A Further Attack on People’s Rights

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Civil Contingencies Bill:
A Further Attack on People’s Rights

Further Exposure of British and US Justifications for the Criminal Invasion of Iraq

Tom Hurndall Dies as Family Receive News of the Indictment of his Killer
What price a life?
The Israeli Army Shot My Son, and the Toll Continues to Rise

The government published its Civil Contingencies Bill on January 7. The Civil Contingencies Bill is an integral part of the government's "war on terror" which means imperialist war and aggression abroad and growing attacks on people's welfare and basic rights at home. It exposes the anti-people nature of the present party in power and the dangerous road on which it is heading.

The bill in its draft form had been widely viewed as a grave threat to basic rights and criticised from many quarters. Defending the changes which were made to the draft bill, Cabinet Office Minister Douglas Alexander argued on Radio 4's PM programme that the bill reflected the fact that the government had listened to people's concerns about the attacks on their rights and had struck the right balance between "increasing security" and "protecting civil liberties".

However, Tony Bunyan, editor of Statewatch, pointed out that "the concessions made by the government in no way change the fundamental objections to this Bill. The powers available to the government and state agencies would be truly draconian. Cities could be sealed off, travel bans introduced, all phones cut off and websites shut down. Demonstrations could be banned and the news media made subject to censorship. New offences against the state could be ‘created’ by government decree." It is clear that the changes that have been made to the draft bill in no way alter its fundamental feature as a direct attack on people's basic rights. Nor is the argument for a "balance" between "security" and "civil liberties" tenable. The people are being left out of the equation, and are denied the discussion on what is necessary for their security and have no part in making such a decision. The argument for "balance" is a pretext for the state forces assuming any powers which the government decrees. How can "security" be balanced against "liberties"? Are not both fundamental? The government is trying to ensure that the people have neither.

The government itself has a guilty conscience about the provisions and the explicit enactment into statute law of the state’s powers to trample on the rights and freedoms of citizens. The Human Rights Act requires the minister in charge of a bill to make a statement about the compatibility of its provisions with human rights as defined in the European Convention. On January 5, Douglas Alexander made such a statement that in his view the bill is "compatible with the Convention rights". However, the government admits the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in cases where the government declares an "emergency", "could give rise to significant ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] issues". "For example," it says in the explanation that accompanies the bill, "the regulations may provide for the requisition, confiscation or destruction of property, with or without compensation" (giving rise to issues about the right to property). "Regulations may prohibit the movement of people from or to a specified place" (giving rise to issues about the right to liberty and freedom of assembly and association). "Regulations can be made which require a person or body to act in performance of a function" (which could give rise to issues about the prohibition of forced labour). The government’s counter-argument (as it was when it opted out of the ECHR provision of detention without trial in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001) is that "where interference with a particular Convention right is permitted, the interference must be necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the end being sought to be achieved" and that such proportionality, as it were, is being maintained, and "safeguards" are written into the bill.

The struggle against the Civil Contingencies Bill must be stepped up and elementary and inviolable rights defended against the attacks of the government. The fact that the government is viewing rights as privileges to be withdrawn under a state of "emergency", which, as the government admits, is being "broadly defined" as a "new concept", shows that they have no concern for the rights of the people. Despite the government’s protestations that the Human Rights Act sets a limit on its powers, the government is constitutionally provided with the absolute power to repeal such legislation, and, as the Anti-Terrorism Act shows, it has only to cite appropriate exceptional conditions and circumstances to find ways and means to "derogate" from provisions of the Convention. It is not simply that the legislation could undermine or threaten democracy "in the wrong hands", or that the problem facing the working class and people is simply a New Labour clique. That the government can assume arbitrary powers under the Royal Prerogative exposes the absolutist character of the political system itself which the people must challenge, alongside vigorously fighting to ensure that Civil Contingencies Bill is defeated.

The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, last week told the Labour Party Foreign Affairs Committee that the government’s decision to go to war in Iraq was entirely justified. He added, "As the people of Iraq take control of their own affairs and experience the freedom and prosperity denied to them for so long, I am very content for history to be our judge."

His statement came just a few days after British troops participated in the shooting of Iraqi demonstrators protesting about unemployment and other problems in Amarah in southern Iraq. According to reports, British troops joined with Iraqi police to disperse a demonstration that took place in the town on Saturday. The action by the Iraqi police and British forces left six people dead and eleven wounded and prompted further angry demonstrations last weekend. It has subsequently been announced that the events in Amarah will be subject to a judicial review presided over by Iraqi judges.

Jack Straw arrogantly asserts that he is content for history to judge whether the government was right to go to war in Iraq, but every day it is evident that the people of Britain and the world are already passing judgment on the crimes of the governments of Britain, the US and others in Iraq. The lies that were assembled to justify the invasion and conquest of Iraq are daily becoming more clearly exposed and those who presented them more and more discredited. Commentators have already remarked on the fact that Straw emphasised that the war was waged largely to bring about "regime change", while the Prime Minster has always maintained that this was not the government’s policy. At the same time the Prime Minister has been forced to concede that he is no longer sure whether there were any "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

The justifications advanced for the criminal actions of the governments of Britain and the US in Iraq have been even further exposed in the last few days by the comments of those who were formerly senior members of the US government. Greg Thielman, who was director of the Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs Office at the US State Department, until his retirement last year, stated that the US government "twisted, distorted, simplified" intelligence information about "weapons of mass destruction" in a way that led Americans to "seriously misunderstand" what the threat was. Thielman has stated that in his view Iraq did not pose any military threat even to its neighbours. His comments follow on from those made by the former US Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill. O’Neill has made a series of revelations in a new book The Price of Loyalty and in a recent interviews in which he has accused George W Bush of planning the invasion of Iraq within days of coming to office. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap." O’Neill and other official quoted in the book state that Bush was looking for an excuse to topple Saddam Hussein and that planning for military action began in 2001. Such planning included how major monopolies would divide Iraq’s oil wealth. O’Neill, who was a member of the US president’s national security team, stated: "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterise as evidence of weapons of mass destruction."

Ever more evidence is now coming to light to expose the criminal acts perpetrated by the US and British governments in Iraq and the lies that have been advanced as justification. All democratic people in Britain, as well as in other countries must redouble their efforts so that those responsible are held accountable. The people themselves must not only pass judgment but also take the necessary measures to prevent Britain and the other big powers from carrying out such crimes in the future.

Press Release of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) London, on Wednesday, January 14

Tom Hurndall, the British photographer shot in Gaza while shepherding young children out of the line of fire, died last night at 7.45pm. His death came nine months after an incident in which he was shot in the head by an IDF soldier which left him in a vegetative state. The traumatic nature of his injuries has meant that at any time Tom has been vulnerable to serious infection and his death came after his body was unsuccessful in overcoming an episode of pneumonia.

At a hearing on Monday, a soldier arrested last week in connection with the shooting of Tom Hurndall, has finally been indicted on six charges: Aggravated Assault; two counts of Obstruction of Justice; Incitement to False Testimony; False Testimony; Improper Conduct. The decision of the court to prosecute the soldier on a charge of Aggravated Assault rather than attempted murder is based on the assumption that the soldier did not intend to murder Tom. The family believes that based on its own extensive investigation and the soldiers testimony that he shot Tom using an advanced telescopic lens, it is improbable that the shot which entered Tom's forehead was intended to do anything other than kill.

The family will be pressing its lawyers to ensure that the appropriate charge - murder, is applied in this case. The family lawyers were advised by the prosecuting judge yesterday afternoon that in the event of Tom's death, the charges are likely to be changed. The new charges shall be either manslaughter or murder. The maximum penalty for Manslaughter is 20 years imprisonment and for Murder there is only one penalty - life imprisonment.

Tom's family have made it clear that they will be satisfied with nothing less than the full prosecution for the person responsible for murdering Tom and they expect the imposition of the maximum penalty in this respect. They additionally expect that the harshest penalties should be imposed on all those involved in the obstruction of justice.

NB: A second soldier has been detained and is expected to be indicted on charges of Obstructing Justice and False Testimony.

The indictment of this soldier and his testimony have totally destroyed the credibility of the initial IDF investigation and Field Report. It was this Field Report - presented to the British Embassy in Tel Aviv and later to the family of Tom Hurndall last May, that totally exonerated the soldier(s) responsible in the shooting of Tom Hurndall. It is very much the case that if it were not for the ceaseless campaigning and lobbying on the part of Tom Hurndall's family and friends and in particular the family's own investigation (which amassed 14 independent eye witness statements along with photographic and ballistic evidence) a military police investigation is not likely to have been instigated and the truth would have remained uncovered. The family now assert that the existing initial inquiry procedure is by its nature flawed and prone to abuse and they ask that the IDF immediately review its initial inquiry procedure with a view to replacing it with an independent inquiry.

They further call on the Israeli Army to radically examine the current rules of engagement and to take steps to eradicate the existing culture of impunity which exists in the Occupied Territories. The family hope that the prosecution of those responsible for the shooting of Tom Hurndall and the prosecution of those responsible for the deliberate fabrication of evidence, will send the strongest message to all soldiers on the ground in the Occupied Territories "that the shooting or killing of innocent civilians and breaches in basic human rights will not be tolerated".

An Emergency Vigil to demand that Tony Blair make a statement and call for assault charges against Israeli soldier to be increased to murder was held last Wednesday outside 10 Downing Street.

Jocelyn Hurndall*
Saturday January 10, 2004, The Guardian

In the pensive hours of the night, I am struck by the varying values that mankind chooses to allot to life - as was my son Tom.

Earlier this month, I read with mixed feelings the news that local Palestinian militia had dynamited an Israeli defence force watchtower in the town of Rafah, in the Gaza Strip. It was from this watchtower, which has been responsible for untold misery to many innocent families in Rafah, that Tom was shot in the head last April. At the time he was trying to help Palestinian children to safety. He now lies in a vegetative state in a hospital in London with no hope of recovery.

This week we learned that the Israeli soldier who has been arrested for the shooting is alleged to have smoked cannabis with his battalion. As last year was drawing to a close, a phone call from the British Foreign Office informed me that, under interrogation, this soldier has confessed to shooting my son, knowing he was an unarmed civilian. He claimed that the shot was meant as a "deterrent". From what? From rescuing children? Had he been so conditioned that an act of humanity could only inspire in him such a violent reaction?

I felt no sense of relief then but, for the first time, allowed myself to feel increasing anger. The IDF's inability to differentiate between friend and foe, truth and untruth, and to see themselves as they are seen, is clear to all.

I read the observations recorded in Tom's Middle-East journals. They show a young man determined to be open-minded, to understand and, above all, to make a difference. He had come to understand, as we do now, the customary illegal, inhuman retribution exacted by the IDF from this particular watchtower on the local community, little realising how it was to leave him a thread away from death.

It seems that life is cheap in the occupied territories. Different value attached to life depends on whether the victim happens to be Israeli, international or Palestinian. This has been exemplified recently by the reaction of the Israeli public to the shooting of an Israeli peace activist, fresh out of his three-year military police service, demonstrating against the illegal "security" fence. Two days later an announcement was made that a military police inquiry was to be held into the shooting. Questions were raised in the Knesset. This is in stark contrast to the six months of campaigning that it took for an inquiry to be launched into the shooting of Tom.

There have been thousands of killings in Palestine since the intifada, with only a handful having the benefit of an investigation. Now, a three-week occupation of Nablus (the largest city in Palestine) has left a further 19 people dead and dozens of homes and buildings destroyed, leaving scores of innocent people homeless, all on a pretext of searching for a terror suspect.

When will those responsible accept that it is illegal to collectively and obsessively punish a whole community? Has the hard-nosed Sharon government made connections between the horror of the Holocaust and the current brutal incursions? Countless insightful Israelis, Palestinians and people the world over have done so. Is it surprising that Israel was voted the most dangerous threat to world peace in a recent European Union poll?

It hurts me to hear the deafening silence of our own government. How can there have been no statement of condemnation or condolence for the innocent victims of Israel's mindless violence from our own prime minister, Tony Blair? The silence was only broken when on Christmas day the United States president "strongly condemned" the actions of the suicide bombers responsible for killing four Israeli soldiers at a bus stop just outside Tel Aviv. Does this double standard not underline the lack of regard in which both the British and US governments hold Palestinian life?

So I have questions to ask of Tony Blair. Does he regard the children of Palestine as children of a lesser god? Does he accept that such inaction is tantamount to complicity in the process of destroying any peace initiative in the Middle East? Mr Blair, you know now that an Israeli soldier has confessed to shooting in cold blood an unarmed British citizen who was trying to shepherd children away to safety. When will you be ready to openly condemn these actions?

* Jocelyn Hurndall is on the committee of the Thomas Hurndall Foundation, which campaigns for justice for the Palestinian people.