Irish Bishop Denounces Human Rights Abuse by Israeli Government

A group of Irish Roman Catholic Bishops have openly questioned and denounced the Israeli’s horrific treatment of Palestinians. Raymond Field, auxillary Bishop of Dublin, chairman of the Irish Commission for Justice and Social Affairs (ICJSA) has said,

“Where there is evidence of systematic abuse of human rights on a large scale, as in the Occupied Territories, there are questions that must be asked concerning the appropriateness of maintaining close business, cultural and commercial links with Israel,”

This throws into question the proximity and ties that the international community has with Israel. If foreign actors, including governments, businesses and religious groups, would take the effort to make public statements denouncing the Occupation, the Israeli government would be more pressurised to make actual efforts to reduce human rights abuse in Palestine. The other rippling effect will be that it will be seen as more acceptable to question the Israeli’s government actions towards Palestinians.

On the other hand, the statement from Hamas by Khaled Meshaal in Russia that “Israel must end occupation” is the first and foremost pre-condition that should exist before negotiations take place. Occupation means human rights abuses and that it deprives the Palestinians rights to their voices. A negotiation cannot occur if the balance of power is tilted heavily to one party.

References:

Irish bishops say Israel is unjust, Al Jazeera, February 27, 2007

Hamas: Israel must end occupation, Al Jazeera, February 27, 2007

Hicks trapped in the world of Dr StrangeLove… …

The public lecture by David Hick’s Lawyer, David McLeod at UTS Sydney provided an informative insight into the case of David Hicks, who has been captured by the US administration and detained in Guantanamo Bay without trial since December 2001.

This lecture provides with the average person on the street, a much clearer perspective of the hurdles faced by his defence team in the upcoming military commission II, that the Australian will be tried on. According to McLeod, the possibility of the trial happening this year, is remote.

McLeod pulls no punches, with the aid of humorous cartoon and text slides, to explain how this is a going to be a sisyphean task.

He touched on various issues such as the

1. nature of the detention
2. the nature and set up of the military commissions
3. the charges against Hicks
4. nature of torture
5. family dynamics of Hicks
6. how Hick’s legal team handles the press
7. funding issues such as disbursement, travels to gitmo bay
8. the politics involved
9. the need for objectative commentators to influence public opinion
10. evidences
11. actions taken in Australia
12. possibility of Hick’ UK citizenship

In his lecture, he touched on the inhumane prison conditions in Guantanamo Bay, the reluctance of the Australian government to bring Hicks back home, the violations of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in detaining Hicks committed by the Bush Administration, and how interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation and chaining to the ground are not considered torture.

The new military commission to try Hicks is very likely to produce biased results as the judges and jury consisted of people appointed by the Bush Administration, who were themselves involved in the prosecution in Guantanamo Bay.

The Military Commission Act (2006) that the trial will be based on is by itself, disturbing as it:

1. suspenses Habeus Corpus
2. has a retroactive effect to offences not declarative
3. complies to existing laws of terrorism
4. permits hearsay evidence
5. permits hearsay evidence of hearsay evidence
6. permits coerced evidence
7. does not require witness to be called
8. does not require classified evidence to be shown to defendant and his civilian lawyer

As the military commission itself is partial, the chances of Hicks getting a fair trial is slim.

The Australian is charged with providing material support for terrorism and attempted murder. However, the Administration has not been able to find any evidence to prove that he has shot or attempted to shoot anyone.

Mind Games

Last week I posted an article mentioning that John Howard had a fight on his hands to retain his Federal seat of Bennelong, and that only one Prime Minister has lost his seat at a Federal Election.

Well, things just got more difficult for John Howard.

Maxine McKew will be the Labor candidate for the seat.

For those of you who are not involved with Australian politics, Maxine recently resigned from the ABC after a career of over thirty years as a journalist. In this time, she has presented the major late-night news program (Lateline) where she interviewed politicians - including John Howard and has been known, at times, to get the better of him. She is married to a Labor heavyweight (Bob Hogg) and could have been parachuted into a safe Labor seat.

Instead she has taken on a great challenge to stand against John Howard.

Maxine McKew: “This is a seat we need to win to win government, to win the 16 seats Kevin Rudd needs to secure a Labor victory.”

Labor needs to take 16 seats from the Liberal party to win the federal election.

I suspect this will distract John Howard from campaigning federally as he will have to ensure that he really does look after his own electorate. Maxine will be there every day canvassing votes.

Other bloggers have commented that we all know that this will be Howard’s last election. he will resign during the next term to hand over control. The voters of Bennelong will also know this that if Howard does retain the seat, there will be a by-election once Howard resigns. Will they decide that enough is enough and vote Maxine in? Will Howard “cut and run” from the challenge? Is he up for the fight?

Kevin Rudd (Labor Opposition Leader) has said that he wants to “play” with the PM’s mind.

Interesting times.

Game on!