The Olympic torch saga continues, with the flame having a “secret parade” (a phrase which Libertyblog took exception to). Chinese officials recently declared that ‘no force‘ could stop the relay, and that any protests during the Tibet leg would face “severe punishment”.

The disruption and turmoil (well, protests and riots) surrounding the torch is causing the IOC much embarassment, though they say they will recover from it. The article also notes that Barack Obama has joined Hillary Clinton in calling for President Bush to boycott the games. The torches heads to Buenos Aires next.

I’m going to take a moment’s break from the news to deal with a question: Are the Olympic fair game for protest? I won’t do into too much detail as there have been others before me that have answered this eloquently. I did, however, happen to read a bit on Nearsighted Man’s blog that raised this particular question. There is one paragraph in particular:

I do hesitate to bring this up because my own personal knowledge of the Tibetan situation is limited, but when I see people trying to tackle the athlete carrying the torch and extinguish the flame I am left wondering how this helps the people of Tibet. How does preventing or boycotting the Olympics free Tibet? If anyone who happens to read this wants to offer insight, I’m all for it.

First, to answer the questions he asked.

It helps the people of Tibet by raising awareness. There are those that aren’t aware of how brutal China is being in Tibet against the protesters. Those people may see the protests and try and find out about them. Or perhaps they are aware there is something going on and are not sure what. When they see the protests they may be compelled to find out what is causing these people to feel so strongly that they have to riot. The question of how it frees Tibet is a bit leading – of course it doesn’t directly, but mindshare is a powerful thing. Ask any big brand or advertising agency. If the protesters cause people to find out more, or clarify what they know, or even debate (such as we’re having here) what is going on in Tibet, then they are doing a valid thing in getting people to realise what is going on. Heck, they might even get a few converts.

As for the games being an apolitical event – that is up for further debate! There is a long and varied history of protests of some form or another, which even the US participates in to this day.

And since we’re on opinions… I am of the opinion that by granting China the games, we are validating and acknowledging that they are worthy of hosting the biggest athletic competition. It is akin (but not exactly alike) to governments officially recognising other governments or countries. Of course, that may be a case of “we don’t like you but we have to deal with you”; whereas the Olympics is a prestigious and elite competition with history – should we really be sharing that honour with countries that have terrible human rights records? In the practical sense this point is moot, of course – China will host the Olympics. But we can certainly debate the validity of the decision.

To Nearsighted and others, does this offer you insight? Does it change any of your views? Do you agree, but for other reasons? Or do you agree with some of my points and disagree with others? Comments are – as always – welcome.

Update: It was in the linked BBC article (“Olympics to ‘rebound from crisis’”), but I thought I should make a couple of things explicit. Firstly, the US House of Representatives has recently passed a motion condemning China’s actions in Tibet. Secondly, the Dali Lama has stated that China has deserves to host the games, although people have a right to non-violent protest. The International Herald Tribune has more on this. He said that he supports (and always has supported) China having the Olympics, but they were using outdated methods to try and silence protesters in Tibet. he also said that nobody “has a right to tell them to shut up”.

He’s a sensible man. He’s supporting the games, but he’s still able to make a point about Tibet. What he says can be applied worldwide – the right to peaceful protest should be a basic human right.

By now, the olympic flame has made its way through both London and Paris, garnering the attention of both protests and One China ‘anti-protests’ alike. As usual, the BBC has a good writeup of what happened in both London and Paris. Points of interest include:

• accusations of heavy-handedness against the Met police
• two attempts to extinguish torch
• one attempt to steal torch from former Blue Peter presenter Connie Huq
• deviation from planned route through Chinatown
• 4 arrested in Paris, 37 arrested in London
• no boycott from Gordon Brown

Also, in our previous post, we referred to a report by Amnesty International that claimed that China was clamping down on dissidents in the run-up to the Olympic games. It would appear this claim hhas some merit – the day after the report was published, Hu Jia, a prominent human rights activist was jailed for three and a half years for subversion.

With the Olympic flame due to travel to San Francisco next as part of its 20-country worldwide tour, and with the death toll from protests in Tibet ranging from 19 to dozens, what form will further protest take (if any) before it reaches Beijing?

GU Amnesty and S.T.A.R are having a sleep-out outside the Wolfson Medical School building on Wednesday 5th March to raise awareness of the plight of refugees and failed asylum seekers.

If you’ve got a few hours spare or you feel like a chat on your way back from the pub, come along and join us for food and hot drinks, music and banter. It’ll be cold but fun!

We have a poster promoting the event:

Thanks to everyone who came to our ‘Back To Childhood’ party yesterday which was aimed at raising awareness of child soldiers. It was a fun night. There were many interesting and original costumes on display – the winner of the competition was Buzz Lightyear for effort and originality. Special mention to the two Indiana Joneses. It was great to see the effort people put into their costumes, and it gave the party a very fun atmosphere. We had a correct guess at how many sweeties were in the jar (611), and the raffle gave out six prizes. We hope the winners enjoy them.

Thanks to Rachel and everyone who organised the party, helped out, asked friends to come along, or even minded the door. Your work is appreciated.

We have two other big events coming up in the next week or two: we are having a sleep-out in front of the Wolfson Medical Building (to raise awareness of refugees); and a ceilidh, both of which we are doing in association with S.T.A.R. Watch this space for more information on both of these events.

YouTube access has been blocked in Pakistan for hosting material offensive to Islam.

Its telecommunications authority ordered internet service providers to block the site until further notice. Reports said the content included Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that have outraged many. However, one report said a trailer for a forthcoming film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, which portrays Islam in a negative light, was behind the ban.

Wahaj-us-Siraj, convener of the Association of Pakistan Internet Service Providers said:

“They asked us to ban it immediately… and the order says the ban will continue until further notice.”

Unfortunately, the method the ISPs used to block access to YouTube was said to affect users outside Pakistan, leading to a near worldwide outage.

Thanks to the BBC for the reports.

From the BBC, Fouad Mourtada has been jailed for 3 years and fined $1300 for creating a fake profile in the name of a Prince in the Royal Family.

In his defence, he said he admired the prince, and that the Facebook entry was just intended to be a bit of fun. A website supporting him published a letter addressed to the prince apologising for the incident. The letter, reportedly penned by Mr Mourtada’s family, requested clemency.
According to the website, he told family members who visited him in jail that he had been blindfolded and beaten unconscious at the time of his arrest.

“Fouad Mourtada, like thousands of people who create fake profiles of well-known personalities or celebrities on Facebook, has in no way acted in a willingness to cause nuisance to Your Highness, for whom he has always shown the greatest of respect.”

Earlier this week some Moroccan bloggers went “on strike“, suspending their regular blog entries for 24 hours in protest at Mr Mourtada’s detention.

A Hampstead businessman is being held in Dubai without charge over alleged drug offences. Cat Le-Huy, who is head of technology at Big Brother creator Endemol, was arrested as he arrived in Dubai on January 26. (source)

Having being transferred to prison after being held in the airport jail, authorities in Dubai said they found traces (0.03g) of hashish in a bag belonging to Cat Le-Huy, and are considering charging him with possession of an illegal substance. (more here)

This news comes less than a month after a man was imprisoned for 4 years for possession of 0.003g of hashish after a roll-up cigarette was found stuck to the bottom of his shoe. Cases like these are covered and helped by FairTrials.

We’ve previously discussed the decision on whether or not to extend the current 28-day detention-without-charge limit. Now, Sunny over at Liberal Conspiracy has put together a list (linked below) of Labour MPs who abstained or voted against the previous proposal to extend it to 90 days. MPs are listed by office address and constituency.

I would urge everyone to take the time to write a short email saying why you are against extending detention – and the 10 reasons laid out in a previous discussion are a good place to start. Let’s make sure they’re told!

The list of MPs, and thanks to Sunny

From The Scotsman:

A Scottish student jailed for terrorism-related offences last year hopes a Court of Appeal decision in England may help to free him. Five men jailed for similar crimes walked free yesterday. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, sitting with two other judges, quashed their convictions and ordered their release.

(we covered this story too)

The ruling will be studied by lawyers planning an appeal against the conviction of Mohammed Atif Siddique, a Scottish student jailed for eight years for possessing and distributing terrorism-related materials on the internet.

Last night, Aamer Anwar, Siddique’s lawyer, said he would be meeting Imran Khan, the solicitor who represents the five freed men, within weeks. “This decision will be scrutinised by us to see if there are any implications,” Mr Anwar said.

As I commented previously, downloading such material should not be a crime. If there is an act of violence being planned, that can be prosecuted as the equivalent of “Conspiracy to commit X“.

Aamer Anwar is a human rights lawyer and a current candidate for the Rectorship of the University of Glasgow. He is expected to come and speak to the GU Amnesty International society next Tuesday at 6PM. He is facing charges of contempt of court for his defence of Siddique, which has lead to campaign to defend him.

Five British Muslim students jailed for downloading extremist material from the internet were released today, after the Appeal Court ruled their convictions were unsafe. The Lord Chief Justice said that although the evidence was clear that the five had accessed the jihadi websites and literature there was no proof of any terrorist intent, the BBC reports.

In a statement today via his solicitor, Malik said: “As I said when I was arrested, I do not, have not and will not support terrorism in any form against innocent people.

“My prosecution was a test case under the 2000 Terrorism Act. Today’s decision means no first year student can ever be prosecuted again under this Act for possessing extremist literature.”

Freeing the men, the Lord Chief Justice said there was no proof of terrorist intent. The lawyer for one said they had been jailed for a “thought crime”.

Critics inside the Muslim community and civil liberty campaigners say section 57 of the 2000 Terrorism Act has been used as a blunt instrument to prosecute young Muslim men where there is no proof of genuine links to terrorism. Imran Khan, solicitor for Mr Zafar, said the five had been prosecuted for “thought crime” and that the ruling would have an significant impact.

He said:

“Young Muslim men before this judgement could have been prosecuted simply for simply looking at any material on the basis that it might be connected in some way to terrorist purposes.”

The Islamic Human Rights Commission said it hoped Thursday’s judgement would stop the “criminalisation of Muslim youth for downloading and reading material that is widely available to everyone”.

Chairman Massoud Shadjareh said:

“Our anti terror strategy should target and bring to account those who plan criminal acts of terrorism. Instead individuals who write poetry, read blogs or download material from the internet are being targeted because of their ethnicity or religious affiliation.”

From the BBC, The Register and The Times Online.

Since this was a test case, it will hopefully have impacts on later cases. We may laugh and sigh at banning books (and rightly so), but the same thing is happening here. The lawyer said it was a thought crime, and so it was. Reading material of any sort should never be conflated with planning terrorism and it certainly should not be a crime.

“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.”
~Potter Stewart