We were recently sent a number of images (shown after the jump) by someone close to what is going on in Tibet. I personally don’t want to identify them as it could potentially compromise their safety (whether this is likely or not is another debate, I dont think it’s worth the risk).  One of the images depicts what appears to be Chinese police (the People’s Armed Police - PAP) being distributed orange garbs. The text accompanying the pictures read:

Dear —-

In one picture you will see chinese young policemen with Tibetan monk’s robe in their hands. We heard chinese policemen are dressing themselves as Tibetan monks and Tibetan laymen and trying to create roits and voilence between Tibetans and Han chinese living in Tibet.

With love, —-.

(click for larger version)

The insinuation is that there are Chinese servicemen who are mixing with the demonstrating monks who are then causing violence (which is subsequently seen around the world), so as to cast the demonstrators in a bad light. Read the rest of this entry »

As part of their campiagn against the 42 day limit, Liberal Conspiracy brings us the news that there is a split in the cabinet over plans to extend the limit that terror suspects can be detained for without charge.

The news comes after Home Secretary Jaqui Smith had stated that the terror threat to the UK was growing. In a statement to the News of the World, she said:

“We now face a threat level that is severe. It’s not getting any less, it’s actually growing. There are 2,000 individuals they are monitoring. There are 200 networks. There are 30 active plots. That has increased over the past two years. Since the beginning of 2007, 57 people have been convicted on terrorist plots. Nearly half of those pleaded guilty so this is not some figment of the imagination. It is a real risk and a real issue we need to respond to. We can’t wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers. We’ve got to stay ahead.”

However, her views are at odds with the Conservatives, Lib Dems, a growing number of unhappy backbenchers, former attorney-general Lord Goldsmith and the Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken McDonald. There have been arguments made that the new proposal will create ill-will in the Muslim community and actually cause the amount of intelligence supplied to drop. Lord Goldsmith also commented that it could be percieved as an attack on the Muslim community and used as a recruiting tool for terror organisations.

However, Home Office minister Tony McNulty stated that he thought MPs ‘will buy‘ the new limit.

I find the language used by McNulty pretty scary:

“This is a very, very serious thing and I think once people understand the bulk of the model and the temporary nature then people do buy it.”

It (and other statements from the proponents of the proposals) rings very much of “There are lots of threats against all of us, but let us have have this for now and we promise it won’t be used too much…”. The law has to be renewed after two months (”The new limit would only be available to police for two months unless it was renewed“, source), but if it is passed the bar will be lowered and it will end up being renewed.

The proposals are a big step up from the (already too long) 28 days to a month and a half. These proposals have to be opposed. There is talk that if they are defeated it will be very damaging for Gordon Brown and so forth, but politics aside, they have to be defeated. The limit is too long already, and (without being alarmist) extension would be another blow against democracy in this country.

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?

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.

Update: It seems like the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The BOA has clarified it’s position (BBC coverage this time) saying:

“I accept that the interpretation of one part of the draft BOA’s Team Members Agreement appears to have gone beyond the provision of the Olympic Charter, this is not our intention nor is it our desire to restrict athletes’ freedom of speech and the final agreement will reflect this.”

Which is still somewhat unclear - will the clause remain in some form in the final agreement? Hopefully it will be a recommendation or guideline rather than a strict rule of “no criticism”.

From The Daily Mail (only source carrying this at the moment, picked up by a few blogs):

British Olympic chiefs are to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China’s appalling human rights record – or face being banned from travelling to Beijing. The move – which raises the spectre of the order given to the England football team to give a Nazi salute in Berlin in 1938 – immediately provoked a storm of protest. The controversial clause has been inserted into athletes’ contracts for the first time and forbids them from making any political comment about countries staging the Olympic Games.

…

Should a competitor agree to the clause but then speak their mind about China, they will be put on the next plane home. The clause, in section 4 of the contract, simply states: “[Athletes] are not to comment on any politically sensitive issues.” It then refers competitors to Section 51 of the International Olympic Committee charter, which “provides for no kind of demonstration, or political, religious or racial propaganda in the Olympic sites, venues or other areas”.

However, The BOA (British Olympic Association) denied it was suppressing the right to free speech:

“Clearly what we are not trying to do is suppress comment or debate from our athletes. If an individual is asked a direct question and makes a response that’s fine.”

Amnesty International campaigns director Tim Hancock said:

“People in China can’t speak out about human rights without fear of reprisals; people in Britain can. It’s up to each individual to decide what they think and what they say about China’s human rights record and that goes for athletes too.”

Of course, while this looks like an infraction of the athletes right to free speech as countried like Finland have stated, it should be noted that it’s the Daily Mail that is reporting and it doesn’t look like other news agencies have picked it up (though if anyone has a link that says otherwise, post it in a comment below and I’ll edit the post to reflect that). While the Olympic Games is not meant to be a forum for expressing political or idealogical protests, it is surely within the competitors’ rights to state their views or report any abuse they witness?

Amnesty has other things to say about the Olympics too. You can also keep an eye on other Beijing 2008 news stories over at the China section of Amnesty UK’s website and also at OlympicWatch.

Zhu Nan had been itching to say something about the country’s pervasive online censorship system, widely known here as the Great Firewall. When China’s censors began blocking access to the popular photo-sharing site Flickr, Zhu felt the moment had come. Writing on his blog last year, the student, who is now a freshman at a university in this city, questioned the rationale for Internet restrictions, and in subsequent posts, began passing along tips on how to evade them.

…

Chinese censors have tightened controls over the Internet, often blacking out sites that had no discernible political content. In the process, they have fostered a backlash, as many people who previously had little interest in politics have become active in resisting the controls. And all of it comes at a time of increasing risk for those who choose to protest. Human rights advocates say that the government has been broadening its crackdown on any signs of dissent as the Olympic Games in Beijing draw near.

from: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/04/asia/wall.php

Please check out the China 2008 campaign, which is just one of the campaigns we and Amnesty are running this year. We will be organising an event to raise awareness of Chinese human rights problems on March 13th, so watch this space for more information.

I was sent some more pictures of the stall, which include a close-up of our very own hand made cage + pipe cleaner figure. These may go on sale again in the future, but be sure to get there quickly when they do - they are very popular!

(click on the pictures for a larger image)

Cage close-up:

Another shot: