stay at her majesty’s pleasure for having the temerity to utter the names of the war dead close enough to Parliament to trouble the conscience of those upholders of freedom and democracy who therein reside
So, apparently, exercising your legal, moral and human right to freedom of congregation, freedom of expression and freedom to protest opposite the Houses of Parliament now constitutes a threat to democratic freedom. And in order to protect this democratic freedom it has been necessary to curtail the democratic freedom of groups and individuals to exercise their freedom democratically. The clearly Orwellian nature of this doublespeak aside, I would proffer only one question: which seems more free and democratic at this point in time? The Houses of Parliament (a bunch of predominantly white middle class men elected under an unfair and undemocratic voting system to represent the queen, our head of state, aided and abetted by a bunch of uber-rich white upper middle class men in gowns and wigs who aren’t even elected – which is to say The Lords) or ordinary members of society gathering peacefully outside their seat of ‘representative’ government to gently suggest that ‘our’ government listen to our views and, say, stop the illegal war to impose ‘democracy’ in Iraq? Perhaps the constant presence of dissenting voices outside their cosy parliamentary offices is finally beginning to upset the residents at Westminster.
After all, it is widely recognised that the original legislation banning protest outside our seat of government was bought in to try to remove Brian Haw. Brian Haw is an anti-war protestor who has been camping out in Parliament Square since 2001 (yup, that’s right, he’s been sleeping on some cardboard laid out on the pavement for over 5 years to protest against the illegal invasion of Iraq), displaying such threatening placards as ‘Don’t Attack Iraq’ and ‘Troops Home Now’. This has clearly upset the conscience of our members of parliament so much that they have designated such radical and dangerous protests as "Serious Crimes" and legislated to ban every UK citizen from protesting with a mile of the Houses of Parliament.
But back to Mark Barrat, the unfortunate man facing a £500 whole in his bank balance for having a picnic in the designated no protest zone. Mark's court case took up just one afternoon of court time, and he represented himself and did not contest any of the 'facts' of the case. His defence was twofold: first - did a picnic by a campaigning group and a banner-making workshop (with no planned demonstration that day) really constitute a demonstration in terms of the law? and second - did the use of this law really accord with human rights legislation in terms of the rights of freedom of expression and free assembly?
The SOCPA (2005) act does not define a demonstration, and so the judge’s written verdict relied on a dictionary definition and seemed to imply that since Mark was known as a campaigner against this draconian legislation, and as the campaign held picnics each week on Parliament Square, then being at that picnic was of itself a demonstration. This interpretation has huge human rights significance. It would suggest that the designated zone is pretty much a no-go area for anyone who holds political views - any attempt at meeting others or having political or campaigning discussions could be met by arrest, not insignificant fines, and a criminal record for life!
Indeed a further protestor, peace campaigner Milan Rai, is in Bow Street Magistrates Court next week facing the even more serious charge of being the organiser of a protest within the no-protest zone around Westminster. He faces a fine of up to £5000 and a maximum of five years in jail. And his alleged crime? Milan and a co-campaigner stood in the middle of Parliament Square and quietly and solemnly read out the names of all those killed in Iraq – US and UK soldiers and Iraqi civilians. And, in the name of protecting the democratic freedom of Parliament (as laid out in the SOCPA legislation) Milan Rai now faces the very real threat of an extended stay at her majesty’s pleasure for having the temerity to utter the names of the war dead close enough to Parliament to trouble the conscience of those upholders of freedom and democracy who therein reside
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)